Temasek, portfolio firms need to make commercial decisions without fear of politicisation: Shanmugam

Senior Minister K Shanmugam warned that if corporate boards become overly cautious to avoid politicisation, it will compromise investment returns in the long run.

ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG

Published Sep 05, 2026, 05:00 PM

Updated Sep 05, 2026, 05:12 PM

SINGAPORE - Temasek portfolio companies must not fear making investment decisions because of political pressure or politically motivated criticism, said Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam on Sep 4.

Addressing recent racist comments surrounding Singapore Airlines’ (SIA) investment in Air India, he warned that if corporate boards become overly cautious to avoid politicisation, it will compromise investment returns in the long run and ultimately disadvantage Singaporeans.

The news of Air India seeking US$1.5 billion in fresh equity from its shareholders, after posting a record loss of US$2 billion (S$2.5 billion) in the last financial year, sparked a recent wave of racist comments online in Singapore.

SIA has a 25.1 per cent stake in the Indian airline, through its previous stake in Vistara, a joint venture with Tata and Sons established in 2013. In 2022, after Tata acquired Air India from the Indian government, SIA and Tata formally agreed to merge Vistara into Air India.

Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, said 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,” he said.

He also cited a social media post by Workers’ Party MP Kenneth Tiong, in which the Aljunied GRC MP had said that he had filed a question on the issue for the Sep 8 sitting of Parliament.

In his Facebook post, Tiong had said that given SIA is a Temasek portfolio company, the investment “is not only a question for private shareholders”.

He said that “whichever of the two writes the cheque, it will have a significant impact on Temasek”, and added that he would not support any future use of Temasek’s funds to prop up Air India.

“No one, least of all Singaporeans, owes Air India a living,” he said in his post.

Referring to this, Shanmugam said the actual shareholder in Air India is SIA and not Temasek, and any decision to invest in Air India lies with SIA.

As a listed company, SIA should be left to make decisions on its investments based on its professional judgement and its resources, noting that SIA had declared more than $10 billion in cash reserves and over $3 billion in undrawn credit.

He added that Temasek, as a shareholder in SIA, will expect SIA to make its investment decisions responsibly.

While the late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had questioned SIA investing in Air India back in 2000 or 2001, this had been 25 years ago under vastly different circumstances, he said.

Lee had also caveated his comments by saying that it was “none of his business”, as the commercial decision was for SIA to make, added Shanmugam.

Temasek and SIA are entitled to make their own assessments today and make their commercial judgments, he said.

He also said that Tiong was entitled to his views like any other Singaporean, and to ask questions about SIA and Temasek.

“But neither his views nor that of any minister or any other MPs should substitute for the commercial judgement of SIA’s management and board of directors,” he said.

Shanmugam emphasised that the Government maintains a strict principle of not intervening in individual investment decisions or putting political pressure on Temasek portfolio companies.

Temasek, an investment company owned by the Ministry of Finance, is accountable to the Government for its overall portfolio and overall long-term performance, but does not account to the Government for its individual investments, nor does it account for individual investment decisions of its portfolio companies, he said.

Temasek and its subsidiaries decide how to invest across a wide portfolio with investments of varied risks and varied time horizons, he added.

On the Government’s part, its 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 to make properly considered commercial decisions free from untoward pressures, he said.

He said the Government had established the discipline of not interfering so that Temasek and the portfolio companies can make the best professional investment decisions in the same way as other well-run and successful investment houses do.

“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 judgement. In the end, Singaporeans will bear the cost,” he said,noting that this has happened 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.”

If boards of companies fear they will be attacked for irrelevant reasons such as ethnicity when investment decisions go wrong, they may become overly cautious and take the safer course of action.

In the medium- to long-term, this could result in lower returns, he said.

Noting that there will be losses and gains in investments he said they should be judged overall and not be pressured on every decision “by an online mob attacking individuals”.

Describing some of the comments online, he said they had targeted the management and chief executive officer of Temasek and also Singapore Airlines in “wild”, “nasty”, ethnically charged attacks.

This included claiming that Temasek CEO Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara would favour Air India because of his Indian ethnicity, even though he was born here and is “as Singaporean as any of us”, he said.

He added that the online commentators had also ignored facts such as that India has been Temasek’s best-performing geography over the last 10 years when compared against investments in the rest of the world.

He cited several investments that Temasek portfolio companies had made in India, such as Singtel’s investment in Bharti Airtel in 2000, which has “recovered its investment many many times over”.

In late 2025, a sale of 0.8 per cent of its stake in the Indian telecommunications company had brought in about S$1.5 billion, with a net gain of S$1.1 billion, said a Singtel press release.

“Temasek portfolio companies, by investing sensibly all over the world, have been making money for Singaporeans, they are creating jobs for Singaporeans,” he said, noting that the returns from investing Singapore’s reserves contribute some 20 per cent of the Government’s annual budget and help to keep taxes low.

“For this online mob, however, the facts don’t matter. What matters is their racism and their own prejudices.”

Asked if Tiong’s post had crossed the line, Shanmugam said: “As regards Mr Tiong, and whether he was being xenophobic or racist, I think you best ask him.”

