A new book examining the leadership and legacy of SM Lee Hsien Loong through his tenure as prime minister from 2004 to 2024 was launched on Sep. 8.

Lee Hsien Loong and Singapore details the profound changes the nation underwent during this time, including through global crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

Divided into four distinct sections, namely economic and finance policy, foreign policy, social policy and politics and society, the book is published by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and edited by its senior research fellow Gillian Koh, former Straits Times opinion editor Chua Mui Hoong, and Nominated Member of Parliament Terence Ho.

The collection of essays was written by contributors ranging from policy experts, diplomats and journalists.

Among them were retired diplomat Tommy Koh, former Singapore Permanent Secretary to the United Nations Bilahari Kausikan and climate action ambassador Ravi Menon.

A time of major change

In her opening speech, Chua called SM Lee's tenure as PM "a time of major change and global crisis".

"Mr Lee led a government consisting of political holders and experienced civil servants who had to anticipate and deal with the disruptions in geopolitics and global economic forces, as well as manage social change and respond to rising political diversity and aspirations amongst Singaporeans."

The book delves into Singapore's stances amidst the global financial crisis and Covid-19 pandemic, among others.

His term saw a reassessment of existing policies to ensure the nation adapted to ongoing changes, all while upholding strategic interests to maintain sovereignty and the principles in keeping to a meritocratic and socially cohesive society, Chua added.

Other contributors similarly described this period.

When asked for a one-word description of SM Lee, Centennial Asia chief executive officer Manu Bhaskaran said "transformative".

Paulin Straughan, a professor of sociology at the Singapore Management University (SMU) said "compassion", adding that the Pioneer Generation Package, launched in 2014, is "probably one of the best social policies in the world".

She attributed the "very strong safety net" that then-PM Lee created to what she found to be a very high life satisfaction rates among Singapore’s pioneer generation, even as they struggled with chronic illnesses and low life savings.

No regrets

Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Chan Heng Chee, who was one of the panellists during the book launch, responded to a question if SM Lee may have regretted not pursuing a career as a mathematician instead, given than he was said to be "the most brilliant math student" his tutor at Cambridge University had ever taught.

"He said, 'I dont think I would have been all that good or all that reliable'," she cited SM Lee as having once admitted.

"It would be just his thing to say, no [regrets]. There’s no room for regret when you are a politician."

Lee Hsien Loong and Singapore is available for purchase at Kinokuniya, Popular, and major bookstores across Singapore.

Cinnabon will be closing its last Singapore outlet at ION Orchard on Sep. 22, 2026.

The American bakery chain known for its baked cinnamon rolls with cream cheese frosting topping said on Instagram that the closure marks the end of its “chapter in Singapore”.

“Until then, the ovens are still warm and the Bons are still baking,” the caption read.

Cinnabon opened its first outlet in Singapore in February 2023 at Raffles City Shopping Centre.

In September 2023, it opened its second outlet at ION Orchard.

In June 2024, it opened its third outlet at Jewel Changi Airport.

Its other two outlets closed in 2026.

The chain has appeared in pop culture, including the critically acclaimed television drama series “Better Call Saul”.

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cinnabon Singapore (@cinnabon.sg)

On Sep. 6, German politics experienced what its Chancellor called a “tectonic shift” as the AfD, or Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany), won elections in the German federal state of Saxony-Anhalt.

The AfD has been labelled right-wing, far right, populist, and even fascist in some quarters, and has been steadily gaining in popularity over the past decade.

So what happened, who are the AfD, and what does their election mean for Germany and beyond?

Landtag

Germany is a federal republic, which means it consists of several states which individually hold significant authority over how they are governed, with each having its own parliament.

On Sep. 6, the parliament of Saxony-Anhalt, also called the Landtag, held fresh elections which saw the right-wing AfD party win 43.8 per cent of the vote.

The party won 39 seats, three seats short of an outright majority in the 83-seat body, as reported by the BBC.

