https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqNQeaGv/
@Babe:Glad that police are investigating nasty racist remarks that threaten our racial harmony.
@Babe:Inciting racial hatred or discord is illegal in Singapore, and authorities enforce strict penalties to protect public safety and social stability as outlined by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Legal Framework
Penal Code: Section 298A makes it a crime to promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of race or do acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. Offenders can face up to three years in prison and fines.
New Laws: Singapore introduced the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill to strengthen government powers. It adds measures like restraining orders and community remedial actions instead of just court punishments
Source:- Google Gemini AI
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqYBwycN/
Safeguard our multi racial society.
====
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqNpRUPC/
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqNpskow/
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqNswwcF/
Comments on WP Kenneth Tiong Air India post.
1. Government and politicians should not comment on commercial decisions that will be color by political considerations. It should be left to the shareholders of SIA.
2. Temasek don't make cheque to Air India - it is SIA.
J
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqYrXpcb/
None of politicians business to interfere in commercial decisions by SIA.
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqYPGMVx/
Commerical decision turn racism.
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqY9CrHU/
WP Kenneth Tiong political intervention turn into racism.
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqYbEQq6/
Kenneth Tiong has no experience in running an airline, but want to interfere into SIA commercial decisions.
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqNtjE3t/
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSqNtKvMv/
Good insight why SIA want to fund Air India.
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSq2ebteP/
WP Kenneth Tiong giving fuel to the racist followers.
====
Other comments:-
@mrlorenzomatterhorn:The racist remarks during the Nepal flood discussion were unacceptable, but the Government cannot keep pretending that the growing anger and resentment appeared out of nowhere. For years, Singaporeans have raised concerns about CECA, immigration, foreign manpower, job competition and whether citizens are truly being prioritised, only to feel that their concerns are dismissed, lectured away or conveniently branded as xenophobia. That is a serious failure of political leadership. When legitimate grievances are repeatedly brushed aside instead of confronted openly, frustration festers, trust collapses and eventually some people lash out in ugly and unacceptable ways. Racists must be responsible for their own words, but the Government must also answer for creating an environment in which public frustration has been allowed to reach boiling point. You cannot suppress a difficult debate for years and then act shocked when anger explodes. Condemning racism is easy; addressing the policies, anxieties and loss of trust feeding the anger requires political courage. On that, the Government has failed badly.
@Fakir:Notice how this argument hasn't lifted a finger to mention who actually makes up the largest group of foreign workers in Singapore? If this outcry were truly about job competition, the focus would be on Malaysians, particularly ethnic Chinese, who form the overwhelming majority of the cross-border workforce.Instead, the focus is hyper-fixated exclusively on CECA and the Indian community. Leaving out the biggest demographic piece of the puzzle shows exactly what this narrative is trying to do—it isn't a genuine concern about local jobs, but a targeted attempt to stir up resentment against one specific group. An "honest debate" cannot be claimed while deliberately hiding the most important facts. And yes the government has failed for not highlighting the actual data of who has been stealing your lunch.
@mrlorenzomatterhorn:This is an embarrassingly crude rebuttal that confuses raw headcount with economic impact. Nobody needs a calculator to know there are huge numbers of Malaysians and other foreigners working here; that was never the argument. The CECA controversy is specifically about competition for scarce, well-paid PMET positions, hiring practices, intra-company transfers and the perception that foreign professional networks can reproduce themselves while qualified Singaporeans struggle to break in. So shouting “but there are more Malaysians!” is about as intelligent as saying there are more cleaners than CEOs, therefore cleaners have greater influence over the corporate labour market. And dragging racism into every criticism is the ultimate intellectual escape hatch: when you cannot rebut concerns about jobs, fairness and enforcement, accuse the critics of xenophobia and hope moral outrage substitutes for evidence. Singaporeans don’t need lectures or statistical smoke screens; they deserve evidence that hiring is genuinely meritocratic and citizens are not being systematically disadvantaged. 😂😂😂😁😁😁
@Fakir:To claim this is a simple mix-up between raw headcount and high-level economic impact completely misses the mark, as the comparison to "cleaners versus CEOs" simply does not hold water [MTI]. It assumes the massive Malaysian workforce consists only of low-wage labour, when in reality, thousands of professionals crossing the causeway every day occupy highly paid, corporate PMET positions and establish vast professional networks [MTI]. Curiously, not a single finger is lifted to protest against them, nor is there any public anxiety directed at these regional groups reproducing their own corporate networks. By hyper-fixating relentlessly on the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) and the Indian minority while turning a completely blind eye to a much larger influx of corporate talent, this narrative betrays its true nature [MTI]. When an economic argument relies entirely on selective panic over one specific community, it stops being a genuine crusade for meritocracy or local jobs—it becomes a textbook case of targeted hostility disguised as economic anxiety.
