Parliament is not the risk committee for individual firms: Foo Cexiang on SIA’s Air India investment

Foo was criticising Workers’ Party MP Kenneth Tiong’s statement that Parliament is the risk function for the reserves and Singapore Airlines’ (SIA) board is the investment team, calling it “a major leap of logic”.

ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI

Published Sep 15, 2026, 07:15 PM

Updated Sep 15, 2026, 07:16 PM

SINGAPORE – Parliament’s role is to ensure accountability, but the House is not the “risk committee” for individual companies, said Minister of State for Trade and Industry Foo Cexiang on Sept 15.

MPs have every right to raise questions about the national reserves, including how they are safeguarded and stewarded, but that does not make Parliament the risk committee for individual companies, he said.

MPs do not have the operational data, expertise, or mandate to determine how much commercial risk companies should take, he added.

“If Parliament were to take on that role, what then would be the responsibility of the SIA board, and the boards of other Temasek portfolio companies?”

Foo’s comments follow a Sept 8 exchange in Parliament between Tiong and Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow on SIA’s 25.1 per cent stake Air India , which has reportedly asked its owners for a capital injection of about US$1.5 billion (S$1.9 billion) months after it posted a record annual loss.

Tiong had asked if SIA’s losses from its foreign investments have been assessed against its capacity to provide essential transport services, and said he does not support further cash infusions from state investor Temasek – SIA’s majority shareholder.

Siow said in response that SIA’s investment in Air India has no adverse impact on its ability to operate and serve Singaporeans, and that the airline must continue to stay the course in challenging markets to remain competitive globally.

The SIA board is not simply an investment team, Foo said on Sept 15.

SIA’s management runs the business, while its board oversees the management, sets the company’s strategic direction, and is responsible for governance and risk oversight.

Temasek, as shareholder, exercises stewardship over its portfolio companies, he said.

He added that Tiong’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean Parliament setting political limits on how much risk every Temasek portfolio company can take – not just SIA, but also DBS, Singtel and others too.

That would cripple Singapore’s companies commercially and is a “sure recipe for failure”, said Foo, who is also Minister of State for Manpower.

Once commercial decisions become subject to political direction, accountability is blurred, he said.

MPs would be drawn into decisions they have neither the information nor the mandate to make. “That would not strengthen governance. It would weaken it,” he said.

He also criticised Tiong’s points on SIA’s debt during the exchange in Parliament.

Then, Tiong said that SIA is in net debt and as at June 30 held $10.5 billion in cash against $10.7 billion in debt.

Without context, this says little about SIA’s financial health, Foo said.

“What matters is not simply how much debt it has, but when the debt must be repaid, what it costs, and whether SIA can comfortably meet those obligations,” he said.

He drew an analogy of a household with half a million in the bank and a $510,000 mortgage.

Technically, that household is in “net debt”, but one would not conclude from that fact alone that the household is in financial distress, he said.

Instead, one should look at the household’s income and monthly expenses, as well as mortgage payments and interest rates, and its overall ability to service the loan.

The same applies to companies, he said.

Debt is not automatically a sign of financial weakness and in SIA’s case, most of its borrowings are long-term.

Its liabilities within the next year are well within its cash reserves, and SIA has one of the most conservative and low-risk capital structures amongst major global airlines, he said.

“Having been a business analyst, Mr Tiong must know these accounting basics. But he disregarded them to paint an alarming narrative by juxtaposing SIA’s physical cash available today against long-term liabilities that aren’t due for a decade,” Foo said.

“As MPs, we can and should ask hard questions. But our aim should be to create greater clarity, not confusion; to improve outcomes, not make them worse,” he added.

Tiong is MP for Aljunied GRC and was formerly a portfolio manager for a hedge fund.

His criticism of SIA’s investment in Air India, which began after news of the Indian carrier seeking fresh equity broke in August, has drawn responses from the Government inside and outside Parliament in recent weeks.

On Sept 5, Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam said Temasek portfolio companies must not fear making investment decisions because of political pressure or politically motivated criticism .

He separately called out racist comments online surrounding the issue, including claims that Temasek CEO Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara would favour Air India because of his Indian ethnicity.