The incumbent state governing party, the centre-right Christian Democratic Union, which is also the party of Germany’s current Chancellor (PM) Friedrich Merz, was reduced to 17.2 per cent.

All other parties, including the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, and the Der Linke (The Left), all received under 10 per cent of the vote.

Possible alliance

But perhaps the most important of these parties is now the BSW, a left-wing populist party.

While nominally on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, both parties share populist ideals, with significant overlap in policy goals.

BSW received the minimum percentage of votes to be represented in the Landtag, five per cent, and their five seats could tip AfD over the edge into the majority.

If that were to happen, or if AfD were able to find another coalition partner, they would be the first right-wing party to hold state government in Germany since the end of the Second World War.

Who is the AfD?

So this begs the question: who is the AfD, and what does their election mean?

Germany has a tumultuous history when it comes to right-wing parties, in light of its Nazi government during the 1930's and 40's, famously igniting the Second World War while prosecuting a murderous regime against Germany's minorities.

Because of this, post-war Germany has traditionally banned or otherwise limited far-right parties from political participation, leading to a significant dispute about whether the party is far-right or not, but some facts are not disputed.

The party was founded in 2013 and has grown by leaps and bounds, being represented in the state governments of almost all German states, and is the second-largest German party in the European Union parliament.

It was founded in opposition to eurozone bailouts of Greece, but came to take on more anti-immigration positions in the wake of then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to admit Syrian refugees fleeing from violence in their home country.

But there are also significant differences between how the party is portrayed and how it speaks of itself.

Who people say the AfD is:

Outside of the AfD and other right-wing parties, the AfD has been classified as an extremist-right group, designated as such by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, as reported by the BBC, which labelled it xenophobic, anti-minority, and Islamophobic.

The AfD has been accused of collusion with foreign far-right movements, whether it be working with associates of the Russian government, meeting U.S. Vice-President JD Vance, or receiving congratulations from former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban.

But the most persistent and most worrying accusation is that the AfD houses elements of Germany’s neo-Nazi movement.

While the AfD’s leaders have been careful not to be tainted by the association with neo-Nazi groups, rally attendees have been seen sporting neo-Nazi clothing, and some of their political slogans appear to reference Nazi-era political slogans.

So, despite their purported support for the State of Israel, there are concerns that it is masking a well of anti-Semitic sentiment.

The AfD is also accused of severe Islamophobia, with reports dating back to 2016 showing AfD candidates saying the religion was not welcome in Germany.

What the AfD says it is:

These accusations are dismissed by AfD’s leaders.

The party’s leader, Weidel, points to herself as a rebuttal to many of the accusations of being intolerant.

Weidel leads a party that believes in conservative conceptions of family, but is openly in a long-term relationship with a woman of Sri Lankan origin, and they have two children.

AfD supporters want a more nationalist approach to the economy, but Weidel worked for several multinational corporations (she even spent some time in Singapore and speaks fluent Mandarin, the Guardian reports).

Instead, AfD has simply classified itself as being conservative, or libertarian.

Interviews with supporters by the BBC are anecdotal, but paint a picture of voters frustrated by the inability of traditional parties to improve their lives.

Saxony-Anhalt is perhaps an unsurprising venue for this ‘revolution’, it is hardly a secret that former East German regions have had trouble adapting to a post-Cold War world, its economies benefiting less and suffering more from a globalised economy.

In this vein, the AfD is seen as a vehicle for radical change, change that many seem to feel Germany desperately needs.

Firewall

The victory in Saxony-Anhalt is an important stepping stone for the AfD.

A BBC report quoted an AfD politician as saying that regional government was a chance for the party to show that it was a viable party and would be key to gaining power at a national level.

Until now, the party has been kept from government by other mainstream parties practising what they call the “firewall” strategy, refusing to cooperate with the AfD under any circumstances.

But now the AfD might have won a large enough victory that the firewall cannot contain them.

Germany’s Chancellor Merz and his CDU party are severely impacted by this development, with the AfD winning over many of their traditional supporters.

