Transcript of Media Doorstop by Mr K Shanmugam, Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, on Racist Comments Following Nepal Floods and SIA/Air India Issues

Reporter: So, there have been some racist comments about SIA’s investment in Air India and after the Nepal disaster. What’s your views on these comments?

Senior Minister: I think we are seeing some very nasty, racist comments online — after the Nepal floods, as well as the SIA - Air India relationship.

There were flash floods in Nepal last week. More than 1,200 people have been killed, 9 Singaporeans are among those missing. A team of officers from the SPF and HSA are now in Nepal, to help. Remember, our Gurkha officers from Nepal have been serving Singapore for decades.

Online, you see some comments, more than some comments, about the missing Singaporeans, saying "No they are not our own"; "I only see Indian faces here. Skip. Rescue cut."; and "All ABNNs look the same, how to AI?". As I think, many would know, "ABNN" is a derogatory term for Indians. You know, you have more than a thousand people who have died, Singaporeans are missing, and you get these sorts of racist remarks. And there are many more. The media tells me that they had to remove several comments because they were so nasty.

I don't know if all the comments are all made by Singaporeans. But, I will say this - the comments are shameful, nasty, and totally unacceptable. I have asked Police to look into these comments.

At the same time, I believe that the majority of Singaporeans do not share such views. The Red Cross, for example, has raised over S$3 million dollars for relief efforts in Nepal. Singaporeans are generous, across all races. And it is important that we don't allow a minority to poison the entire well.

And you know, after the Nepal flash floods, now there has been news of Air India seeking fresh equity from its shareholders, including Singapore Airlines. That news has given rise to a whole series of anti-Indian, racist ranting online. For example, references to "Snakes", "Curry", "Prata", "black magic", and so on. And, the CEO and Senior Management of Temasek have also been attacked for their ethnicity, in vile, nasty terms. It has been said that because the CEO is of Indian ethnicity, he would favour Air India. In the eyes of these people, the CEO’s sin is that he is of Indian ethnicity, even though he is as Singaporean as any of us. That is nasty and libellous.

These people make their comments - it's an online mob attacking the management, CEO, Temasek, Singapore Airlines, without looking at the facts: Temasek's own website says India is its best-performing geography for the last 10 years, when compared against investments in the rest of the world. Temasek and its companies have made billions of dollars based on, you know, information that is publicly available. But for this online mob, however, all of that — the facts don't matter. What matters is their racism and their own prejudices.

If we allow this, in future, everyone can be attacked for their decisions based on their ethnicities.

I think these people should be unmasked and dealt with rather than be allowed to hide behind online anonymity. There are many, many more examples of such racist comments. I will also ask the Police to look into this to consider if any offences are made up. MDDI will ask the platforms to take such comments down — they are in breach of guidelines.

You know there is always latent racism among some sections of the public - in most countries, across most ethnicities. In Singapore, we have taken a tough line to protect our multi-racial, multi-religious fabric, and to keep social harmony. And I have decided to call out these people because you see what is happening in other countries: first, a minority says these nasty things; slowly it becomes normalised; then it becomes mainstream, and political and community leaders will say it. Public discourse is then debased. Social harmony is affected. Violence against people of a different skin colour and different religion becomes acceptable.

It is noticeable that of late there have been more racist comments, particularly when it comes to Indians in Singapore. Some of them have originated and have been fanned from overseas. We are a very small multi-racial, multi-ethnic country. If we are divided along racial or religious lines, we will lose the unity that has made Singapore strong. There will be feelings of ill-will, suspicion, and we will all suffer. We should not tolerate this. This is not who we are as Singaporeans.

Reporter: Mr Kenneth Tiong actually made a post on Facebook saying that SIA shouldn’t be making further investments (into Air India). So, what is your comment about that?

Senior Minister: I have seen Mr Tiong's post. I will make a few points.

First, SIA is a listed company. SIA has to decide what investments it wants to make, and SIA answers to its shareholders. SIA has declared that it has more than S$10 billion in cash reserves and over S$3 billion in undrawn credit facilities. It is the responsibility of SIA to assess its investments in Air India in relation to the resources it has for the long-term growth and profitability of the company.

