# 監管高風險 AI 部署的關鍵風險閾值,及對全自動決策強制人工監督

- 日期: 2026-07-07
- 收錄: 2026-07-20
- 相關方: Mr Alex Yeo · Mrs Josephine Teo
- 來源: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=written-answer-23658
- sgai: https://sgai.md/zh-tw/debates/written-answer-23658/
- 許可：sgai 自產內容（摘要、譯文、分析）CC BY 4.0，署名並連結 sgai.md 即可；逐字原文（國會記錄、演講、字幕、政策原文）© 原權利人，僅供引用。條款：https://github.com/meltflake/sgai/blob/main/DATA-LICENSE.md

## 為什麼重要

楊莉明未就強制人工監督給出硬性承諾,僅以《職場公平法》等既有法兜底,AI 自動決策問責仍靠軟法而非紅線

## 摘要

楊陞才先生(Alex Yeo)就 NAIS 更新中"必要且有效時將監管或立法"一語,書面質詢數字發展與信息部:(a) 哪些關鍵風險因素或閾值決定何時須對"高風險 AI 部署"進行監管;(b) 部門是否會對實質影響個人的全自動決策(如就業決定或高風險場景)強制要求"有意義的人工監督"。部長楊莉明(Josephine Teo)答覆:與任何技術一樣,是否監管取決於部署方式、可能造成的傷害性質,以及現有措施是否足以應對。她強調新加坡語境下許多 AI 風險已被現有法律覆蓋——用 AI 招聘仍須遵守即將出臺的《職場公平法》,《網路犯罪危害法》讓警方可阻斷 AI 詐騙;現有措施不足且能設計出合適對策時,政府會及時立法(如《選舉(網路廣告誠信)(修訂)法》)。這些法律再輔以分行業指引,如 MAS 就金融業《AI 風險管理指引》諮詢、衛生部更新《醫療 AI 指南》(AIHGle 2.0)。政府將持續研究合適的 AI 監管姿態。

## 要點

- 是否監管取決於部署方式、傷害性質與現有措施是否足夠——不設一刀切的"高風險"閾值
- 許多 AI 風險已被現有法律覆蓋:《職場公平法》管 AI 招聘、OCHA 阻斷 AI 詐騙、選舉法禁深偽
- 以分行業指引(MAS 金融 AI 風險管理、衛生部 AIHGle 2.0)補充硬法

## 全文

50 楊陞才先生（Mr Alex Yeo）就 NAIS 更新中「政府將在必要且有效時進行監管或立法」一語,詢問數字發展與信息部：(a) 哪些關鍵風險因素或閾值決定何時須對高風險 AI 部署進行監管；(b) 部門是否會對實質影響個人的全自動決策（如就業決定或高風險場景）強制要求有意義的人工監督。

楊莉明女士（Mrs Josephine Teo）：與任何技術一樣,是否需要監管,取決於其部署方式、可能造成的傷害的性質,以及現有措施是否足以應對這些傷害。

在新加坡的語境下,許多人工智慧（AI）風險已通過現有立法得到應對。例如,使用 AI 工具的僱主仍須遵守即將出臺的《職場公平法》中關於公平與擇優僱傭的要求。同樣,《網路犯罪危害法》等法律讓新加坡警察部隊得以預防和阻斷由 AI 助長的詐騙。當現有措施被評估為不足、且能設計出合適的對策時,政府會確保其及時落地。例如,《選舉（網路廣告誠信）（修訂）法》的通過,正是為了防止在選舉期間濫用被數字生成或篡改的候選人內容。

這些法律再輔以特定行業的指引。此類指引起初未必用於強制合規,而是在監管機構考慮未來政策時提供有用反饋。例如,新加坡金融管理局已就金融服務業《人工智慧風險管理指引》進行諮詢,衛生部則更新了《醫療人工智慧指南》（AIHGle 2.0）。

政府始終強調負責任地開發與部署 AI 的必要性。隨著技術與風險格局的演變,我們將繼續研究合適的 AI 監管姿態,並評估現有措施是否足夠。

## Hansard (original, English)

© Parliament of Singapore — reproduced for reference only.

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.