高级部长尚穆根警告说，如果企业董事会过于谨慎以避免政治化，从长远来看，这将损害投资回报。

《海峡时报》摄影：郭志雄

发布于2026年9月5日下午5:00

更新于2026年9月5日下午5:12

新加坡——新加坡高级部长兼国家安全统筹部长尚穆根9月4日表示，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。

针对最近围绕新加坡航空公司（新航）投资印度航空而出现的种族主义言论，他警告说，如果公司董事会过于谨慎以避免政治化，从长远来看，这将损害投资回报，并最终损害新加坡人的利益。

印度航空在上一财年创纪录地亏损 20 亿美元（25 亿新元）后，宣布向股东寻求 15 亿美元的新股本，这一消息在新加坡引发了最近一波网络种族主义言论。

新加坡航空通过其之前持有的维斯塔拉航空股份，持有印度航空公司25.1%的股份。维斯塔拉航空是新加坡航空与塔塔集团于2013年成立的合资企业。2022年，在塔塔集团从印度政府手中收购印度航空后，新加坡航空和塔塔集团正式同意将维斯塔拉航空并入印度航空。

尚穆根同时也是内政部长，他表示，新加坡航空公司的股东以及广大公众有权期望新加坡航空公司能够做到问责和透明。

他说：“人们有权期望在资金投入之前进行严格的评估，股东可以在新加坡航空公司的年度股东大会上向其管理层和董事提出问题。”

他还引用了工人党议员张建宗在社交媒体上发布的帖子，这位阿裕尼集选区议员在帖子中表示，他已就此问题向9月8日的国会会议提交了质询。

Tiong 在 Facebook 帖子中表示，鉴于新加坡航空是淡马锡的投资组合公司，这项投资“不仅仅是私人股东的问题”。

他表示，“无论两人中谁开出支票，都会对淡马锡产生重大影响”，并补充说，他不会支持淡马锡未来动用其资金来扶持印度航空。

他在帖子中写道：“没有人，尤其是新加坡人，欠印度航空一份生计。”

对此，尚穆根表示，印度航空的实际股东是新加坡航空，而不是淡马锡，任何投资印度航空的决定都由新加坡航空做出。

作为一家上市公司，新加坡航空公司应该能够根据其专业判断和资源自行决定投资事宜，值得注意的是，新加坡航空公司已申报拥有超过 100 亿美元的现金储备和超过 30 亿美元的未提取信贷额度。

他还补充说，淡马锡作为新加坡航空公司的股东，希望新加坡航空公司能够负责任地做出投资决策。

他说，虽然已故的建国总理李光耀曾在2000年或2001年质疑新加坡航空投资印度航空，但那已经是25年前的事了，而且当时的情况与现在大不相同。

尚穆根补充说，李还补充说，这“与他无关”，因为商业决定应由新加坡航空公司做出。

他表示，淡马锡和新加坡航空有权在今天进行自己的评估并做出商业判断。

他还表示，像其他新加坡人一样，张先生有权表达自己的观点，并有权询问有关新加坡航空公司和淡马锡的问题。

“但他的观点，以及任何部长或其他议员的观点，都不能取代新加坡航空公司管理层和董事会的商业判断，”他说。

尚穆根强调，政府坚持严格不干预个别投资决策或对淡马锡投资组合公司施加政治压力的原则。

他表示，淡马锡是财政部旗下的投资公司，它对政府的整体投资组合和长期业绩负责，但无需对政府负责其个别投资，也无需对其投资组合公司的个别投资决策负责。

他补充说，淡马锡及其子公司决定如何投资于风险各异、投资期限不同的广泛投资组合。

他说，政府的职责是确保淡马锡的专业管理，然后为淡马锡及其投资组合公司的专业管理人员提供政治支持和信心，使他们能够做出经过深思熟虑的商业决策，免受不当压力的影响。

他表示，政府已确立不干预的原则，以便淡马锡及其投资组合公司能够像其他管理良好、成功的投资机构一样，做出最佳的专业投资决策。

“一旦政府或政治人物开始干预个人投资决策，商业纪律就会受到损害。决策将政治化，受政治考量而非商业判断左右。最终，新加坡人将承担后果，”他说道，并指出这种情况在其他国家也曾发生过。

“淡马锡投资组合公司不应因为担心政治或政府批评者出于政治动机的言论而做出投资决定，也不应害怕做出投资决定。”

如果公司董事会担心投资决策出错时会因种族等无关原因受到攻击，他们可能会变得过于谨慎，采取更稳妥的行动方案。

他表示，从中长期来看，这可能会导致收益降低。

他指出投资会有亏损和收益，并表示应该从整体上进行判断，而不应该因为“网络暴民攻击个人”而受到每项决定的压力。

他描述了网上的一些评论，称这些评论针对淡马锡的管理层和首席执行官以及新加坡航空公司进行了“疯狂的”、“恶毒的”、带有种族歧视色彩的攻击。

这其中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，尽管他出生在这里，而且“和我们任何人一样都是新加坡人”，他说。

他还补充说，网络评论员也忽略了一些事实，例如，与淡马锡在全球其他地区的投资相比，印度在过去 10 年中一直是淡马锡表现最好的地区。

他列举了淡马锡投资组合公司在印度的几项投资，例如新加坡电信在 2000 年对 Bharti Airtel 的投资，“该投资已获得数倍回报”。

新加坡电信在一份新闻稿中表示，2025 年底，该公司出售了其在印度电信公司 0.8% 的股份，获得了约 15 亿新元，净收益为 11 亿新元。

“淡马锡投资组合公司通过在全球范围内进行明智的投资，一直在为新加坡人赚钱，为新加坡人创造就业机会，”他说道，并指出投资新加坡储备的回报贡献了政府年度预算的约 20%，并有助于保持低税率。

“然而，对于这群网络暴民来说，事实并不重要。重要的是他们的种族主义和偏见。”

当被问及 Tiong 的帖子是否越界时，尚穆根表示：“至于 Tiong 先生，以及他是否具有仇外或种族主义倾向，我认为你最好去问他本人。”