Singapore has announced a new National AI Council, to be chaired by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. On the surface, this sounds like another government committee. It is not. A PM-chaired council with a mandate to define clear rules for how AI is developed and used signals a materially different approach from a ministry advisory group or a voluntary framework consultation process.
This article explains what the Council signals, what it is likely to produce, and what mid-market companies in Singapore should be doing right now.
Why a PM-chaired council matters differently
Singapore has had AI governance frameworks and advisory bodies for several years. IMDA published the first version of its Model AI Governance Framework in 2019. MAS has issued AI risk guidance for financial services. The Smart Nation initiative has been running AI governance programmes since the early 2020s.
What has been missing is a body with clear authority to set rules rather than recommendations, positioned at the highest level of government, and accountable for the outcomes of AI development across the economy.
The National AI Council fills that gap. When the Prime Minister chairs a body himself, it signals two things. First, that AI governance is now a strategic national priority, not a regulatory compliance matter managed by individual agencies. Second, that the Council’s outputs will carry the weight of national policy, not the weight of a guidance document that businesses can choose to follow or not.
The Council’s stated objective is to define “clear rules” for AI development and use. That language is deliberate. The distinction between rules and principles suggests an intent to move from guidance toward enforceable requirements.
What the Council is likely to produce
The Council has not yet published its policy agenda. Based on PM Wong’s statements and the Singapore government’s track record on technology regulation, businesses should expect:
A national AI regulatory framework that consolidates and clarifies the various existing guidance documents. Singapore currently has separate frameworks from IMDA, MAS, and the PDPA. A Council-level intervention is likely to produce a more integrated set of obligations.
Sector-specific requirements, particularly for financial services, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. These sectors have the highest stakes for AI governance failures and have been the focus of the most specific guidance to date.
An accountability regime that places clear obligations on organisations deploying AI, not just recommendations about good practice. The shift from “you should have human oversight” to “you must demonstrate that your human oversight is effective” is the direction of travel globally, and Singapore’s Council positions the country to lead in the region.
The three governance questions every business should answer now
Before the Council’s first major publication, every Singapore business with AI in production should be able to answer three questions clearly.
What AI systems are you running and how have you classified their risk? This is the baseline. If you do not have an inventory of your AI deployments with a documented risk classification for each, you are not in a position to respond to governance requirements, because you do not know what you have.
Who is accountable for AI governance in your organisation? Not who is responsible for building AI systems. Who is accountable for the governance of those systems. There is a difference, and most organisations do not have a clear answer.
What would you show a regulator if they asked to see your governance evidence today? Not what documents you could create quickly if you knew a regulator was coming. What you would show them today. If the honest answer is “not much”, that is the gap the Council’s framework will formalise into an obligation.
What to do now
The Council’s framework will not be optional. Businesses that establish their governance baseline now will find the transition significantly easier than those that wait for the mandates.
The most important first step is understanding where you actually stand. Not where you think you stand, and not where you would stand if you had a few months to prepare. Where you stand today.
That is exactly what the AI Governance Review is designed to establish. In thirty minutes, you will have a clear and honest picture of your current governance posture, the most significant gaps relative to the frameworks the Council will likely formalise, and the priority actions to take before the policy landscape solidifies.
If you have AI in production in Singapore, this is the right time to make that call.
Arjen Hendrikse is the founder of Aivance Consulting and an ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Lead Auditor. He tracks Singapore AI policy developments closely and helps mid-market businesses build governance frameworks that hold up to regulatory scrutiny.