When we started, we were already behind schedule. So I knew that we didn’t have a lot of time but I just had to make the best of it, even when we did not have our full 35 minutes. My name was called – short and simple. I asked the emcee earlier that day that I would be introducing the panel myself and doing a bit of a different take on the intro (read on to find out how!). And so I walked on stage and began…

Setting The Scene

“I used AI to convert my photos into Studio Ghibli.”

I wanted to start off with something fun and personal, and relatable, grounding our discussion on Trustworthy AI with a human moment. So I opened by displaying this on the screen and asked the audience: “If you’ve done this too, give me a clap.”

About 60% of the room clapped.

To be honest, I actually expected more. But it did make me wonder: are we using AI more than we admit? Are we experimenting quietly at home or at work, but still hesitant to say, “Yes, I use AI” out loud in a professional setting? Maybe it’s because we’re not sure how it will be received whether it sounds innovative, risky or even trivial. That hesitation says a lot. It reminds us that trust in AI isn’t just about systems and safeguards, it’s also about social comfort, culture and confidence in using it openly.

I pressed the clicker for my next slide.

“AI has nothing to do with my industry.”

I paused and counted, “1… 2… 3…”

And to my surprise, a few clapped their hands. In a room full of innovators and technologists, two or three people still felt AI wasn’t relevant to their work. Could it be a misunderstanding? Still, that was striking. Trustworthy AI isn’t just about managing the risks of those who use AI, it’s also about not leaving behind those who don’t. It reminds us that there are still industries, roles, or individuals who feel untouched by this wave, and that’s a trust issue too. If people don’t see themselves in the AI conversation, they won’t prepare for it, shape it, or challenge it. We need to build a culture where even the skeptical or the sidelined feel invited, informed and included.

The final statement is a bit more philosophical. I’ve been seeing this around a lot and it made me really think about how easy it is for us to trust AI – especially when it makes our life just a little bit easier here and there.

“If AI can do the work, maybe humans can finally just live.”

This time, I asked the audience to think carefully before clapping. From the front, it felt like a divided room. Some clapped with optimism. Others stayed still… maybe skeptical? Or maybe understanding more about what it means to give your trust to AI.

At this point, I took out a book that I’m currently reading, Klara and the Sun, and held it in front of everyone. I told the audience that it mirrored this scene in the novel about a girl who wants to buy an Artificial Friend (AF) while her mother is hesitant. That contrast between youthful enthusiasm and maternal caution mirrors the broader divide in society today – between those who trust AI easily because it feels useful, creative or fun, and those who hesitate, questioning its implications, risks and long-term effects. The girl, like many AI users today, embraces the new with excitement. The mother represents those who ask the hard questions: What are the consequences? Who’s accountable? This duality, between trust and doubt, is central to any discussion on responsible AI.

I’ll let you in on a secret: bringing the book was a spontaneous idea I had that morning (good thing I had the book in my car!). But that one gesture, tangible and personal, made the metaphor feel more real. It captures where we are: hopeful, curious but cautious.

Sharing Early Bruneian Insights

I then transitioned into early findings from my AI survey in Brunei. These insights weren’t final but they do raise questions we must ask:

How Bruneians Are Using AI:

• 44.5% use it for writing reports and documents
• 38.2% for brainstorming strategies
• 36.8% for research and summarising
• A third use it for learning
• 24% for data analysis

This shows that AI is already embedded in Bruneian work and study life. It’s no longer hypothetical. It’s happening – and that means we’re already living in a world where AI quietly influences how we learn, plan and communicate. The transition from experimentation to integration is subtle but significant. When AI becomes part of daily work, it raises deeper questions: Are we equipping people with the tools and frameworks to use it responsibly? Are we discussing authorship, attribution or decision accountability in organisations where AI drafts reports or supports analysis? Embedding AI means embedding trust, not just in the systems, but in how we guide their use across roles, sectors and values. Understand that this isn’t just a tech trend but a cultural shift in how we produce knowledge and act on it.

Why They’re Using It:

• Over 53.7% to improve productivity at work
• 41.5% for self-learning
• 39% for writing
• Others for exploration, simplification and creativity

While people start with curiosity and learning, they quickly move to real productivity. That shift matters because it reflects how AI adoption is less about novelty and more about utility. Bruneians are using it for work – for real tasks, real decisions, real consequences. The tools may have first captured interest through creative play or exploration but as users gain confidence, they naturally gravitate toward solving practical problems. This transition shows that even without formal frameworks, people are already reshaping how they approach their work – delegating drafts, testing ideas and seeking efficiencies. And with that shift comes a new layer of responsibility: how do we ensure AI is used thoughtfully when it becomes invisible in our everyday processes? Most of us know this, productivity isn’t just output – it’s also about choices, ethics and impact.

