Written Answer · 2026-09-10 · Parliament 15
Guidelines for Institutes of Higher Learning on Use of AI-writing Detection Tools
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education whether MOE intends to set common guidelines for Institutes of Higher Learning on AI writing detection tools, and whether they would include safeguards so that students know how the tools are used and are not penalised solely on AI detection scores. Minister Mr Desmond Lee, also addressing questions from Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Cassandra Lee, replied that all IHLs have policies on AI use in assessment and academic work, aligned with MOE guidance that AI use should support learning and that guardrails uphold academic integrity. IHLs clearly inform students whether and how AI may be used, and have processes to appeal assessment and disciplinary outcomes, including suspected unauthorised AI use; students can respond to allegations before disciplinary action. IHLs assess whether detection tools add value; where used, detection scores alone do not determine misconduct. Educators review the work, engage the student, may request drafts or earlier work as evidence of the learning process, and remain responsible for the final grade.
Why it matters
MOE confirmed that at IHLs AI detection scores alone do not determine academic misconduct, and educators remain responsible for the final grade.
Key Points
- • All IHLs have policies governing AI use in assessment and academic work, aligned with MOE guidance that AI should support learning and guardrails should uphold academic integrity
- • IHLs clearly inform students whether and how AI may be used for each assessment and assignment
- • IHLs have appeal processes covering suspected unauthorised AI use, and students can respond to allegations before disciplinary action
- • Each IHL assesses whether AI detection tools add value; where used, detection scores alone do not determine academic misconduct
- • In suspected cases educators review the work, engage the student and may request drafts or earlier work as evidence of learning, and remain responsible for the final grade
The Government considers that IHLs already have AI-use policies, disclosure practices and appeal processes, and that detection scores never decide misconduct on their own. The Minister did not commit to common cross-IHL guidelines on AI detection tools, leaving each institution to decide whether to use them.
Questioner Mr Melvin Yong worries that IHLs use AI writing detection tools without common rules, so students may not know how the tools are applied and could be penalised on detection scores alone.
MOE is taking a decentralised line on AI detection tools, leaving choices to each institution with human judgement as the backstop rather than setting common rules. Three MPs filing questions on the same topic shows fairness concerns over AI misdetection have reached Parliament, but there is no sign yet of centralised policy.
"Where such tools are used, detection scores alone do not determine academic misconduct."
Participants (2)
Original Text (English)
SPRS Hansard · Fetched: 2026-09-26
33 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry intends to establish common guidelines for Institutes of Higher Learning on the use of AI writing detection tools; and (b) whether such guidelines will include safeguards to ensure that students are informed of how these tools are used and are not penalised solely on the basis of AI detection scores.
Mr Desmond Lee : This response also addresses questions filed by Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Cassandra Lee on this topic. [ Please refer to " Review of AI Detection Tools and Academic Policies at Institutes of Higher Learning and Establishment of Transparent Student Appeals Process ", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions section. ]
All the institutions of higher learning (IHLs) have policies governing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in assessment and academic work. These are aligned with the Ministry of Education's guidance that AI use should support learning and that guardrails are in place to uphold academic integrity so that assessment outcomes reflect the effort and intended mastery by students.
IHLs clearly inform students whether and how AI may be used, as requirements may vary across assessments and assignments. They also have established processes for students to appeal assessment and disciplinary outcomes, including in cases of suspected unauthorised AI use. Students are given an opportunity to respond to any allegation or concern before disciplinary action is taken.
IHLs assess whether AI detection tools add value to their broader assessment and academic integrity frameworks. Where such tools are used, detection scores alone do not determine academic misconduct. In cases of suspected misconduct, educators exercise professional judgement by reviewing the student's work and establishing the facts through appropriate follow-up. This includes engaging the student and where necessary, requesting evidence of the learning process, such as drafts or earlier work. Educators remain responsible for the final grading decision.