Rules governing tech can’t be monopolised by a handful of powerful states, big tech firms: Vivian

SINGAPORE – The rules and guard rails governing the technologies that affect everyone cannot be monopolised by a handful of powerful states and big tech companies, said Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on Oct 15.

He was referring to the increasing role of artificial intelligence and tech companies in conflicts and global diplomacy.

As a small state, Singapore believes that consensus on the global stage must include all nation states, such as small states and developing countries, said Balakrishnan.

“Most of us – in fact, even the superpowers – will not have a monopoly on the complete technology stack. There will always be some level of interdependence,” he said. A tech stack refers to software tools, programming languages, frameworks and infrastructure used to build and run an application.

Speaking at the Singapore International Cyber Week at Marina Bay Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Balakrishnan noted that tech is advancing exponentially, faster than the ability to govern it.

While the ability to effectively govern emerging tech like AI has not kept pace globally, governments are still ultimately responsible for national security, international law and the decisions on the use of force, he said.

And while there are opportunities with tech, there are also major risks.

The risks include losing human control over increasingly autonomous systems; tech being misused by malicious non-state actors to turbocharge criminal activities like those involving scams and ransomware; and tech disrupting economies and increasing inequality and divisions in societies.

“These are fundamental challenges that no government, no matter how powerful, and no technology company, no matter how innovative, can solve on their own,” said Balakrishnan.

“We need a new compact between governments, technology companies and the wider international community,” he said. The minister noted that engagement with tech firms is especially important for cutting-edge frontier AI, where a small number of companies are developing capabilities with far-reaching impacts on international security.

“We need a shared, unvarnished, bald assessment of the risks. We need to develop common norms and guardrails so that we can accelerate the pace of technology and reap its benefits, but also deal with the risks.”

This does not mean stifling innovation but instead increasing trust, safety and assurance so that innovation can flourish, he said.

While finding consensus on these dilemmas will not be easy with the current geopolitical environment, some progress on building international consensus on norms of how parties should behave has been made.

For example, Singapore chaired a United Nations working group on infocomm tech security from 2021 to 2025. That experience showed that even in the current fractured world, it is possible to find consensus and establish norms, he said.

International affairs are also not just the domain of nations. Balakrishnan said that some of the most consequential actors at the global stage are not nation-states but big tech titans.

Some of these companies, valued at trillions of dollars, are worth more than some UN member states. They also control critical technologies and digital platforms that people rely on, as well as the pace and frontier of AI in recent times.

“The decisions made in the boardrooms or by the CEOs of these companies – on access, on deployment, on safeguards – have consequences far beyond national borders. And these decisions affect our economies, our societies and our national security,” said the minister.

He drew parallels between today’s situation and the era of major chartered trading companies. They included the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, which were active during the 18th and 19th centuries.

These companies accumulated enormous economic and political power. They could raise armies, navies, negotiate treaties, and even conquer and administer territories. For example, the British East India Company played a central role in the colonisation of India, the founding of Singapore as a free port and the Opium Wars in China.

“I’m not saying that today’s internet titans are the same – I hope they’re not the same. But again, it is worth remembering that we are now at a moment in which private companies possess capabilities and resources that exceed that of most nation-states,” he added, without naming specific tech companies.

Even so, AI – which has been observed in the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East – is fundamentally changing warfare. He said that the tech is increasingly playing a bigger role in strategic and operational decisions, like “decisions to fire or not to fire”. This is similar to how steel and the industrial revolution transformed warfare during the first two World Wars.

The consequence of AI now is that miscalculations and escalations can occur at machine speed, which leaves little time for people to make judgments and intervene in crucial decisions of life and death.

Another issue is that many parts of the world still have not caught up with the last industrial revolution.

“All of us need to get to the frontiers of the next digital AI revolution,” said Balakrishnan. “Otherwise, the digital divide will widen the disparity in economies and military power will also become more entrenched, and we will set up ourselves for a new stage of neo-colonisation beyond the technological front.”

He added that countries “must also make sure that no one is excluded from the benefits, and no one pays the price of facing externalities whilst profit is privatised”.

Nations should aspire to be at the forefront of deploying frontier AI effectively, fairly, comprehensively to improve lives and to transform their economies, he said. And for them to participate meaningfully, countries will need three capabilities: foundational research, talent and infrastructure.

“But not every country – even a superpower – can build this entire stack on its own. And that’s why we continue to believe that international capacity-building is still essential,” Balakrishnan said.