I meant to smoothly slide into introducing myself as the moderator and the speakers after the scene setting but then I realised, ironically, the scene on stage has not been set with chairs and tables for the panel (haha!). So there was a short break while I waited for this to happen – I do want to thank the stage managers for reacting fast!

This is when I saw, for the first time, the timekeeper walking towards the stage with a sign that showed “15 minutes” – oh my.

Introducing The Panel

I always like to start off with something fun and I know that each speaker brought a unique regional voice. So to make it even more personal, I asked them beforehand to share a one- or two-liner about themselves, something fun, unexpected, or different – and I used this to introduce them on stage:

• Mr. Vikneswaran Kumar (IMDA Singapore): I introduced him by sharing how he once danced his way through Junior College, and into the heart of his future wife. That personal touch set the tone for his insights into cultural inclusivity in AI, referencing Singapore’s chatbot that understands Singlish and local dialects. His reflections on legal risk and local LLM development offered a practical yet visionary view.
• Mr. Tiaro Paska Rivo (ASEAN Foundation): Known for his love of learning languages, Rivo’s intro mirrored his polyglot curiosity. He highlighted regional training and policy efforts under AI Ready ASEAN and spoke to the importance of CPD in Brunei’s education sector. He also emphasised the importance of empowering local partners like UTB and Big BWN, showing how ASEAN-level efforts can support grounded, local change. His calm yet thoughtful delivery reflected the quiet consistency required to nurture AI literacy across such diverse contexts.
• Mr. Eddy Liew (CTO, IBM Malaysia): I told the audience that while he may be IBM Malaysia’s CTO by day, by night he’s a K-drama fan, K-pop enthusiast and an occasional anime cosplayer – allegedly. Eddy brought lightness and depth, using analogies from life and marriage to explain feedback loops and ethical deployment. His example of Watsonx (though he said he isn’t there to promote it!) showed how explainability can be scaled for emerging markets.

The Audience: A Conversation, Not Just a Panel

This wasn’t a passive session. The audience clapped, smiled and connected (hopefully!). We didn’t get to the Q&A due to time, but the hand claps became the heartbeat of the discussion. And speaking of time – every few minutes, I’d glance over to the timekeeper flashing their little paper signs. 15 minutes left. 10 minutes. 5 minutes. And then came that dreaded moment – the sign that read ‘Time Over’. I think it winked and grinned at me. But I took this positively: this gentle, paper-based reminder tells me that good conversations always run long when the room is truly engaged (that said I do applaud the timekeepers for the day who effortlessly pushed the signs to make sure the moderators and speakers see them!).

Moderating this panel was a joy. There was a rhythm between insight and humour that kept the session alive. The speakers brought generosity in how much they shared and there were moments of deep thought, especially during the second round of questions.

The structure of the discussion was intentional. I had the first round of questions to reflect more generally on ethics, trust and responsibility in each of the speakers’ domain. The second round grounded their answers in local or regional realities, especially in Brunei’s context. I always feel that contextualising insights is what makes these sessions meaningful. I wanted to give the audience something to take home – not just theory, something they can apply. And not just concepts, use cases they can adapt.

Eddy was the last to speak for my last question. At this point, the timekeeper just stood there with the final sign – and I can sense that Eddy really tried to finish his sentences as quickly as he could. I do want to thank all the speakers for noticing these signs as well and making sure to keep their answers brief but impactful. It made the conversation more energetic and more meaningful. But I still had to close.

With the “Time Over” sign at the corner of my eye, guiltily, I asked each speaker with one last request:

“Share one fun, surprising belief by continuing this sentence “I believe…”.

I returned back to how I started by asking the audience to clap their hands if they believe the same thing.

• Mr. Rivo: “I believe the traffic here is better than my hometown, Jakarta.”
• Mr. Vik: “I believe cats are the best pets a person can have.”
• Mr. Eddy: “I believe I will one day try Marvel costumes and you might see me at a cosplay event.”

The audience reacted. They clapped to each speaker’s statement – sometimes before the sentence was even finished. I even heard pockets of laughter ripple through the room. That kind of warmth and spontaneity is hard to manufacture. It felt like a shared inside joke, a collective nod, a sign that the audience wasn’t just listening – they were living it with us. I saw smiles exchanged between strangers and a sense of relief in the room – perhaps even a little surprise at how much fun we were all having in a panel about AI and ethics. To me, it was a hopeful sign that the session didn’t just inform – it, as AI would say, resonated.

And so I ended with one last “I believe” from me:

“I believe I enjoyed today’s speakers.”

One final round clap from everyone.

Finally, time over.