@mrlorenzomatterhorn:What a wonderfully convenient argument: because Malaysians also hold PMET jobs, apparently nobody is allowed to question CECA-related hiring patterns without being branded a xenophobe. That is not serious reasoning; it is whataboutism dressed up as moral superiority. If Malaysians, Indians or any other nationality form closed hiring networks, practise discriminatory recruitment or disproportionately crowd Singaporeans out of particular sectors, scrutinise them all. The nationality is irrelevant; the principle is the same. And the irony is spectacular: Singapore’s own COMPASS framework explicitly considers nationality diversity in firms’ PMET workforces, so apparently examining workforce concentration is legitimate when MOM does it but suddenly becomes “targeted hostility” when Singaporeans ask uncomfortable questions. Stop weaponising accusations of racism to dodge the substantive issue. “But Malaysians!” is not a rebuttal to concerns about CECA or hiring practices; it is a giant flashing sign saying you cannot answer them. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Fakir:To weaponise the COMPASS framework as a defence of this narrative is a spectacular own goal, because the system explicitly invalidates the fixated grievance. If the concern were genuinely about objective policy frameworks like MOM’s COMPASS criteria—which systematically penalises any firm where a single foreign nationality exceeds 25% of the PMET workforce by awarding zero points [MOM]—the public outcry would be applied evenly across the board. Instead, while foreign employment passes require strict, age-progressive minimums like S$5,600 to S$6,200 to match top local earners [Singapore EDB], the total absence of public scrutiny directed at the massive, concentrated regional PMET demographic proves this isn't a principled stand on workforce concentration. It is textbook whataboutism used to camouflage selective hostility against the Indian minority. Conflating state-enforced, data-driven diversity regulation with targeted online vitriol doesn't make the argument intellectual—it simply confirms that policy jargon is being used as a shield to excuse a blatant double standard.
@mrlorenzomatterhorn:Why you keep repeating same thing 😂😂😂😂😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
====
Source:- Google Gemini AI
An estimated 1.13 million to 1.18 million Malaysians live and work in Singapore, while Indian nationals account for roughly 44,000 to 50,000 skilled professional Employment Pass (EP) holders.
- roughly 350,000 to 400,000+) of Malaysians in Singapore fill skilled and PMET-equivalent roles.
@Babe:Malaysians are 10 times more in PMETs jobs compare to Ceca PMETs.Debate, debate with facts - not with brute force colored by race.
@Babe:Misrepresentations of Ceca have caused unnecessary public concern: PM Lee | The Straits Times
@Babe:1. There is a need to unmask those people that make nasty racist comments in the social media.
2. Unmask those from Singapore.
3. Unmask those who are Foreigners.
4. Uncover the root cause of racial slur and nip it from the bud.
5. Singapore should not allow racial harmony to be compromised.
@Babe:We do not want to see the 1960s racial riot coming back into Singapore.
I think is time for MHA to act and unmask those people - Locals and Foreigners stirring up racial disharmony in Singapore.
@Babe:Taken aback to see those nasty comments when family members are in distress worrying about the whereabout of their loved ones.
The comments are not only insensitive and inappropriate, it is down right cruel and devoid of compassion - cannot imagine those words come from fellow human beings mouth when peer beings are in danger and in distress.
====
Exact comments by WP Kenneth Tiong on SIA investment in Air India.
- On Temasek and SIA: "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."
- On Financial Impact: "Whichever of the two writes the cheque, it will have a significant impact on Temasek."
- On the Airline: "No one, least of all Singaporeans, owes Air India a living."
@Babe: Kenneth Tiong is not asking a legitimate question about SIA investment in Air India.
He is directly interfering into the commercial decisions by SIA even though he has no experience in airline business.
Temasek and GIC investment in India and the rest of the world are making very good profit.
Source:- Google Gemini AI
@Babe:Temasek's investments in India have been highly profitable, ranking as the Singapore state investor's best-performing market globally over the past decade.
Portfolio and PerformanceTop Market: India is Temasek's top-performing geographic market on a 10-year basis.
Portfolio Size: India accounts for about 7% of Temasek's global portfolio, representing an exposure of roughly US$40 billion.
Recent Success: Temasek recently experienced a strong market streak as several portfolio holdings, including Shiprocket, surged following their market debuts.
Capital Deployment: The firm deployed nearly US$9 billion in India over a three-year period and plans to invest up to US$10 billion more.
====
@Babe:Kenneth Tiong has no strategic depth in many of the issues he raised in Parliament and outside of Parliament - but spark many serious issues.
WP Kenneth Tiong asked to do his homework about SIA investment in Air India.
PM Lawrence Wong - Legitimate question versus mask prejudice.
@Babe:If we allowed such racist sentiment go unchallenged and not stop at its track, Singapore could go down the path of racial disharmony and our many decades of peace since independence will be shattered.
Hence there is a need to unmask :-
1. Locals that fan the racist sentiment.
2. Foreigners that fan racist sentiment, and activate diplomatic channels to catch those culprits.
We must never let this racists destroy Singapore peace and prosperity.
====
@pokefriend17:Let Singaporeans have a referendum see how many percent vote affirmatively to increase Air India investment using SIA or SG funds, SIR !