It sets the stage for an uncertain global environment, and Germany’s government will have to rapidly tend to domestic concerns.

Five persons, aged between 29 and 66, have been identified and interviewed by the police in connection to online comments about the Nepal floods and Singapore Airlines' investment in Air India, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) said in response to media queries.

Following the floods in Nepal, comments questioning the nationality of the nine missing Singaporeans surfaced online.

Online reactions to Singapore Airlines' investment in Air India also carried racist tones, with Senior Minister K Shanmugam describing the comments as "anti-Indian racist ranting".

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong later called on Singaporeans to reject such views.

SM Shanmugam said at a doorstop on Sep. 5 that he had asked the police to look into these online comments.

SPF said they will continue to investigate and identify those responsible for them.

"The police take a serious view of conduct that may wound racial feelings or incite hostility and ill will between different racial groups," SPF said.

The police also said that they are unable to comment further on the specifics of individual cases as investigations are ongoing.

Does having more portfolios mean getting paid more?

Does a minister also get the Member of Parliament (MP) allowance too?

If you have such questions in mind, here's the answer.

The current practice is to pay all political appointment holders one salary package, even if they hold two or more appointments or portfolio.

The government has also accepted the 2026 Salary Review Committee's recommendation to retain this practice.

"The principle is simple – one person, one salary. Holding more portfolios does not mean receiving more pay," Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing said in his ministerial statement in parliament on Sep. 8.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Chan both gave ministerial statements on the adjustment to political appointment holders' salaries.

This is the first adjustment in 15 years.

The political appointment holders' salaries have to be adjusted so that monetary remuneration will not be a deterrence for talent, from both private and public sectors, to enter political service.

Read PM Lawrence Wong's full ministerial statement here:

Six women, aged 22 to 36, will be charged in court on Sep. 9, 2026 under the Public Order Act.

They were allegedly involved in various incidents at prohibited areas or participated in public assemblies and processions without a permit, and other related offences.

Procession at Istana on Feb. 2, 2024

A 33-year-old woman and a 36-year-old woman will each be charged with one count of participating in a procession without a permit in a prohibited area.

On Feb. 2, 2024, both women participated in a procession without a permit, along the perimeter of the Istana.

The group had assembled along Orchard Road and walked towards the Istana, carrying umbrellas imprinted with watermelon images, a symbol of Palestinian resistance and solidarity, to showcase their support for the Palestinian cause.

The Istana is a security-sensitive area and is designated as a prohibited area.

The police noted that three women, the organisers of the procession, were earlier convicted and fined S$3,000 each in April 2026.

Both the women are also involved in a separate mass kite-flying event at Marina Barrage, the police noted.

The two women will each be charged with one additional count of organising a public assembly without a permit for the separate incident.

Additionally, the 33-year-old woman was issued a stern warning on Sep. 2, 2026 for her involvement in a banner that was hung in support of a cause at Gardens by the Bay on Apr. 15, 2024.

Event outside State Courts on Feb. 2, 2024

A 24-year-old woman will be charged with one count of knowingly committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different racial groups, in relation to a chant she had made during an event that was livestreamed publicly on Feb. 2, 2024.

She was leading the chanting of the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, which supports the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel.

She will also be charged with two additional counts under the Public Order Act arising from further incidents in Novena and the National University of Singapore (NUS).

This is on top of four counts under the same Act and two counts of refusing to answer a public servant authorised to question, arising from her participation in candlelight vigils on Nov. 22 and 29, 2024, and Jan. 23, 2025, to mark the executions of three convicted drug traffickers on death row, as well as a protest outside the State Courts on Feb. 3, 2025.

The State Courts is a prohibited area.

The 24-year-old woman had previously been issued a 12-month conditional warning on Nov. 30, 2021 for participating in a public assembly without a permit and contravening a "Move-on" direction by the police.

This was in relation to a protest held outside the Ministry of Education Headquarters on Jan. 26, 2021.

