Minister of State for Trade and Industry Foo Cexiang clarified on September 15 that Parliament’s role is to ensure accountability but not to act as a “risk committee” for individual firms, responding to criticisms regarding Singapore Airlines’ (SIA) investment in Air India. Foo’s remarks followed a parliamentary exchange earlier in the month involving Workers’ Party MP Kenneth Tiong, who questioned the risk associated with SIA’s 25.1 percent stake in the Indian carrier, which has reportedly requested a capital injection of approximately US$1.5 billion shortly after posting a record annual loss.
Tiong had expressed concerns over whether SIA’s losses from foreign investments, including this stake, have been properly assessed in relation to the airline’s capacity to provide essential transport services. He further opposed additional funding from Temasek Holdings, SIA’s majority shareholder. Transport Minister Iswaran Siow responded by emphasizing that SIA’s investment in Air India does not compromise its operational ability to serve Singaporeans and highlighted the importance of maintaining competitiveness in challenging market conditions.
Foo countered Tiong’s perspective by emphasizing that Parliament lacks the operational insight, expertise, and mandate to dictate the commercial risk appetite of individual companies. He underscored the distinct roles within SIA’s governance framework: while management oversees daily operations, the board is responsible for strategic direction, governance, and risk oversight. Temasek, as the shareholder, exercises stewardship over its portfolio companies. Foo argued that expecting Parliament to set risk limits across all such firms, not just SIA but also DBS, Singtel, and others, would significantly hinder their commercial viability.
“A political setting of risk thresholds would blur accountability and is a sure recipe for failure,” Foo said, highlighting the dangers of Parliament assuming responsibilities traditionally held by corporate boards. He added that involving MPs in such decisions without proper data or mandate would weaken, rather than strengthen, governance.
Addressing Tiong’s remarks on SIA’s financial position, Foo challenged the narrative that the airline’s near parity of cash (S$10.5 billion) and debt (S$10.7 billion) as of June 30 signals financial distress. He explained that context is crucial, including the timing and cost of debt repayment and the company’s capacity to meet obligations. Drawing an analogy to a household with a mortgage and savings, Foo noted that having net debt does not necessarily indicate financial trouble if ongoing payments are manageable. He pointed out that most of SIA’s debt is long-term and that its short-term liabilities are well covered by cash reserves, with the airline maintaining one of the most conservative capital structures among major global carriers.
Foo also suggested that Tiong, a former hedge fund portfolio manager, should be aware of these accounting principles and cautioned against creating misleading narratives that could cause unnecessary alarm.
The debate follows Air India’s recent request for a significant capital injection and the government’s ongoing efforts to address public concerns over the airline’s investments and financial health. Tiong represents Aljunied GRC and has been vocal in urging transparency and prudence in the management of Singapore’s investments in foreign enterprises.