Second, Mr Tiong says whether Temasek or SIA "writes the cheque", it will "have a significant impact on Temasek". The shareholder in Air India is SIA, not Temasek. Any decision to invest in Air India lies with SIA, and Temasek as a shareholder in SIA, along with other shareholders, will expect SIA to make its investment decisions responsibly.

And as regards Temasek, let's be clear. Temasek is accountable to the Government for its overall portfolio and its overall long-term performance. Temasek does not account to the Government for its individual investments, nor does it account for individual investment decisions of its portfolio companies. Temasek and its subsidiaries decide how to invest across a wide portfolio with investments of varied risks and varied time horizons.

Once governments or politicians start directing individual investment decisions, commercial discipline will be compromised. Decisions will become politicised — shaped by political considerations, rather than commercial judgment. In the end, Singaporeans will bear the cost. You see that happening in other countries. Temasek portfolio companies must not make, and must not fear to make, investment decisions because they are concerned about politics, or politically motivated comments by critics of the Government. The Government's general principle – and this has been stated many times – is that we do not intervene in individual investment decisions, and we don't put political pressure on how these companies should invest.

I know the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew is said to have questioned the wisdom of SIA investing in Air India, reportedly in 2000 or 2001. But that was 25 years ago — in a very different India, under very different circumstances. And importantly, he caveated his comments by saying, quite properly, that it was none of his business. The commercial decision, even then, was for SIA to make. Temasek and SIA are entitled to assess the India of today, and the India 25 years later, and make their commercial judgments.

Third, and there is another important point to make here. Temasek, GIC, and the Temasek portfolio companies ("TPCs") – they make a lot of money through our investments overseas. If you look at investments from Singapore, which will of course include a broader range of companies beyond Temasek, GIC and the TPCs, Singapore is the top investor in China and India. It is the largest Asian investor in Europe, the third-largest Asian investor in the US. It is the 7^th largest investor in Australia — among the top. And Singaporean companies also invest in South America, Africa and so on.

Temasek, as well as many of its portfolio companies including SIA, Sembcorp, Singtel, and CapitaLand, all have made substantial investments in India. GIC has invested as well, in India. Temasek's website says that 43% – nearly half – of its country exposure is to the Americas and China, and 7% is in India. But its website also says that India has in fact been its best-performing market over the last decade. So, India has performed best for Temasek out of all the geographies over the past 10 years.

If you scan the Business Times, you will see several examples of successful investments that Temasek and the TPCs have made, including in India. Just take two, three examples in India. Last year, Temasek sold its stake in an Indian joint venture to its partner, Schneider Electric, for more than S$8 billion — that was almost ten times what Temasek had initially paid for the shares. Manipal Health Enterprises, IPO last month, is now said to be valued at more than S$11 billion. The National Stock Exchange of India is going to IPO soon in the next few months.

Another example is Singtel, which began investing in Bharti Airtel in India in the early 2000s. Bharti's equity valuation has increased many times. Go look at the figures. Singtel has recovered its investment many, many times over.

TPCs, by investing sensibly all over the world, have been making money for Singaporeans. They are creating jobs for Singaporeans, and returns from our reserves contribute nearly 20% of our budget, and Temasek and GIC are major contributors to our reserves. This helps to keep our taxes lower than they would otherwise be. I asked to speak to you today to make a point on racism, but your question also brings up another very important point. And that point is this: the Government's job is to ensure professional management in Temasek, and then provide the professional managers in Temasek and the Temasek portfolio companies, the political cover and the confidence which will allow them to make properly considered commercial decisions, free from untoward pressures.

If you look at SIA's ventures in India, SIA invested in 2013 through a joint venture with Tata Sons in Vistara. Air India and Vistara merged in 2024. All of this is public info.

We should leave it to SIA to decide what it does with its investments. Of course, SIA shareholders, as well as the broader public, have a right to expect that SIA will be accountable and transparent. People have a right to expect that there will be a rigorous assessment before money is committed. And shareholders can ask the SIA management and Directors questions at its AGM. The Government is likewise entitled to expect that there will be proper rigorous decision making in Temasek, and that Temasek will ensure the same with TPCs.

Mr Tiong is entitled to his views. He is entitled, like any other Singaporean, to ask questions about SIA and Temasek. But 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 — boards which have knowledgeable and independent members, and management which has professionals whose primary responsibility is to consider and make these decisions.

