Singapore companies are asking for AI fluency in job postings at a rate that has nearly doubled in a year, but most hiring processes still lack any reliable method to test whether candidates actually have the skills they claim. The gap between demand and verification is the central finding of a new analysis by global talent platform Second Talent, which draws on data from PwC's 2026 Global AI Jobs Barometer and Singapore's Ministry of Manpower.
PwC's barometer analysed roughly 1.6 million Singapore job postings from last year and found that 5.3% required AI skills, up from 3.3% in 2024. That translates to approximately 84,000 AI-related roles in total.
User roles dominate the market
Around 82% of those postings were for AI-user roles: workers expected to operate AI tools within existing functions such as operations, finance, marketing, and support. Just 18% sought AI developers. Growth followed the same pattern, with user roles adding roughly four times as many postings year-on-year as developer roles.
Singapore's Ministry of Manpower separately found that in Q1 2026, 18.9% of firms had already begun redesigning job functions around AI, and 13.9% had created new roles entirely. The shift has changed what employers are asking for, but not, according to Second Talent, how they are screening for it.
"Companies budgeted for AI as an engineering line item and the market went somewhere else," said Elton Chan, co-founder and CEO of Second Talent. "The volume is in operations, finance, marketing, and support. Those roles now come with a fluency requirement attached, and most hiring processes have no way to test for it."
The structural screening problem
The problem, Chan said, is structural. Résumés can list tools, but they do not show whether a candidate can take a messy internal process apart and get an AI system to handle it reliably. Standard technical interviews were also not designed to surface that, according to Second Talent.
The gap comes amid surging wage premiums on AI-related postings across every sector. Government and Public Sector roles command a 107% premium, while Consumer Markets sits at 96%. Chan warned that employers are paying a premium for AI capability they have no consistent method of verifying.
What employers can do
Stacie Haller, chief career advisor at ResumeBuilder.com, previously told HRD that there is still no standardised approach to assessing AI skills in hiring. "At some point, HR managers will likely implement AI skill tests during the interview process, similar to Excel assessments," Haller said. "But right now, we are still in the early stages, and there are no standard benchmarks for evaluation."
Haller said the interview remains the strongest tool available, with candidates expected to provide concrete examples of how they have used AI on the job, how effective it was, and what the result was. "Companies need to determine how AI skills can best be applied within their organisation, how to evaluate these skills, and how to train existing staff," Haller added. "This will be critical as AI proficiency becomes an industry standard."
For HR teams facing this gap, structured training in AI for Human Resources can help build internal evaluation capacity. The AI Learning Path for HR Managers covers AI recruitment automation, workforce analytics, and talent management, areas directly implicated by the shift toward AI-user roles.
Why this matters for HR professionals
The data points to a specific risk: HR teams are writing job descriptions that require AI fluency, but they have no standardised way to confirm that fluency before making an offer. The result is a growing likelihood of paying premium wages for unverified skills. Building an assessment approach now, whether through structured interview questions that probe real AI use cases or through practical skill tests modelled on Excel assessments, will determine which organisations hire for AI capability versus those that pay for it on faith.
Your membership also unlocks:
