Key Risk Thresholds to Regulate High-risk AI Deployments and Implementing Mandatory Human Oversight for Fully Automated Decisions
Ministry of Digital Development and InformationSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns Mr Alex Yeo’s inquiry into the risk thresholds for regulating high-risk AI and the potential for mandatory human oversight in automated decisions. Minister for Digital Development and Information Mrs Josephine Teo responded that regulation is determined by deployment context and harm potential, with many risks already covered by the Online Criminal Harms Act and upcoming Workplace Fairness Act. She noted that sectoral guidelines in healthcare and finance complement existing laws, while targeted legislation like the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Act addresses specific gaps like deepfakes. The Government maintains that the need for further regulation depends on whether existing measures effectively address evolving harms. Consequently, the Ministry will continue to assess the regulatory landscape to ensure timely and effective responses as AI technology and its associated risks develop.
Transcript
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.