First Published in Tech for Good Institute (techforgoodinstitute.org) on March 19, 2025.
The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a focal point for governments globally, including Thailand. However, a key challenge for Thailand lies in maximising the benefits of AI, particularly in developing a skilled AI workforce and fostering the adoption of AI among SMEs and startups across various industries.
Thailand’s Ambiguous AI Policy
Thailand has historically exhibited ambiguity in its approach to AI governance, mirroring broader trends in its digital policy landscape. However, the European Union (EU)’s proactive stance on AI regulation has significantly influenced Thailand’s policy direction, leading to the incorporation of similar principles into national AI policies.
In April 2022, the Thai government introduced a draft Royal Decree on the Operation of AI-Based Service Businesses, known as the Regulated AI Law. This legislation aimed to establish regulatory measures for AI-driven businesses to enhance credibility while mitigating public risks. High-risk AI applications—such as those used in critical infrastructure and facial recognition surveillance—would require mandatory registration with the government and compliance with legally defined safety standards, including risk management measures to assess human impact. The law also classified some AI applications as prohibited technologies and outlined penalties for non-compliance.
However, in July 2022, the Thai Cabinet approved the National AI Action Plan (2022–2030), signaling a shift in regulatory direction. Recognising AI’s crucial role in advancing Thailand’s data-driven economy, the plan introduced a structured approach to AI development, with five strategic priorities:
- Reforming laws and regulations to ensure responsible AI usage while preventing misuse.
- Strengthening AI infrastructure to support long-term technological growth.
- Enhancing workforce skills and competencies to meet industry demands.
- Promoting AI adoption in key sectors such as healthcare, energy, education, and tourism, with the goal of reducing reliance on foreign technology.
- Fostering public-private collaboration through AI Sandboxes and data-sharing frameworks to enhance industrial competitiveness.
To support these objectives, Thailand began drafting the Act on the Promotion and Support of Artificial Intelligence Innovation (or the Supported AI Law). This legislation aims to create an enabling ecosystem by reducing regulatory barriers and fostering public-private partnerships in AI research and application. It proposes the establishment of an AI Innovation Promotion Committee, responsible for setting policies, defining standards, and supporting AI entrepreneurs through registration, advisory services, and AI Sandbox programs that facilitate safe AI experimentation and development. Additionally, the law promotes data-sharing mechanisms between the government and private sector under principles of security and fairness.
From a regulatory perspective, the draft law mandates AI transparency, bias prevention, and user safety while setting contractual standards to clarify AI service provider liabilities. It also introduces an AI Compensation Fund to cover damages in cases where no accountable entity can be identified and implements data confidentiality measures for AI providers submitting information to government agencies.
Unlike the EU’s stricter AI regulations, Thailand’s approach under the Supported AI Law reflects a more balanced model that encourages AI innovation while maintaining fundamental safeguards against potential risks. This dual focus ensures that Thailand remains competitive in AI development without compromising essential regulatory protections.
The Crossroads of Thailand’s AI Law in Policy Development
Thailand recognises the need for AI-specific laws to help meet its development goals. However, there’s a key question about which direction the country should take: should it focus more on regulation or innovation?
So far, the Thai government hasn’t made a final decision. However, in a 2022 meeting, officials from the National AI Committee passed a resolution stating that the country should focus on encouraging AI innovation and creating a clear AI ecosystem, while ensuring regulations are flexible and don’t hold back progress. This suggests Thailand is leaning toward the Supported AI Law, which focuses on promoting AI rather than imposing strict rules.
The Thai government is introducing two draft laws: the Regulated AI Law, which proposes stricter regulatory controls, and the Supported AI Law, which prioritises facilitating AI innovation. This distinction presents a crucial policy choice for Thailand.
This leaves a challenge: strict regulations could limit innovation and make it harder for local businesses to compete, while other countries may advance AI more quickly by not prioritising ethics and transparency. The most critical issue is the clarity of Thailand’s AI policy direction and how the country envisions its AI development model. In the author’s view, Thailand must carefully consider which development approach best suits its context. The Thai government needs to find a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring AI is used responsibly.
The main issue is whether Thailand should follow the EU’s strict AI regulations, focusing on ethics, transparency, and preventing bias. While these are important, a very strict framework might hurt local AI development and make Thailand rely more on foreign AI technologies that meet stringent compliance requirements. This could lead to fewer opportunities for local businesses to innovate. This challenge is becoming increasingly evident as digital regulations continue to expand and overlap, raising concerns about their long-term impact on AI innovation within the country.
Another option is a more promotion-driven approach, particularly through voluntary governance mechanisms such as AI Sandboxes, where businesses can experiment with AI under flexible rules, while still following existing laws on data privacy and other areas. Such regulatory sandboxes could prevent overly strict regulations from stifling innovation. However, this strategy also presents challenges. Thailand must ensure that its regulatory framework evolves in parallel with emerging AI risks. Key concerns include maintaining transparency, preventing bias, and safeguarding personal data privacy from unauthorised collection and misuse. A balanced regulatory approach is essential to foster innovation while mitigating potential risks associated with AI deployment.
The Future of AI Law Development in Thailand
Thailand’s AI policy is currently at a crossroads, trying to balance strict regulation with a more flexible, innovation-driven approach. If Thailand aligns with the EU’s AI Act, it would focus on key principles such as transparency, preventing bias, and ethical AI development. However, overly strict rules could stifle local innovation and make Thailand more dependent on foreign AI technologies. On the other hand, a model focused on innovation, such as using AI Sandboxes and sector-specific rules, could encourage growth and adapt to new risks. But, even with this, safeguards are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and data privacy. Ultimately, Thailand must strike a balance between AI governance and technological advancement to build a sustainable and competitive AI ecosystem.
Thailand’s AI development stands at a pivotal moment. Following the AI Action Summit, the debate on AI’s future direction has become a critical issue—not just for global AI leaders but for Thailand as well. Our choices go beyond industrial growth; they must align with strategic market entry and the geopolitical forces shaping the global AI landscape.
Ultimately, Thailand may need a third approach — a legal framework that balances innovation promotion with government oversight. This model would allow AI innovation to thrive while ensuring responsible governance, possibly guided by ethical AI development principles. While these principles wouldn’t have the same legal power as formal laws, they could help shape best practices. At the same time, the law could limit high-risk AI applications that could harm human safety and life, while offering guidelines for handling such risks and addressing sector-specific issues.
This approach could serve as a viable alternative for Thailand, ensuring a well-structured AI ecosystem that fosters technological advancement while maintaining accountability and transparency in monitoring AI’s societal impact. However, this issue requires further review and deliberation to refine Thailand’s AI governance strategy.
Khemmapat Trisadikoon 