Companies developing and deploying advanced technologies are facing growing pressure to demonstrate that their safety measures are effective in real-world situations, rather than simply presenting policies, testing reports or assurances that their products are safe. The issue has become particularly important as artificial intelligence systems and other advanced technologies are increasingly being used by businesses and consumers. While companies routinely conduct safety checks before launching new products, experts argue that testing in controlled environments may not always reveal how systems behave once they encounter unpredictable situations and large numbers of users.
A system can perform well during a carefully designed test but behave differently when exposed to unfamiliar inputs, unexpected interactions or circumstances that were not considered during development. This has increased attention on the need for companies to continue testing and monitoring their products after they have been released. The debate is especially relevant to the rapidly developing AI industry. Companies are introducing increasingly capable models that can generate content, analyse information, write software and interact with external tools. With those capabilities come new forms of risk, making it more difficult to establish whether conventional safety tests are sufficient.
Independent testing is one way companies can provide greater confidence in their safety claims. External researchers can examine systems from a different perspective and potentially identify weaknesses that internal teams may not detect. However, independent assessments are useful only when researchers have enough access to evaluate the technology properly. Restrictions on access to systems, data or testing environments can make it harder to establish whether a company's safety claims accurately reflect real-world performance.
Safety evaluation also cannot necessarily end when a product is launched. New problems can emerge after a system is deployed at scale, particularly when users interact with it in ways developers did not anticipate. Continuous monitoring can help companies identify unusual behaviour, investigate incidents and make changes to safety controls when necessary. The same principle applies beyond artificial intelligence. In industries ranging from manufacturing and aviation to healthcare and construction, organisations have long relied on safety inspections, employee training, incident investigations and hazard reporting to identify risks before they result in serious harm. Measuring these preventive activities can provide a broader picture of safety than simply counting accidents after they occur.
This means demonstrating not only that safety procedures exist but also that those procedures are producing measurable results. Records of testing, identified weaknesses, corrective actions and subsequent improvements can provide stronger evidence than general statements about safety. Greater transparency could also help regulators, customers and the public understand how companies manage potential risks. For technologies that can have significant consequences, independent audits and credible reporting systems may become increasingly important as governments and regulators consider new safety requirements.
The challenge is particularly significant for emerging technologies because their capabilities can change faster than regulations. Companies may therefore have to treat safety as an ongoing process rather than a one-time requirement completed before a product reaches the market. The question facing companies is not simply whether they have safety measures in place. The more important question is whether they can demonstrate, with credible evidence and continued monitoring, that those measures actually work when their products are being used in the real world.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.
A fresh debate has erupted over India’s latest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures, with economists and former policymakers raising questions about the methodology behind the newly released growth estimates. The controversy has centred on the reported 7.8 per cent real GDP growth for the April-June quarter of 2026-27 and the changes introduced under India’s revised national accounts framework. The dispute has been described as a “fight over the donkey’s shadow”, reflecting the argument that excessive focus on the exact GDP number could draw attention away from the broader condition of the economy. The latest figures have nevertheless renewed discussion over how India measures economic activity and how the revised data should be interpreted.
India has introduced a new GDP series using 2022-23 as the base year, replacing the earlier base year. The updated framework incorporates newer data sources and changes in the methodology used to estimate economic activity. Such revisions can also lead to changes in previously published growth rates, making comparisons between the old and new series more complicated.
The official estimate of 7.8 per cent growth has faced criticism from former finance secretary Subhash Chandra Garg, who has questioned the calculations behind the number. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has rejected the criticism and defended the methodology used to produce the latest estimate. GDP estimates are calculated using data from several parts of the economy, including manufacturing, services, consumption, investment and government activity. Since the figures are compiled from multiple datasets, revisions are a normal part of the national accounts process as additional information becomes available and statistical methods are updated.
The controversy has also brought attention to the importance of understanding what GDP can and cannot measure. GDP provides an indication of the size and growth of economic activity, but the headline figure does not reveal how income is distributed or how individual households are experiencing economic conditions. Strong economic growth can occur alongside concerns over employment, household purchasing power, inflation or the cost of essential services. These factors require separate indicators and cannot be fully captured by the GDP growth rate alone.
India’s economic performance is therefore being assessed through a wider range of indicators, including per-capita income, consumption, investment, employment and inflation. These measures can provide additional context about whether economic expansion is translating into higher incomes, greater job opportunities and stronger household demand.
