Foo Cexiang hits back at WP's Kenneth Tiong over SIA-Air India deal, says Parliament not a 'risk committee'

While Parliament's role is to ensure accountability for Singapore's national reserves, it cannot serve as a "risk committee" for individual companies, said Minister of State for Trade and Industry Foo Cexiang.

In particular, Foo was referring to concerns that Workers' Party MP Kenneth Tiong raised in Parliament earlier this month about Singapore Airlines' (SIA) investment into Air India and whether if will affect the airline's capacity to provide essential transport services.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday (Sept 15), Foo rebutted Tiong's comments, saying that he made a "major leap of logic" and painted an "alarming narrative".

"Members of Parliament (MP) have every right to raise questions about the national reserves, including how they are safeguarded and stewarded," Foo said.

"But that does not make Parliament the risk committee for individual companies."

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

He added that if Parliament were to take on that role of a risk committee, it would raise questions about the responsibility of the SIA Board, and the Boards of other Temasek Portfolio Companies.

The SIA Board and Temasek — a major shareholder in the national carrier — should be responsible for overseeing SIA's risks, and that subjecting commercial decisions to political direction will not only weaken governance but be a "recipe for failure", Foo said.

Net debt does not mean financial distress

Foo also criticised Tiong for conflating net debt with financial distress, and that SIA's debt of $10.7 billion cannot be taken without context.

"Debt is not automatically a sign of financial weakness," he said, explaining that most of SIA's borrowings are long-term and that its liabilities within the next 12 months are "well within its cash reserves".

According to Foo, SIA has "one of the most conservative and low risk capital structures amongst major global airlines", and that it has more than $10 billion in cash reserves.

Foo 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."

"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.

Prior to Tiong's parliamentary question on Sept 8, he also urged that state investor Temasek's money not be used to shore up Air India , after the airline posted record losses of US$2.33 billion (S$2.97 billion) and requested for $1.9 billion in fresh equity from shareholders Tata Sons and SIA.

SIA owns about 25 per cent of Air India, and Temasek in turn owns most of the Singapore carrier, "so this is not only a question for private shareholders", Tiong said in a Facebook post on Aug 26.

"I will not support, nor expect, any future use of Temasek's funds to prop up Air India via Singapore Airlines. If Singapore Airlines wants to continue its bet on Air India, it should do so on its own two feet, and not on Temasek's," he said.

dana.leong@asiaone.com

贸工部政务部长傅采祥表示，虽然国会的职责是确保新加坡国家储备的问责制，但它不能充当个别公司的“风险委员会”。

Foo 特别指的是工人党议员 Kenneth Tiong 本月早些时候在国会提出的担忧，即新加坡航空公司 (SIA) 对印度航空的投资是否会影响该航空公司提供基本运输服务的能力。

周二（9 月 15 日），Foo 在 Facebook 上发帖反驳了 Tiong 的评论，称他做出了“重大的逻辑跳跃”，并描绘了一个“令人担忧的叙述”。

“国会议员完全有权对国家储备提出问题，包括如何保护和管理这些储备，”Foo说道。

但这并不意味着议会就成了各个公司的风险评估委员会。

他说，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。

他还补充说，如果国会承担风险委员会的角色，就会引发人们对新加坡航空公司董事会以及其他淡马锡投资组合公司董事会的责任的质疑。

Foo表示，新加坡航空公司董事会和淡马锡控股（新加坡航空公司的主要股东）应该负责监督新加坡航空公司的风险，让商业决策受政治干预不仅会削弱公司治理，而且是“失败的根源”。

净债务并不意味着财务困境。

Foo 还批评 Tiong 将净债务与财务困境混为一谈，并指出不能脱离背景来看待新加坡航空 107 亿美元的债务。

“债务并不一定意味着财务状况不佳，”他解释说，新加坡航空的大部分借款都是长期借款，而且其未来 12 个月的负债“完全在其现金储备之内”。

Foo表示，新加坡航空“在全球主要航空公司中拥有最保守、风险最低的资本结构之一”，并且拥有超过100亿美元的现金储备。

Foo表示：“作为一名商业分析师，Tiong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并列，从而炮制出一个令人担忧的论调。”

“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。

在 9 月 8 日 Tiong 向国会提出质询之前，他还敦促不要动用国有投资者淡马锡的资金来扶持印度航空。此前，印度航空公布了创纪录的 23.3 亿美元（29.7 亿新元）亏损，并向股东塔塔集团和新加坡航空申请了 19 亿美元的新股本。

新加坡航空持有印度航空约 25% 的股份，而淡马锡又持有新加坡航空的大部分股份，“所以这不仅仅是私人股东的问题，”Tiong 在 8 月 26 日的一篇 Facebook 帖子中写道。

“我不会支持，也不会期待淡马锡未来通过新加坡航空公司来扶持印度航空。如果新加坡航空公司想继续投资印度航空，它应该依靠自身实力，而不是依靠淡马锡，”他说道。

dana.leong@asiaone.com