Public procession from Novena MRT to the Ministry of Home Affairs on Jun. 7, 2024

The 24-year-old woman charged for her role in leading a chant and a 22-year-old woman will each be charged with one count of participating in a public procession without a permit, for moving from the Novena MRT vicinity to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) located at New Phoenix Park for a letter delivery on Jun. 7, 2024.

The group also issued a statement stating that they had walked towards MHA, with many of them wearing shirts that said, “There Are No Universities Left in Gaza”.

Public assembly without a permit on Oct. 27, 2024 at Marina Barrage

The 33-year-old woman and a 36-year-old woman charged with participating in a procession without a permit at the Istana, together with a 32-year-old woman and a second 33-year-old woman, will each be charged with one count of organising a public assembly without a permit.

The four women had each played a role in organising a mass kite-flying event held at Marina Barrage on Oct. 27, 2024, to publicise a cause in relation to the Gaza conflict.

The 32-year-old woman will additionally be charged with one count of using abusive behaviour to a public servant.

Additionally, the second 33-year-old women has been issued a stern warning on Sep. 3, 2026 for her involvement in an incident where a banner was hung at Gardens by the Bay on Apr. 15, 2024.

Public assembly without a permit on Jan. 13, 2025 for staged memorial at NUS

The 24-year-old woman will be additionally charged with one count of organising a public assembly without a permit.

The woman was believed to have organised a public assembly without a permit in front of a building within NUS on Jan. 13, 2025.

The group gathered multiple individuals to place shoes and a white burial shroud at the location to demonstrate opposition to the ties between educational institutions in Singapore and Israel.

Mothership understands that two of the six women are sisters.

They had previously confronted Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, at his Meet-the-People Session on Mar. 12, 2025.

Police advisory

The police said in the news release that public assemblies in Singapore are regulated under the Public Order Act.

Organising or participating in a public assembly without a police permit constitutes an offence, they said.

"The police will not grant any permit for assemblies that advocate political causes of other countries or foreign entities, or may have the potential to stir emotions and lead to public order incidents," they said.

"The peace and harmony between different races and religions in Singapore should not be taken for granted, and we must not let events happening externally affect the communal harmony."

Penalties

For organising a public procession without a permit in a prohibited area, those found guilty can be fined up to S$10,000, jailed up to six months, or both.

For participating in a procession without a permit in a prohibited area and organising or participating in a public assembly without a permit, those found guilty can be fined up to S$5,000.

For knowingly committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of racial harmony, those found guilty can be jailed up to three years, fined, or both.

For using abusive behaviour towards a public servant, those found guilty can be fined up to S$5,000.

In a written reply to Workers' Party MP Gerald Giam, Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that the government is open to considering measures including chemical castrations, if it is clear that such measures are effective in bringing down crime rates.

However, Shanmugam noted that thus far, the evidence is not conclusive on the effectiveness.

He was responding to Giam's question on whether statutory penalties for major sexual offences against children and young persons, such as rape, penetrative sexual assault, and outrage of modesty, will be reviewed in view of recent increases in reported cases.

Giam had also asked whether pharmacological anti-androgen treatments (also known as chemical castration) and a sex offender register as additional measures to increase deterrence and reduce recidivism have been considered.

Shanmugam said that the government takes a serious view of sexual crimes and imposes stiff penalties, in particular when the victims are minors.

He outlined the current punishments in place.

Rape, or penetrative sexual assault, involving a minor under the age of 14 without consent, is punishable with a mandatory imprisonment term of not less than eight years and up to 20 years, with a minimum of 12 strokes of the cane.

Outrage of modesty against a minor under the age of 14 is punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, fine, and caning.

If the minor was hurt or restrained during the commission of the offence, there will be a mandatory minimum imprisonment term of three years, which may extend up to 10 years, and mandatory caning.

He noted that these are heavy penalties, which send a strong signal to deter such offences.

Shanmugam added that several legislative amendments have been introduced over the years, including increasing the maximum imprisonment term for outrage of modesty in 2021, and more recently, commencing the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection on Jul. 31.

