A heated debate over Singapore Airlines’ (SIA) investment in Air India has drawn two Singapore lawmakers into a public exchange, with Workers’ Party MP Kenneth Tiong defending his scrutiny of the deal as “purely commercial” after Senior Minister K Shanmugam condemned racist and xenophobic commentary surrounding the issue.
The controversy has intensified following reports that Air India is seeking a further US$1.5 billion in funding from shareholders Tata Sons and SIA, just months after the Indian carrier reported a record annual loss.
Tiong, who had previously questioned SIA’s continued financial exposure to Air India, said on Saturday (Sept 5) that his concerns should not be conflated with racist comments that have emerged online.
“There is no place for racism in our society,” Tiong said in a Facebook post, adding that he condemned attacks on anyone’s motives based on ethnicity.
According to reports by CNA, Tiong has maintained his scrutiny of SIA’s investment, questioning how many more times Air India could seek additional funding from its shareholders and who would ultimately bear the financial burden if SIA were unable to continue providing support.
Earlier on Saturday, Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security, criticised what he described as a new wave of “anti-Indian, racist ranting” online triggered by reports that Air India was seeking fresh equity.
He also said Temasek Holdings chief executive Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara had been targeted because of his ethnicity.
On the substance of the Air India investment, Shanmugam said SIA’s management and board — rather than politicians — must determine whether putting additional capital into the Indian airline makes commercial sense.
SIA, he added, has the responsibility to assess its Air India investments against the resources available to support its own long-term growth and profitability.
While acknowledging that Tiong was entitled to question SIA and Temasek, Shanmugam said the views of MPs and ministers should not replace the commercial judgement of SIA’s management and board.
“Neither his views, nor that of any minister, or any other MP, should substitute for the commercial judgment of SIA’s management and board of directors,” he said.
Shanmugam said the boards involved comprise knowledgeable and independent members, while management teams have professional responsibility for assessing such investments.
The Senior Minister also drew a distinction between Temasek’s accountability to the Singapore government for its overall portfolio performance and the individual investment decisions made by companies within that portfolio.
“Temasek and its subsidiaries decide how to invest across a wide portfolio with investments of varied risks and varied time horizons,” he said.
Shanmugam warned that government or political intervention in individual investment decisions could undermine commercial discipline.
“Once governments or politicians start directing individual investment decisions, commercial discipline will be compromised,” he said.
“Decisions will become politicised — shaped by political considerations, rather than commercial judgment. In the end, Singaporeans will bear the cost.”
Responding to Tiong’s earlier remark that no one “owes Air India a living”, Shanmugam said the opposition MP should examine SIA’s explanation and the facts surrounding the investment before reaching conclusions.
“I think he ought to do his homework and look at SIA’s letter and the facts that I put out today, and ask if he is being responsible,” Shanmugam said.
Asked whether Tiong himself had crossed racial or xenophobic lines, however, Shanmugam stopped short of making that accusation, saying Tiong should be asked directly about what he had intended.
