Thailand Should Establish AI Regulation Framework, SEC Chair Says
Thailand's SEC chair urges the nation to develop an AI regulatory framework to maximize benefits from surging investment and data center projects, warning that overly broad or narrow definitions risk either stifling innovation or allowing d
On September 25, Pacharoen Naripta, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, offered his views on the debate over AI regulation, asking whether Thailand should now begin establishing a legal framework for the technology.
Parachoen stressed that this question is especially important for Thailand at this moment, not only for technology safety and ethics, but because Thailand is currently receiving significant inflows of AI investment capital and data center projects. Whether Thailand has a clear regulatory framework will directly determine how much benefit the country gains from these investments.
Globally, AI regulation faces three simultaneous challenges that Thailand cannot escape. First, technology moves far faster than laws: AI changes monthly while most existing regulations still rest on industrial-era thinking. Second, there is no clear consensus on what standards should govern AI, since it is deployed across vastly different contexts, from entertainment games to systems critical to national infrastructure security. Regulation cannot use one standard across the board; it must differentiate by risk level.
Third, it remains unclear who should oversee AI regulation and what tools they should use—whether strict licensing requirements or flexible, risk-adjusted case-by-case approaches.
"The key lesson is we must never apply industrial-age control methods to AI," Parachoen said. "Technology will certainly outpace us. What we need is a mechanism that moves as fast as technology changes."
Another challenge is defining what "AI" actually means legally, a question on which global consensus has not yet emerged. The European Union's AI Act, the world's first comprehensive AI regulation law, uses a definition so broad it nearly covers all software, creating legal uncertainty for both developers and users.
"If the definition is too broad, we risk over-regulating low-risk cases. If it is too narrow, high-risk systems may slip through," Parachoen said. "This is something Thailand must think through carefully before drafting law—not simply copy from other countries wholesale."
Research published in the Journal of World Trade in 2024 shows that major AI powers have chosen very different paths. The United States favors a market-driven approach, promoting innovation first and regulating later. The European Union emphasizes strict regulation across AI's entire lifecycle. China blends market development with data security controls. Singapore emphasizes voluntary frameworks and best practices, backed by aggressive digital trade agreements.
"Singapore is probably the model closest to Thailand's context," Parachoen said, "because it is a smaller country that leverages agility and practical standards as strengths, rather than racing to adopt Europe's strict, resource-intensive oversight model."