The SEPP deals with offenders who have committed serious violent or sexual offences, including rape and sexual penetration of minors, and who pose a substantial risk of reoffending.

Under the SEPP regime, an offender will be detained for a minimum of between five and 20 years, as determined by the court.

An updated risk assessment will be conducted by a psychiatrist, and the offender will only be released if the Minister for Home Affairs assesses him or her to no longer pose a threat to the public.

To Giam's point, Shanmugam said they remain open to considering other measures, including chemical castration, if it is clear that such measures are effective in bringing down crime rates.

He, however, noted that the evidence so far is not conclusive.

As for the sex offender register, Shanmugam noted that the police maintains a non-public record of persons convicted of serious offences, including sexual offences.

They share these records with selected agencies, including the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education, when screening individuals applying to roles involving sustained contact with children and young persons.

He said this balances the need to safeguard children with the rehabilitation and reintegration efforts of ex-offenders.

To further strengthen safeguards for children, the government has been considering the possible expansion of the scope of screening to cover more types of roles involving contact with children and young persons, including whether to introduce voluntary screening for unregulated sectors.

Shanmugam said they will share more details when ready.

Low Ek Yong, the private-hire vehicle (PHV) driver who died a year after being assaulted by one of his passengers, is remembered by fellow drivers as a gentle and generous man who was always ready to lend a helping hand.

Low died in June 2025 at the age of 66.

The assault

On Jun. 12, 2024, at about 10:30pm, Low had picked up his final passenger for the day.

When he arrived at the passenger's home, the man was asleep in the back seat.

Low attempted to wake him, but the passenger reportedly became unhappy, whereupon he lunged at and pushed Low.

As a result, Low fell and hit his head on the ground.

It was later confirmed that he had sustained a skull fracture.

He was taken to National University Hospital for emergency treatment, and subsequently passed away from natural causes about a year later.

On Jul. 17, 2026, the passenger, 22-year-old Oruche Morgan Fidelis, pleaded guilty to an amended charge of assault.

He was sentenced on Sep. 7, 2026, to a five-day short detention order and 100 hours of community service.

Low was a gentle, generous, and humble man

Speaking to Mothership, Kelvin Lam, a fellow PHV driver, shared that he and Low were part of a group of drivers who would meet for brunch every Wednesday.

The weekly gatherings began around 2022 or 2023, and soon became a regular tradition among the group, he said.

Lam remembered Low as a man of few words who was "gentle, soft-spoken, and mild-mannered".

He would often go out of his way to help others, Lam said, adding that Low was a "very knowledgeable man".

According to Lam, Low was semi-retired and had two children, both of whom had graduated and were doing well.

He was also a "church-going man of faith".

Low was supposed to go on a family holiday the next day

Lam said he learnt about the incident a few days after it occurred, when Low's close friend came by their usual Wednesday gathering and told him what had happened.

That night, Low had been on his final trip of the week.

He had completed enough trips to hit his weekly target of 40 rides, Lam said.

He added that that Low was supposed to leave for a family holiday the next day.

For about a year after the assault, Low remained in a coma and never woke up, and was thus unable to give the police his account of the night, Lam said.

The driver remained in that condition until his death in June 2025.

Lam added that the period was undoubtedly difficult for Low's family, but declined to elaborate on their personal circumstances.

Low was always ready to lend a helping hand

For Lam, he hopes that people will remember Low for the man he was: gentle, generous and humble.

To the drivers who gathered with him each week, Low was more than just a familiar face at the table.

Though he was quiet and often sat in one corner, he was always ready to lend a helping hand, whether by buying a struggling driver a meal or offering some advice, Lam said.

He added that he hopes regulations could eventually be reviewed to allow the use of body cameras, which he believes could provide greater protection for both PHV drivers and passengers.

While out on a joyride in town, a Singaporean man drove at 221 km/h and caused two collisions.

