Bangkok – Artificial intelligence is moving beyond being a technological tool and becoming part of the infrastructure through which governments, institutions and societies function, experts said at the 5th National and International Conference of the National Institute of Development Administration (NIC-NIDA) 2026 in Bangkok, Thailand.
Held from August 28 to 29 under the theme “Governance in the Age of AI: Transformation for Human & Global Impact,” the conference brought together academics, policymakers, technology experts and young researchers to examine how governments can respond to an AI-driven world without losing sight of human values.
For Bhutan, where digital transformation and technology-enabled public services are increasingly becoming central to national development, the discussions offered an important lesson: adopting AI may be relatively easy, but governing it responsibly will require stronger institutions, better-informed leaders and a clear focus on the public interest.
Opening the conference, NIDA President Professor Tippawan Lorsuwannarat framed AI governance as a human, institutional and societal challenge rather than simply a technological one.
The conference coincided with NIDA’s 60th anniversary and reflected its philosophy of “wisdom for sustainable development”—a concept that gained new relevance in discussions about artificial intelligence.
From smart to wise government
Professor Irwin King, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Distinguished Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in his keynote address, “Governance in the Age of AI: Human-Centered and Globally Connected,” argued that the central question is not how governments can simply become more technologically efficient, but how technology can be used to build societies that protect human dignity, trust, inclusion, wellbeing and social cohesion.
His argument was captured in a simple distinction: the world must move from “smart government” to “wise government.”
A smart government may optimise systems and automate processes. A wise government, however, must ask whether those systems are ultimately serving the right human purposes.
For Bhutan, this distinction could become increasingly important.
AI could help public agencies process large volumes of information, identify patterns, improve service delivery, automate routine administrative work and support evidence-based policymaking. But efficiency alone cannot be the measure of successful digital governance.
The more consequential question is whether these technologies make government more responsive, inclusive, transparent and accountable to citizens.
Keeping humans at the centre
Professor Irwin King likened AI to an engine and governance to the steering wheel, brakes and rules of the road. Humans, ultimately, decide where the vehicle should go.
That means every AI system involves human choices—about the data being used, the objectives being pursued, the risks being accepted, who gets access, who is accountable and which values are prioritised.
This presents a significant governance challenge for small countries like Bhutan.
Technology is developing much faster than many institutions can understand, adapt to and regulate it. The resulting gap between technological development and institutional preparedness could leave governments reacting to problems after they emerge rather than shaping the technology before it becomes deeply embedded in society.
The conference therefore rejected the idea that governance should simply put the brakes on innovation.
Instead, good governance should enable, steer and constrain innovation—allowing useful technologies to develop, directing them towards public value and preventing harmful applications.
What AI could mean for Bhutan
That approach could allow AI to become a development tool for Bhutan rather than merely another imported technology.
In public administration, AI could potentially support faster analysis of government data, improve planning and forecasting, help identify service-delivery gaps and make government information more accessible to citizens.
In education, it could support personalised learning and help teachers and students access knowledge. In agriculture and environmental management, AI-assisted analysis could help interpret data and support better planning. In health and social services, responsible use of data could improve targeting and efficiency.
But each of these opportunities comes with questions of privacy, fairness, accountability and access. This is where governance becomes more important than technology itself.
The need for AI literacy
Professor Yew-Soon Ong, President’s Chair Professor at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and former Chief AI Scientist at A*STAR, also contributed to discussions on global connectivity and human-centric AI strategies.
The broader discussions at the conference pointed to a future in which AI could increasingly become what might be described as society’s operating system—embedded across institutions and everyday life.
If that happens, AI literacy will no longer be the responsibility of technology specialists alone.
Government officials, policymakers, educators, journalists, businesses and citizens will all need sufficient understanding to question AI-generated information, assess risks and make informed decisions.
The conference also highlighted a fundamental paradox of the AI age.
Machines are becoming increasingly capable of processing enormous quantities of information, assisting decision-making, automating tasks and generating content. But as machines become more capable, distinctly human capabilities—including judgement, empathy, moral responsibility, wisdom and moral imagination—become even more important.
For Bhutan, this could be particularly relevant.
A small population and limited human resources make automation attractive. AI could help public institutions do more with fewer resources. But automation should not gradually replace human responsibility.
An AI system can provide a recommendation. It cannot determine what is fair. It can identify possible consequences. It cannot decide which consequences society should accept.
It can process information. It cannot take moral responsibility for a decision. That responsibility will continue to rest with people and institutions.
Human dignity as the boundary
The conference therefore placed human dignity at the boundary of technological transformation. Technology should strengthen human capability without diminishing human dignity. This has implications beyond government efficiency.
Bhutan’s aspiration for a people-centred development model means that AI governance cannot be judged only by economic productivity or the number of government services moved online. It must also be judged by whether technology strengthens public trust, widens inclusion and improves people’s wellbeing. That will require institutional capacity.
Building institutions, not just technology
The keynote discussions stressed that acquiring AI tools is considerably easier than developing the capacity to govern them responsibly. Institutions need knowledge, leadership, ethical frameworks, accountability mechanisms and governance capacity.
For Bhutan, this means AI preparedness should not be confined to investing in software and infrastructure.
The country will also need people who understand AI, institutions capable of assessing its risks, rules that clarify responsibility and systems that allow citizens to question decisions made with the assistance of AI.
A global governance challenge
The conference’s Global Dialogue on Governance in the Age of AI brought together experts including Dr Felip Manya, Dr Thadpong Pongthawornkamol and Dr Sak Segkhoonthod to discuss practical regulatory frameworks for the public and private sectors.
The inclusion of a Youth Voices Panel, jointly organised by UNESCO Beijing and Beijing Normal University, also underlined another dimension of AI governance: young people will not simply inherit the consequences of decisions being made today. They will live and work in systems shaped by those decisions.
Participants included Thongtada Thongsawang, Zhang Zhen, Li Yufeng and Abdullah Al Zabir, who brought youth perspectives to discussions on future ethics.
For Bhutan, engaging young people in AI governance could therefore be as important as developing technical expertise.
The country’s AI future will ultimately be determined not only by algorithms and computing capacity, but by the quality of institutions surrounding them.
The conference’s larger message was clear: AI governance cannot be solved by one ministry, one discipline or one country. It requires collaboration among government, academia, practitioners, technology experts and citizens, as well as cooperation across national borders.
This is particularly relevant to Bhutan, given that AI technologies, platforms, data flows and associated risks do not stop at national borders.
An opportunity to govern AI wisely
As Bhutan develops its digital economy and modernises public administration, the country has an opportunity to learn from the experiences of larger economies before AI becomes too deeply embedded to govern effectively.
The objective should not be to become the country with the most AI. It should be to become a country that uses AI wisely.
That means building a government capable of using machines for what machines do best—processing information, identifying patterns and supporting analysis—while leaving questions of values, responsibility, empathy and judgement firmly within human hands.
Professor King’s central proposition offers perhaps the most useful guide for Bhutan: the AI transformation should not be measured by how intelligent machines become, but by whether institutions and societies become wise enough to use that intelligence for human benefit.
For a country that has long placed human wellbeing and good governance at the centre of its development philosophy, that may be the most important lesson from Bangkok.
The age of AI is already here.
The challenge for Bhutan is not whether to enter it, but how to govern it.
Leave a Reply