sgai editorial interpretation · Data updated 2026-05-20

🌐 Governance Influence

Is Singapore writing the rules?

Badge
Rule-maker
Trend
↗ ↗ Up

Third-Party Ranking Anchors

Editorial Interpretation

The Singapore Consensus on AI Safety came out of SCAI: ISE 2025, with 100+ participants from 11 countries and continued updates through ISE 2026; the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance was adopted by all 10 ASEAN states under Singapore’s lead; AI Verify Foundation is launching AI TAP; the Agentic AI Governance Framework now includes feedback from 60+ organisations and 10+ real cases. Singapore is a rule-maker, not a rule-taker, with influence well above its size. Full participation in Bletchley, Seoul, and Paris AI Safety Summits; MAS Project MindForge has 24 institutions + the four major cloud vendors; UN Independent International Scientific Panel includes Singapore.

⚠️ Key Shortcoming

Setting rules ≠ rules being enforced — AI Verify is widely adopted but enforcement-side influence is weak. As US-China AI governance fragments, Singapore's "broker" position is hard to sustain — if either side demands picking a side, the room narrows fast. Governance-research investment (AISI at S$10M/year) is mismatched with influence scale — structurally underfunded.

Full Data

MetricValueSource / Date
Singapore Consensus on AI Safety100+ participants / 11 countries; updated through ISE 2026SCAI / AISI, 2025–2026 ↗
ASEAN Guide on AI GovernanceAdopted by all 10 ASEAN states (drafted under Singapore's lead)ASEAN Digital Ministers, 2024 ↗
REAIM Seoul Summit 2024Singapore as a co-host (one of 5 countries)MFA / MINDEF, 2024 ↗
AI Safety Summits attendedBletchley 2023, Seoul 2024 and Paris 2025 — full participationMFA ↗
International Scientific Exchange (ISESEA)Two editions held (2024 and 2026)IMDA / AISI ↗
UN Global Dialogue on AI GovernanceSingapore on the Independent International Scientific PanelUN / MFA ↗
MAS Project MindForge24 institutions + Microsoft / AWS / Google / NVIDIAMAS ↗