26-year-old Singaporean Jared-Kane Goh pleaded guilty on Sep. 8 to one count of dangerous driving.

His speed was over double the legal limit on three road stretches.

Goh will return to the courts on Sep. 14 for mitigation and sentencing.

Joyride

According to CNA, Goh was in a blue Mitsubishi Evo when he drove to the downtown area in the early hours of Oct. 27, 2024.

He was out on a joyride with five other men: Marcus Lau Yong Wei, 35; Damien Chia Hwa Chuan, 29; Gilviz Lee Jun En, 23; Sherman Quah Kok Rong, 21; and Kong Jia Quan, 23.

The group met at a Stadium Boulevard car park before embarking on the joyride, with the cars following each other at high speed.

They continued to the Pan Island Expressway and Central Expressway (CTE), before heading to Orchard Road.

2 collisions

Goh's car was captured on CCTV travelling at high speed along Stamford Road towards Fort Canning link, reported CNA.

Kong and Lee allegedly trailed close behind.

As Goh approached another vehicle, he braked to avoid a collision.

The sudden braking led to Kong rear-ending Goh's car, as Lee swerved away and mounted the grass verge.

His car ended up overturning.

As debris flew onto the road, Lau braked as well, causing the vehicle behind to rear-end his car.

This was the second collision.

After the collisions, Goh sought medical treatment, including for an acute neck sprain, a headache and an acute stress reaction.

His front passenger, a 22-year-old woman, was also injured, the court heard.

High speeds, damage done

Goh was found to have sped across seven locations from the CTE to Stamford Road.

Along the CTE towards AYE near the Balestier exit, he drove at speeds of up to 221km/h. The speed limit was 90km/h.

He also entered a lane at 89-109km/h at Stamford Road and Victoria Street, which was a 50km/h zone.

The prosecutor sought a three-and-a-half to five-month jail sentence for Goh, along with three to four years' disqualification from driving.

He added that Goh showed a "wholesale disregard for traffic rules" by speeding at nearly double the limit.

According to The Straits Times, the collisions also caused damage to roadside vegetation, a road sign, and a traffic light signal.

The total cost of repairing the damaged property was over S$2,900.

Potential for serious harm very high

Given the speeds and the injuries, the potential for serious harm to other road users was very high, the prosecution added.

According to CNA, Goh's lawyer, Foo Cheow Ming, asked for the case to be adjourned.

He apologised and said that he had prepared mitigation in response to an earlier version of the statement of facts.

Among the co-accused, all except Kong, whose case is pending, have been sentenced and received jail terms consisting of a few months each with three-year driving bans.

For dangerous driving, an individual may face up to 12 months' jail, a maximum fine of S$5,000, or both.

Minister of Transport and Second Minister for Finance Jeffrey Siow and Workers' Party MP Kenneth Tiong exchanged views in Parliament over Singapore Airlines' (SIA) investment in Air India, with Siow saying there was no reason to doubt SIA's ability to deliver air services here, and Tiong pressing for clarity on where the risk limits lie.

This comes after Tiong had posted on social media on Aug. 26, stating that he would not support nor expect any future use of Singapore's state investment company Temasek’s funds to prop up Air India via Singapore Airlines.

Tiong later clarified that his concerns were purely commercial and condemned racist comments surrounding the subject.

Parliament questions

At the Sep. 8 Parliament sitting, Tiong asked two questions on SIA.

Firstly, whether, since SIA became a designated operating entity under the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Act 2009, losses incurred from and the carrying amounts of its foreign associates had been assessed against its capacity to provide essential transport services.

Secondly, whether such losses, or a continuing pattern of losses, would engage the notification duty under Section 67B, and, if so, based on what criteria.

Siow: No adverse impact on essential services

Siow noted that Tiong's question concerned the CAAS Act, but that he had spoken publicly about the Air India investment.

He said SIA became a designated operating entity under the CAAS Act in April 2025, and that CAAS assesses its ability to operate essential services safely and reliably, including its overall financial health.