The Government has established this discipline of not interfering with the individual investment decisions of Temasek and GIC, so that they can make the best professional investment decisions in the same way as other well-run and successful investment houses do. This is the best way to grow our assets and reserves.

Those who want to better understand SIA's and Temasek's reasons for the investment in Air India should read the letters from SIA and Temasek which were published in the Business Times on 29 August.

There is also another risk that we as Singaporeans must be careful about. When boards make their decisions, and if they feel that, if their decision goes wrong, the public are then going to attack them for irrelevant reasons, like ethnicity — then the boards and management are going to become super cautious. They may decide to take the safer course of action, which you know, may be to do nothing. Because they are worried about attacks like this. And then in the the medium- to long-term, you will get lower returns. You know, we all know some investments will make money, some investments may not. You judge overall and not put pressure on every decision by an online mob attacking individuals.

Reporter: I have 2 questions. First, you mentioned that MDDI will ask platforms to take the comments down. Just want to clarify which and how would anonymised comments actually be dealt with since it’s really difficult to determine who actually left it. Second, you addressed the investment aspects of Mr Tiong’s post. Has any part of the post borderline or crossed the racial or xenophobic line? And there is one particular line where he says ““No one, least of all Singaporeans, owes Air India a living”. What do you think of that?

Senior Minister: On your first question, what I can say to you is, MDDI is going to ask the platforms to take down the comments which are in breach of their guidelines. As to anonymity, you know, the Police will deal with it as well as they can. It doesn’t always mean that you remain anonymous.

As regards to Mr Tiong and whether he was being xenophobic or racist, I think you best ask him what he intended and what he meant.

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.

Reporter: I have 2 questions as well. Firstly SM, do you feel that you’ve had to come out more and more in recent times to speak on race and religious issues, and if so, is legislation enough to deter or clamp down on these bad actors. And second question, one of the families that that CNA interviewed following Nepal flood had actually told us that they initially went to media to kind of raise awareness about their missing family members, but now they are kind of avoiding looking at comments altogether. So, at what point does these racist comments cross the line and require legal action to be taken against them?

Senior Minister: I think the racist comments have crossed the line. As I said in my remarks, I asked the Police to look at it. I think this is not acceptable. Today it’s Indians, tomorrow will be the Malays, another day will be the Chinese. How are you going to be socially harmonious in this situation? It’s already been happening for a long time, but you know it was at a level where you say, okay - latent racism, some people express some views. But, you are right - it’s getting more and more. I said some of it has been fanned from overseas. In the last few months, we have seen a fair number of attacks on Indians, and then people become emboldened, because convention requires all of us to behave in a certain way. Online you don’t have the same constraints, and then see people saying these things, you feel emboldened. As I said, after a while, if people will start saying these same things in public, and then when politicians see profit in it, it’ll become part of the political and public and community discourse. It’s happened in many countries, in developed countries, many places. You see it happening every day. We haven’t gotten there, and I have had to speak on this, more frequently than I would have liked, and it’s a consequence of this becoming more frequent online. But I think here, when people die in Nepal, what kind of people are these, who will come out and say these things about missing persons. You know, it really requires a very, a type of person, very ugly. And I think we need to call it out. But we shouldn’t mistake a small minority for the majority. As I’ve said, Singaporeans are very generous. Short period, Red Cross asks for donations, $3 billion have been raised across all ethnicities. That is the true signal. But we need to make sure this small group doesn’t poison everyone else.

Reporter: The most prevalent and toxic racism in Singapore recent case has been directed toward India, Indian nationals, and new Singapore citizens from there. In addition to taking action, like you’ve mentioned, will the government be looking at why this situation has developed and addressing some of these root causes?

Senior Minister: I talked about this in Parliament last year. I think the political and community leaders bear some responsibility for the discourse. I think also that we have to understand there is always latent racism everywhere, and Singaporeans are not immune to that, and our duty is to acknowledge that, and work to make sure that it doesn’t come out, rather than putting in hand grenades for it to come out. And secondly, online more and more people are looking at what happens elsewhere in the world, and some people feel emboldened to say these things – you’ve got to ask them why they do it. Thank you.