National Day 2026 gave AI a reality check: Creative leaders weigh in

AI is facing a National Day reality check in Singapore, with the use of generative AI in songs, films and public-facing artwork prompting questions around authenticity, accuracy and where the technology belongs in culturally significant moments.

Local filmmaker Jack Neo, for example, used AI to compose the music for his National Day song Singapore is already 61, while incorporating AI-generated visuals of politicians including Prime Minister Lawrence Wong into its music video. Neo said he wrote the lyrics himself and that the final product was edited by humans.

In addition, Singapore-based studio Edenstone released AI-assisted short film Bersama Majulah, which depicts a fictional Singapore-like setting during a National Day Parade under attack by a pathogen outbreak. The studio has positioned the film as “human-written, AI-realised”, with AI used under human creative direction to accelerate the production of visual assets.

Meanwhile, an AI-generated National Day banner displayed at Kampong Chai Chee estate was removed after residents pointed out several inaccuracies in the artwork, including flags that did not accurately resemble Singapore's national flag. Other anomalies included distorted human figures and malformed hand gestures. The banner was subsequently replaced, with Kampong Chai Chee Community Club reminding residents that while AI can be a useful tool, its output should always be carefully checked before being used.

Don't miss: Singapore turned 61, and these brands brought the nation to life

An AI National Day weekend

The incidents come as AI-generated content continues to become more prevalent across the creative industry. According to sentiment analysis by media intelligence firm CARMA, Singaporeans do not appear to be broadly opposed to AI. Of 271 tracked conversations around AI, 54% were positive, 37% neutral and just 9% negative. However, criticism became more pronounced when AI was used in culturally sensitive National Day content.

CARMA found that 92.2% of negative AI conversations referenced the National Day Parade, suggesting that AI-related concerns were amplified when attached to Singapore's flagship national celebration.

According to the firm, negative conversations focused primarily on visible AI errors, poor creative quality and a perceived lack of human oversight. Criticism became particularly sharp when AI-generated content misrepresented national symbols or appeared to replace local creative work.

The conversation also expanded beyond the technology itself. Some 46.5% of negative conversations referenced “people”, while 40.6% referenced “government”, suggesting that users were also questioning who was responsible for the content and how decisions around AI were being made.

Positive reactions, meanwhile, were strongest when AI was positioned as an enabler, particularly when it was used to showcase Singapore's digital progress, innovation and creative possibilities.

CARMA added that the findings point to a distinction between AI supporting creativity and AI appearing to replace it. While audiences may tolerate experimentation with the technology, national and cultural content appears to raise the bar for accuracy, cultural sensitivity and human oversight.

Where does AI fit into Singaporean identity? 

The wider consumer conversation around AI-generated content reflects a similar concern around quality. According to DoubleVerify's "2026 Global insights: Media quality in the age of AI report", 49% of consumers in Singapore said their perception of a brand would be negatively affected if its advertising appeared alongside low-quality or spam-like AI-generated content. Only 23% said they would respond positively.

Singapore consumers were similarly critical of low-quality AI-generated advertising itself, with 47% saying it would negatively affect their perception of a brand, compared with 25% who viewed it positively.

However, the findings suggest consumers are not inherently opposed to AI-generated marketing. When the work was perceived to be professionally produced, just 18% of Singapore respondents said it would negatively affect their perception of a brand, while 45% said it would have a positive impact.

For creatives, the debate is therefore less about whether AI should be used at all and more about what happens when it becomes part of work intended to represent Singaporean identity. Stanley Yap, head of creative, Splash Productions, said AI should ultimately be viewed as a tool, with the focus remaining on whether the creative achieves its intended purpose.

“AI is a tool. The bigger question is whether the creative actually rallies Singaporeans and strengthens that sense of patriotism. If using AI becomes the conversation instead of the message, or triggers a negative response that overshadows what we are trying to celebrate, then we have missed the point," said Yap.

He added: 

We should embrace AI and new technology, but we also need to understand how ready our audience is to embrace it with us.

Similarly, Kelvin Kao, founder and CEO of Protocol, sees AI as an inevitable part of the creative toolkit, but said its use does not excuse a lack of craftsmanship. “At the end of the day, with creative work, we want to see craftsmanship. Creative work is subjective, but I don't think there was evidence of much craftsmanship there, so that was inherently disappointing,” he said.

Kao said agencies will have to work with the tools available to them, including AI, but stressed that the technology still needs to be used thoughtfully.

“Our agency stance is we view it as a tool, but it needs to be tastefully put together. In all three instances, my very subjective view is that they were not tastefully put together, and so the reaction therefore is as much to that as the use of AI," he explained. 

That question of what gets lost when AI takes on more of the creative process is where the two perspectives begin to converge. For Yap, the work needs to retain the cultural nuances that allow Singaporeans to recognise themselves in it.

“It’s not about whether something is made by AI or by hand. It’s whether Singaporeans can see themselves in it,” he said. “The humour, nuances, shared memories and cultural references have to feel instinctively familiar. AI can reproduce what Singapore looks and sounds like, but creating something that truly feels Singaporean still requires a deep understanding of the people you are speaking to.”

Meanwhile, Kao puts greater emphasis on the role of people and human storytelling in that equation. “The Singaporean identity is about its people, and when you displace people, without again much regard, I think it's not a good look,” he said.

He added that even when AI or generative content is used, there needs to be a human story at the centre of the work.

“Not seeing much craft, not seeing people at the centre of it, not seeing a human story, even with it being told through AI or generative content," said Kao, adding that:

The absence of an inherently human message, was really tough to swallow.

For both creatives, the issue is not AI itself, but what it replaces. When the technology starts to displace the craft, human story or cultural insight behind an idea, the question shifts from why not use AI? to why was AI used in the first place? In a National Day context, where the creative is expected to reflect Singapore and its people, that distinction can be difficult to ignore.

Related articles:   
Gen Z perspectives: Our favourite National Day campaigns  
When Claude makes anyone a 'designer', what happens to creative craft?
Can an 'AI generated' label really build trust, or will it slow the industry down?