Losses in a foreign associate do not necessarily meet the threshold for reporting on their own, he said. What matters is whether they reach the point of materially constraining the resources available for SIA's fleet maintenance or network operations here.

He said: "We are nowhere close to this scenario."

He added that SIA's core business had one of its strongest years, with record revenue and a record number of passengers carried.

Singaporeans are not footing the bill

Siow rejected the suggestion that Singaporeans were footing the bill, saying SIA is a listed company that funds its investments from its own balance sheet and earnings. It currently holds more than S$10 billion in cash reserves and over S$3 billion in undrawn credit facilities.

SIA had not sought further capital from shareholders, and if it did, that would be a commercial matter between the company and its shareholders.

On the rationale, he said much of SIA's traffic is transit passengers and there is a limit to how many will fly through Singapore. Air India gives it deeper access to one of the world's largest aviation markets and a base for onward connections to Europe and the Middle East.

Four facts

Tiong responded with what he called "four facts".

Tiong said SIA is in net debt, holding S$10.5 billion in cash against S$10.7 billion in debt as of Jun. 30, and posted a net loss for the quarter.

The undrawn facilities Siow cited are loans not yet taken, he said, meaning more debt rather than more capital.

Airline turnarounds that succeed tend to show results within three years, he said, citing Japan Airlines and Qantas.

Air India's own plan in 2022 said five years, but its losses doubled last year, and its chairman now says five to 10, he noted.

IndiGo carries two-thirds of India's domestic passengers against the Air India Group's 24 per cent. Air India's hubs at Delhi and Mumbai are run by GMR Group and Adani Group, and he said India is reportedly weighing lifting the rule preventing both from owning an airline, which he said would make the landlord at each hub a competitor able to steer prime slots.

And SIA holds 25.1 per cent without control. Its own filing says future injections will be considered based on Air India's requirements, which he called "open-ended by design".

"This cannot be a blank cheque": Tiong

Tiong noted that in 2020, Temasek, whose capital forms part of the past reserves, underwrote SIA's S$8.8 billion recapitalisation, and that the House was told the government would provide more direct support if necessary.

He asked whether the government would rule out doing so again if the Air India investment goes wrong.

He also asked whether the government had satisfied itself that there is a limit on further cash from SIA to Air India, a return threshold, a maximum exposure, or a point at which it stops.

He noted SIA is a designated entity under the Transport Sector Critical Firms Act precisely so its capacity to provide essential services is safeguarded.

He said:

"This cannot be a blank cheque, least of all on a minority stake. We ask because through the reserves, Singaporeans are SIA's stakeholder of last resort, and the stakeholder of last resort needs to know where the line is."

Siow: "Air India's finances are not SIA's finances"

In response, Siow said he would clarify a "basic misconception" in Tiong's argument.

He said that SIA owns 25.1 per cent of Air India, but Air India's finances are not SIA's finances.

Likewise, Air India's losses do not automatically become SIA's liabilities, and that a capital request does not oblige SIA to provide it.

He pointed out that SIA's board has said they would consider any capital request on "commercial merits".

"That is the right approach. SIA's board and management must decide whether any investment makes commercial sense for it and its shareholders," he said.

Siow also pointed out that Tiong may have misunderstood SIA's published financial statements, explaining that most of SIA's debt is in non-current, long-term borrowing, such as five or 10-year bonds.

These generally have low interest rates, he said, adding that SIA's current liabilities within the next 12 months are under 3 billion, which is well within SIA's cash reserves of over 10 billion.

He noted Tiong had opposed putting more money into Air India without saying what SIA should do instead.

He put to Tiong whether he thinks SIA should ever have invested in Air India, and whether he would suggest pulling out the investment now.

"It's easy to criticise, but I suspect it is much harder for the member to tell us what SIA should do."

Siow on building globally competitive companies

Siow further noted that Tiong himself had claimed that Singapore hosts many large companies but builds few of them during a parliamentary debate on growing local enterprises last month.

