This report on data governance in Sri Lanka is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) project, which aims, inter alia, to create and mobilize new knowledge about the tensions, gaps, and evolution of the data governance ecosystem, taking into account both formal and informal policies and practices. This report is also part of a broader comparative effort that includes case studies from India, Indonesia, Nepal, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. The report provides contextual information about Sri Lanka’s constitutional and governance framework and discusses laws and policies that promote openness or access to data, as well as those that facilitate interoperability or cross-border data transfers. It also examines the opposite; laws, policies, and practices that restrict openness or access to data. The report emphasizes the significance of data governance in shaping Sri Lanka’s digital future. 
This report on data governance in Sri Lanka is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) project, which aims, inter alia, to create and mobilize new knowledge about the tensions, gaps, and evolution of the data governance ecosystem, taking into account both formal and informal policies and practices. This report is also part of a broader comparative effort that includes case studies from India, Indonesia, Nepal, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. The report provides contextual information about Sri Lanka’s constitutional and governance framework and discusses laws and policies that promote openness or access to data, as well as those that facilitate interoperability or cross-border data transfers. It also examines the opposite; laws, policies, and practices that restrict openness or access to data. The report emphasizes the significance of data governance in shaping Sri Lanka’s digital future. 
This report on data governance in Indonesia is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) project, which aims, inter alia, to create and mobilize new knowledge about the tensions, gaps, and evolution of the data governance ecosystem, taking into account both formal and informal policies and practices. Indonesia’s data governance system has developed significantly over the past two decades, evolving from fragmented initiatives across ministries into a more coordinated national framework that emphasizes transparency, interoperability, and digital transformation. The foundation lies in the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to obtain information and the protection of personal data. These constitutional principles have been operationalized through a series of laws and regulations introduced since the Reformasi era following 1998. This study examines how the overall governance environment shapes Indonesia’s approach to data openness, privacy, and access, balancing constitutional guarantees, executive authority, judicial oversight, and sectoral regulation in the broader quest to develop a trusted, rights-based, and innovation-friendly data ecosystem. 
The Forum on Data Governance in the Philippines was held on Friday, September 12, 2025, at Serenade II, Westin Manila. The event highlighted how data can drive development and serve as an effective policy-making instrument for advancing democratic and inclusive governance in the Philippines. The forum was organized by LIRNEasia in collaboration with Disini Law (Philippines) and Digital Freedom Network (Philippines), with funding support from the International Development Research Centre (a Crown corporation of the Government of Canada). It brought together experts from government agencies, academia, and the private sector to share perspectives and experiences on data policymaking and governance frameworks. Discussions centered on two recent publications under the Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia initiative: the Philippines Country Report and the Regional Synthesis Report. 
This report is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) initiative, which critically examines how data governance is evolving across the region, including both formal frameworks and informal norms. In the Philippines, the absence of a comprehensively organized legal or policy framework has resulted in a patchwork of approaches shaped by sector-specific laws, presidential directives, and administrative regulations. In recent decades, policies have emerged in response to growing data use, such as updates to intellectual property laws aligned with international practices and the enactment of personal data protection legislation addressing cross-border data processing. Despite recent developments, the Philippines still lacks a unified data governance framework. The only broad measure is the 2016 presidential ordinance on public access to government data. 
The Forum on Data Governance in Thailand, held on Tuesday, August 5, 2025, at the Sigma Room (6th floor), Pullman King Power Bangkok, brought together experts from government agencies, academia, and private organizations to exchange their knowledge, perspectives, and experiences on data policymaking and the design of data governance systems in Thailand. The forum was hosted by LIRNEasia (an independent think tank working across the Asia Pacific), in collaboration with the Department of International Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (Republic of Korea), Privacy Thailand, and the Institute of Public Policy Studies (IPPS), Thailand. Funding support was provided by the International Development Research Centre (a Crown Corporation of the Government of Canada). The Forum explored the inherent tensions that arise in governing data in light of competing interests and policy objectives – that of collecting, storing, using and sharing data to support development and growth objectives, and of protecting privacy and other human rights that are vital but can be violated through the release of data. LIRNEasia and affiliated researchers explored such tensions as well as the practical ways these tensions are resolved across seven countries – Thailand, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines. 
This report is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) initiative. The project seeks to critically examine how data governance is evolving across the region, with attention to both formal frameworks and informal norms. In the case of Thailand, this means analysing how state, corporate, and civil society actors shape the production, access, and use of data in ways that either enable or constrain democratic values. Thailand stands at a pivotal moment in its digital transformation journey, where the governance of data is increasingly central to questions of rights, development, and democratic accountability. As data becomes ever more embedded in public services, commerce, and civic life, the structures that govern its use, such as laws, policies, practices and technologies, have profound implications for inclusive and equitable development. 
This report is part of the Data for Development project which aims, inter alia, to create and mobilize new knowledge about tensions, gaps, and the evolution of the data governance ecosystem taking into account formal and informal policies and practices. This regional synthesis report explores the intricate web of data governance systems and their potential to contribute to more democratic and inclusive societies. It examines the tensions that arise between various data-related policies, such as personal data protection, competition law, open data initiatives, cybersecurity measures, and AI and innovation strategies. While developed countries may have mechanisms to address these conflicts, many nations in South and Southeast Asia face significant hurdles in creating and implementing effective data governance frameworks. The report seeks to uncover the unique challenges faced by countries in the region, including opaque policy-making processes, limited stakeholder participation, and policies that may not always align with local contexts or implementation capacities.