Written Answer · 2026-07-07 · Parliament 15
Key Risk Thresholds to Regulate High-risk AI Deployments and Mandatory Human Oversight for Fully Automated Decisions
Referring to the NAIS Update line that the Government will "regulate or legislate where necessary and effective," Alex Yeo asked MDDI: (a) what key risk factors or thresholds determine when a high-risk AI deployment would warrant regulation; and (b) whether the Ministry will mandate meaningful human oversight over fully automated decisions that materially affect individuals, such as employment decisions or high-risk scenarios. Minister Josephine Teo replied that, as with any technology, the need for regulation depends on how it is deployed, the nature of harm, and whether existing measures are effective. Many AI risks are already addressed by existing law — employers using AI must still comply with the upcoming Workplace Fairness Act, and the Online Criminal Harms Act lets the Police disrupt AI-enabled scams. Where existing measures are inadequate and a suitable response can be designed, the Government legislates in time, as with the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Act. These are complemented by sectoral guidelines — MAS has consulted on Guidelines on AI Risk Management for financial services, and MOH has updated its AI in Healthcare Guidelines (AIHGle 2.0). The Government will keep studying the appropriate regulatory stance.
Key Points
- • Whether to regulate depends on deployment, the nature of harm and whether existing measures suffice — no blanket "high-risk" threshold
- • Many AI risks are already covered by existing law: the Workplace Fairness Act for AI hiring, OCHA for AI-enabled scams, the elections law for deepfakes
- • Sectoral guidelines (MAS AI risk management, MOH AIHGle 2.0) complement the hard law
The Government declines to preset a uniform "high-risk AI" threshold or a general human-oversight mandate, insisting on a case-by-case judgement by deployment and harm, and on reusing existing law first: it looks to statutes like the Workplace Fairness Act and OCHA before legislating anew, and closes gaps softly through sectoral guidelines. This is its "soft law first, hard law only where necessary" approach as applied to high-risk AI.
Citing the NAIS Update's "regulate or legislate where necessary and effective," Alex Yeo pressed the Government to produce operational thresholds for what counts as "high-risk AI," and asked whether it would mandate human oversight over fully automated decisions that materially affect individuals such as employment — pushing the principle-level stance toward concrete rules.
Under direct pressure to "draw a line" around high-risk AI, Singapore explicitly chooses not to preset a general threshold or an EU-style risk tiering, instead decomposing AI risk into existing laws (employment, scams, elections) piece by piece, with sectoral guidelines as the backstop. This is the core of its divergence from the EU AI Act: no single comprehensive AI statute, but the existing toolbox plus sectoral soft law, tightened dynamically.
"In Singapore's context, many artificial intelligence (AI) risks are already addressed through existing legislation ... Where existing measures are assessed to be inadequate and a suitable response can be designed, the Government will ensure its timely implementation."
Participants (2)
- Mr Alex Yeo
- Josephine Teo
Original Text (English)
SPRS Hansard · Fetched: 2026-07-20
50 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information further to the Update to NAIS, which states that Government will "regulate or legislate where necessary and effective" (a) what key risk factors or thresholds determine when a high-risk AI deployment would warrant regulation; and (b) whether the Ministry will mandate meaningful human oversight over fully automated decisions that materially affect individuals, such as employment decisions or high-risk scenarios.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As with any technology, the need for regulation depends on how it is deployed, the nature of harm that may be caused and whether existing measures are effective in addressing those harms.
In Singapore's context, many artificial intelligence (AI) risks are already addressed through existing legislation. For example, employers that use AI tools must still comply with the requirements for fair and merit-based employment practices in the upcoming Workplace Fairness Act. Similarly, laws like the Online Criminal Harms Act enable the Singapore Police Force to prevent and disrupt AI-enabled scams. Where existing measures are assessed to be inadequate and a suitable response can be designed, the Government will ensure its timely implementation. For example, the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Act was passed to prevent the misuse of digitally generated or manipulated content of candidates during elections.
These laws are complemented by guidelines in specific sectors. Such guidelines may not be for compliance at the outset but provide regulatory agencies with useful feedback as they consider future policies. For example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has consulted on Guidelines on AI Risk Management for the financial services sector, while the Ministry of Health has updated the AI in Healthcare Guidelines (AIHGle 2.0).
The Government has consistently emphasised the need for responsible AI development and deployment. We will continue to study the appropriate regulatory stance for AI and assess whether existing measures are adequate as the technology and risk landscape evolves.