Siow noted that building globally competitive companies means entering potentially difficult markets against people who got there first and staying the course when there is turbulence.

"We cannot have it both ways. We cannot tell our companies to go out and compete, and then treat every tough year abroad as proof that they should stay home," he said, adding that this goes the same for SIA.

On Tiong's question on how Temasek, and by extension our reserves, will be affected, Siow said the government does not judge Temasek on any single holding.

Noting that Temasek has a portfolio of over 500 billion, Siow said a portfolio of that size will always contain investments with different risks and time horizons.

"Some will look worse than others on any given day, and that's what investing is. If SIA requests capital from Temasek for any reason, Temasek will have to assess this on a commercial basis," he said.

Siow also noted that SIA has not requested any funding from Temasek apart from during Covid-19 in over 50 years of operation, adding that it was a "fundamentally different" situation.

Racist and xenophobic comments

Noting that Tiong has stated online that he strongly rejects the racist and xenophobic comments that have arisen in the public discussion on Air India, Siow said he is glad Tiong agrees with the government that "no one should seek to exploit racial divisions for political purposes".

However, Siow said the member's public rhetoric goes beyond the question that he puts before this house.

He highlighted that Tiong has posed the "narrowly framed technical query" on SIA's capacity to provide essential transport services in Parliament.

Tiong has drawn an "imaginary link between an overseas investment from SIA and its ability to maintain air services in Singapore" by asking the question in this manner, Siow argued.

He further highlighted that Tiong has asked, "What happens if this deal goes bad? Will Temasek be their backstop, and what it means, and what will this mean for Singaporeans' taxes and their quality of life?" on social media.

"He has drawn these multiple tenuous linkages, dressed them up in emotive terms, insinuated that through SIA's investments, Singaporeans somehow owe Air India a living, and suggested that SIA is not making its investment decisions on a commercial basis, but for some other reason," Siow said.

There is no basis for this, he emphasised, adding that while Tiong is free to question whether it will ultimately be a good investment, it is another thing for him to take a commercial investment risk and extrapolate that into the financial failure of a national airline.

"But it's quite another thing for a former business analyst to take a commercial investment risk, extrapolate that into the financial failure of a national airline, and from there speculate and whip up alarm about a taxpayer bailout, to insinuate improper motives that any particular investment does not provide or contribute to a healthy climate for our companies to make commercial decisions, which serve the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans."

Tiong: "Puzzled as to why it is brought into a purely commercial matter"

In response, Tiong said he categorically rejected racism and xenophobia but was puzzled as to why it had been brought into what he called a purely commercial matter.

He rejected any suggestion that questioning the issue amounted to being racist, xenophobic or imputing improper motives, and said rather that Singaporeans need to understand what the risk limits are.

On Siow's question of what Tiong thinks SIA should do instead, he suggested that the minister seems to have misunderstood his point, adding that this is something that is very common in the private sector.

Using an analogy of a financial fund, Tiong said that Parliament functions as a "risk team" for the reserves while SIA's board is the "investment team".

"I'm not going to tell SIA what to do, what strategy [it] should be. I'm saying that this is quite risky. I'm not saying that it's constituted from improper motives," he said.

"But it is very, very risky, especially because it's constituted on a 25.1 per cent minority stake, so we need to understand because it could have implications for the reserves, and it could have implications for SIA as designated operator."

He went on to highlight how complicated the India market is, before reiterating that there is a need to evaluate the investment "very, very carefully".

Siow's closing

Siow agreed that India is a complicated market and added that by law no foreign airline in India can hold a majority stake.

He said Tiong was entitled to question whether it was a good investment, but had gone much further, "leaping without evidence" from Air India's losses to SIA's ability to provide essential air services, capital calls on Temasek, and consequences for Singapore's taxes and quality of life.

He said: "Members may ask difficult questions, but the claims we make must be grounded in facts, not exaggerated speculation that creates needless public alarm."

"Singaporeans deserve public debate that examines the risks honestly, explains them responsibly, and remains anchored on truth and logic."