Accurate GDP statistics remain important for policymakers, businesses and investors. Government decisions on economic planning and public spending rely heavily on national accounts data, while companies use growth estimates to assess demand and investment opportunities. The latest GDP controversy is consequently about more than a single percentage figure. It has opened a wider discussion about the methodology used to measure India’s economy, the interpretation of revised data and the difference between economic growth and broader improvements in living standards.
The latest GDP estimates may undergo further revisions. The debate is therefore likely to continue as economists and policymakers examine the new series and compare GDP growth with other measures of economic activity. The central economic question extends beyond the headline growth rate. The quality of growth, the creation of productive employment, household incomes, investment and the distribution of economic gains will also determine how the country’s economic progress is ultimately understood.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.
Shivi Development Society (SDS) organised a side event on the sidelines of the 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, bringing together international experts and human rights advocates to discuss community water rights, transboundary water governance and the future of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The event, titled “Community Water Rights and the Imperative to Keep the Indus Water Treaty in Abeyance,” was held on September 17, 2026, from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM at Hotel Royal Manotel on Rue de Lausanne in Geneva, Switzerland.
The discussions focused on the changing circumstances surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty, particularly the decision in 2025 to keep the agreement in abeyance. Participants examined a range of issues linked to the Indus Basin, including growing water scarcity, demographic changes, climate vulnerability and increasing pressure on shared water resources. The speakers also discussed the broader implications of managing rivers that cross international boundaries. The conversation covered regional water governance, emerging hydropolitical tensions and the importance of developing approaches that ensure sustainable, equitable and climate-resilient access to water.
According to a press note released after the programme, participants expressed support for India's decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. They argued that the issue needs to be considered not only from the perspective of bilateral relations but also in connection with India's security concerns and the interests of communities dependent on the Indus river system.
Dr. Siegfried O. Wolf, Director of Research at the South Asia Democratic Forum in Brussels, said India was within its sovereign rights to seek a review of the 1960 treaty. He argued that, in his assessment, Pakistan's conduct had affected what he described as the agreement's object, purpose and spirit. Wolf also discussed what he characterised as structural imbalances in the treaty, referring to the allocation of Indus waters, India's financial contribution to the Indus Development Fund and restrictions associated with storage and infrastructure. He also referred to disputes concerning Indian hydropower projects, including Baglihar, Kishenganga and Ratle.
On Pakistan's concerns over Indian projects on the western rivers, Wolf rejected the claim that India was simply blocking the flow of water. He described this as an “engineering myth” and argued that the Indian hydropower projects concerned are primarily non-consumptive, with water continuing downstream after power generation. Wolf further pointed to domestic factors behind Pakistan's water challenges, including agricultural practices, landholding patterns, urbanisation and ageing canal infrastructure.
London-based human rights activist Arif Aajakia emphasised the importance of access to water as a fundamental human right. He raised concerns about the distribution of water resources within Pakistan, particularly in Sindh, and connected the wider debate to longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan. Mamun Rahman, a Geneva-based human rights expert associated with the International Forum for Secular Bangladesh, highlighted questions surrounding the distribution of natural resources within Pakistan. He argued that water-sharing discussions should also take into account the concerns of communities in provinces such as Sindh and Balochistan.
Rahman called for a broader discussion on transboundary water governance, noting that decisions involving shared rivers can have significant consequences for communities located on both sides of national borders.
Lakhu Luvana, Chairperson of the World Sindhi Congress in London, said communities in Sindh and Balochistan have longstanding concerns regarding the use and distribution of natural resources, including water. He argued that these concerns extend beyond the functioning or existence of any particular bilateral treaty. The event was chaired by Narender Kumar, Executive Director of Shivi Development Society, who said the debate over the Indus Waters Treaty should not be restricted to the relationship between India and Pakistan. Kumar said the issue also involves recognising the water rights and legitimate needs of communities that depend on the Indus river system, including those in India.
“The question of keeping the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance is not only about a bilateral agreement between two countries. It is also about recognizing the rights and legitimate water needs of local communities that depend on the Indus river system, including communities in India,” Kumar said. He emphasised the importance of placing human rights, equitable access to water, community participation and sustainable water management at the centre of discussions concerning transboundary rivers.
The Geneva side event brought together the treaty debate and wider concerns surrounding water scarcity, climate change, demographic pressures, community rights and regional water governance in the Indus Basin. The listed speakers included Dr. Siegfried O. Wolf of the South Asia Democratic Forum, Arif Aajakia, human rights activist from London, Biro Diawara of RADDHO and Interfaith International in Geneva, and Dr. Lakhu Luvana of the World Sindhi Congress in London, subject to confirmation. Narender Kumar of Shivi Development Society served as the moderator.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from ANI.