Foo批评了工人党议员张建宗的言论，即国会是储备金的风险控制部门，而新加坡航空公司（SIA）董事会是投资团队，称其为“逻辑上的重大飞跃”。

ST 照片：林耀辉

发布于 2026 年 9 月 15 日下午 7:15

更新于2026年9月15日晚上7:16

新加坡——贸工部政务部长傅采祥9月15日表示，国会的作用是确保问责制，但国会不是各个公司的“风险委员会”。

他说，议员们完全有权对国家储备提出问题，包括如何保障和管理这些储备，但这并不意味着议会就成了各个公司的风险委员会。

他还补充说，议员们没有运营数据、专业知识或授权来决定公司应该承担多少商业风险。

“如果国会承担起这个角色，那么新加坡航空公司董事会以及淡马锡旗下其他投资组合公司的董事会又该承担什么责任呢？”

Foo 的评论是在 9 月 8 日国会中，张志贤和交通部长萧国伟就新加坡航空持有印度航空 25.1% 的股份一事进行交锋之后发表的。据报道，印度航空在公布创纪录的年度亏损数月后，已向其所有者申请约 15 亿美元（19 亿新元）的注资。

Tiong曾询问新加坡航空公司的海外投资亏损是否已根据其提供基本运输服务的能力进行评估，并表示他不支持新加坡航空公司的大股东——国有投资者淡马锡进一步注资。

萧先生回应称，新加坡航空对印度航空的投资不会对其运营和服务新加坡人的能力产生不利影响，而且该航空公司必须在充满挑战的市场中继续坚持既定路线，才能在全球保持竞争力。

Foo在9月15日表示，新加坡航空董事会不仅仅是一个投资团队。

新加坡航空公司的管理层负责运营业务，而其董事会则监督管理层，制定公司的战略方向，并负责公司治理和风险监督。

他表示，淡马锡作为股东，对其投资组合公司行使着管理责任。

他还补充说，如果按照 Tiong 的论点推演下去，那就意味着国会要对淡马锡旗下每家公司可以承担的风险设定政治限制——不仅是新加坡航空，还有星展银行、新加坡电信等公司。

人力部政务部长傅海燕表示，这将严重损害新加坡企业的商业利益，是“注定失败的”。

他表示，一旦商业决策受到政治指导，问责制就会变得模糊不清。

议员们将被迫参与他们既不了解情况也没有授权做出的决定。“这不会加强治理，反而会削弱治理，”他说。

在国会辩论中，他也批评了张志贤关于新加坡航空公司债务的观点。

然后，Tiong表示，新加坡航空公司目前处于净负债状态，截至6月30日，该公司持有105亿美元现金，而负债为107亿美元。

Foo表示，如果不了解具体情况，这并不能说明新航的财务状况如何。

他说：“重要的不仅仅是它有多少债务，而是债务何时必须偿还、偿还成本是多少，以及新航是否能够轻松履行这些义务。”

他打了个比方，一个家庭银行里有五十万美元存款，但还有 51 万美元的抵押贷款。

他说，从技术上讲，这个家庭是“净负债”家庭，但仅凭这一点并不能断定这个家庭处于财务困境。

相反，应该查看家庭的收入和每月支出，以及抵押贷款支付和利率，以及其偿还贷款的整体能力。

他说，这同样适用于公司。

债务并不一定意味着财务状况不佳，而且就新加坡航空而言，其大部分借款都是长期借款。

他表示，新加坡航空未来一年的负债在其现金储备范围内，而且新加坡航空是全球主要航空公司中资本结构最保守、风险最低的航空公司之一。

“作为一名商业分析师，张先生应该了解这些会计基础知识。但他却罔顾这些知识，将新航目前的可用现金与十年内都不会到期的长期负债进行对比，从而炮制出一个耸人听闻的说法，”傅先生说道。

“作为议员，我们可以也应该提出尖锐的问题。但我们的目标应该是让事情更清晰，而不是更混乱；是改善结果，而不是让结果更糟，”他补充道。

张先生是阿裕尼集选区的国会议员，此前曾是一家对冲基金的投资组合经理。

自从8月份印度航空公司寻求新股入股的消息传出后，新加坡航空就对印度航空的投资提出了批评，近几周来，这一批评引起了议会内外政府的回应。

9月5日，高级部长兼国家安全统筹部长尚穆根表示，淡马锡投资组合公司不应因政治压力或出于政治动机的批评而害怕做出投资决定。

他还单独谴责了网上围绕此事的种族主义言论，包括声称淡马锡首席执行官迪尔汉·皮莱·桑德拉塞加拉会因为他的印度血统而偏袒印度航空。