Surendra Koli, who was acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2025 in the final case linked to the infamous 2006 Nithari killings, was found dead in Haridwar on Friday, police said. He was in his early 50s. According to the police, Koli was found hanging at a tea stall he had been operating in Haridwar after being released following his acquittal. Authorities said an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death is underway.
Koli and his former employer, Moninder Singh Pandher, had faced allegations in several cases involving the rape and murder of children in and around Noida's Nithari area. Both men were convicted in some of the cases at different stages of the legal proceedings, but were subsequently acquitted in all the cases.
Nithari killings shocked the country: The Nithari case came to public attention in December 2006 after human remains, including bones and skulls believed to belong to children, were discovered in a drain near Pandher's house in Nithari village, Noida. Clothes and footwear were also recovered from the area. The discovery triggered widespread outrage in India and drew international attention. At least 19 children were reported dead in connection with the case, while Pandher's bungalow, D-5 in Sector 31, Noida, became widely referred to as the "House of Horrors."
Pandher and Koli, who had worked as a domestic helper at the property, were arrested soon after the discoveries. The Central Bureau of Investigation later took over the investigation and filed several cases against Koli, alleging offences including murder, abduction, rape and destruction of evidence. Pandher was separately accused in a case involving alleged immoral trafficking.
Supreme Court acquitted Koli in final case: Koli had been convicted in 12 cases between 2009 and 2017, with courts imposing the death penalty in those matters. His final case was decided by the Supreme Court in November 2025, when the court acquitted him. The verdict marked the end of the criminal cases against Koli connected with the Nithari killings. The Supreme Court questioned the reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented against him, noting the absence of adequate forensic support and highlighting investigative shortcomings.
The court also referred to alleged leads concerning possible organ trafficking that, according to the judgment, were not properly pursued during the investigation. Koli had previously faced execution proceedings. In 2007, his death sentence came close to being carried out before a last-minute intervention by the then Chief Justice of India resulted in a temporary halt. Following his acquittal in the final case, Koli remained free until his death in Haridwar. Police are now examining the circumstances surrounding his death and conducting further investigation.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from wikimedia.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday criticised the BJP and Election Commission of India after the ECI temporarily barred rival Trinamool Congress factions from using the party’s name and “Flowers and Grass” symbol. Gandhi alleged that the BJP and ECI were working together to weaken opposition parties, calling the development part of a broader pattern of what he termed “party theft”. He also accused the Election Commission of failing to protect the electoral mandate, saying the issue concerns every political party and voter seeking free and fair elections. The ECI’s interim order came after a hearing involving rival factions led by Arup Roy and Mamata Banerjee. The restrictions will remain until the leadership dispute is resolved.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from ANI.
As AI leaders worldwide call for a more measured pace of development, what could a potential slowdown mean for companies such as Plaud, which is expanding its presence in Singapore? Could tighter controls or a shift in the global AI landscape affect the company’s growth plans in the country? Daniel Martin explores these questions in a conversation with Megumi Yoshinaga, Head of APAC Marketing at Plaud.
Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.
Oil markets are coming under renewed strain after attacks disrupted Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, an important alternative route to the Strait of Hormuz. With Brent and WTI crude prices climbing above US$100 per barrel and fuel costs continuing to rise, concerns are growing over the resilience of global oil supplies. Susan Ng speaks with Jaime Brito, Executive Director of Refining and Oil Markets at Dow Jones Energy, about the potential impact of a prolonged disruption on Singapore and wider Asian markets.
Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.
Singaporean rap pioneer and entertainer Sheikh Haikel looks back on his decades-long journey in the entertainment industry, recalling key moments that defined his career and discussing the legacy he wants to leave behind. After being diagnosed with stage four colon cancer, Haikel also shares how deeply moved he has been by the support from fans, friends and fellow artists across the region. In this interview with Hairianto Diman and Elakeyaa Selvaraji, he speaks candidly about his career, personal journey and recent health battle.
Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.
Donald Trump has organised a major political convention aimed at energising Republican supporters ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. However, several Republican officials seeking re-election have chosen not to attend, instead focusing on campaigning in their home states and districts. Their absence raises questions about whether some Republicans are concerned that Trump’s current political standing and unpopularity could hurt their own chances at the polls. The discussion examines the growing tensions within the party as candidates weigh their loyalty to Trump against their own electoral prospects. This week, Jenna Amatulli hosts the discussion with Guardian US politics correspondent Rachel Leingang.
Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from The Guardian.