@Ommit1202:So for every commercial decision, we need a referendum? So free ah?
@Babe:Commerical decision should not be left to people referendum.
You are abusing the political process.
====
There must be consequences for those anonymous hateful racist remarks.
====
SM Shanmugam very detail explanation if SIA investment in Air India.
====
SM Lee - troubling to see racial hatred speeches following Nepal disaster.
@Babe:Singapore Airlines (SIA) invested in Air India to gain direct access to India's massive domestic aviation market and expand its multi-hub strategy.
The Rationale for Investment
No Domestic Market: Singapore is a small city-state with no domestic flights. SIA needs foreign markets to grow.
Huge Growth in India: India is the world's third-largest aviation market with over 1.4 billion people.
Multi-Hub Strategy: SIA uses Air India to capture domestic and international traffic within India, complementing its main hub at Changi Airport.
Vistara Merger: Following the merger of Vistara into Air India in November 2024, SIA holds a 25.1% stake in the enlarged carrier, while Tata Sons owns 74.9%.
Current Challenges
Heavy Losses: Air India has faced severe financial losses, prompting discussions and scrutiny over capital injections.
Long-Term View: Despite financial strain, SIA and backer Temasek remain committed to the turnaround, viewing it as a long-term strategic game.
Read more on CNA Explains regarding why SIA stays invested, or see Ho Ching on Air India investment for additional market context.
====
Temasek and GIC profitable investment in India.
====
@Babe:
1. Risk assessors should be a professional roles in which they have experienced in the airline business.
2. Does Kenneth Tiong have experience in airline business to perform the risk assessment for airline business?
3. Using Parliament, the political outfit to perform the risk assessment role - in which the airline investments have to undergo rigorous airline business assessment - is a wrong outfit and will give undue pressure to SIA to arrive at a wrong conclusion.
4. Hence Kenneth Tiong suggestion is wrong at all count - to make Parliament to become the risk assessor for a purely commercial decision in airline business in which Parliament may not have the expertise.
@Babe:There are so many considerations and merits that Kenneth Tiong has no experience in airline business such as:-
1. Market potential
2. Air connectivity
3. Hub-to-Hub connectivity
4. Large domestic market
5. Access to all cities that will not be accessible to foreign airlines and landing rights.
6. Code sharing
etc.
And Kenneth Tiong purely look at the $ and cents and jump to the conclusion that SIA is floundering taxpayers money and stir emotion through social media - putting political clouts to bear on SIA and Temasek.
@Babe:1. Previously, Singtel do invest in Thailand in a couple of telecom business and companies which are deem risky and political problematic.
2. Likewise Singtel also have problematic investment in Australia Optus.
3. Some of our GIC also have initial problematic investment in China Suzhou, Indonesia, Malaysia, Africa etc.
We have no choice because our market is too small and need to access and invest in big overseas market to grow our business and accumulate our wealth.
4. It is through our GLCs foresight that have turn risky and problematic overseas business and companies into a profitable ones in the long haul.
Where there is risk, there is opportunities for us to invest in overseas market (else which countries will want you to come in and eat into their pie?
It is thus the GLCs foresight and commercial decisions that can turn a risky business into opportunities.
5. Else many of our GLCs will not grow to such a scale without overseas penetration that contribute heftily to Temasek funds.
6. If Parliament and politicians without the relevant expertise are to interfere in these GLCs overseas investment - almost all foreign investment is a no go.
7. Our GLCs and Temasek will be much poorer if we do this.
Kenneth Tiong without foresight is now directly interfering into GLCs investment without the relevant expertise in airline business - and using social media to stir up emotion.
I think Parliament should deliver the right discourse to Kenneth Tiong what is good for Singapore and what is harmful to Singapore.
@Babe:1. Basically Kenneth Tiong lack strategic depth, look at things superficially and jump into conclusion quickly.
2. He is good at stirring emotion using his superficial knowledge that appeal to voters but lack depth.
3. The conclusion he arrives at will always make Singapore worst off in the long term.
@Babe:Kenneth Tiong is not asking legitimate question as a responsible MP in the Parliament.
Instead he uses social media to whip up negative emotion and sentiment.
The words he used that are designed to stir emotion and sentiment among Singaporeans:-
"Singaporeans do not owe Air India a living".
The Racial Backlash: Following his post and concurrent discussions surrounding a disaster in Nepal, various online forums saw a rise in nasty, xenophobic, and anti-Indian comments targeting the Indian community and the leadership of Temasek. (Source:- Google Gemini AI).
He directly interferes in SIA commercial decisions through social media even though he has no airline expertise using his political clouts and public pressure as MP whipping up negative sentiment among the public but not asking legitimate questions about risk assessment in Parliament .
The words he used are:-
"He would not support using state-linked funds to "prop up" Air India".
Kenneth Tiong appear conceited and unprofessional during Parliament.
@Babe:1. If Kenneth Tiong raise his concern about risk assessment of Air India investment by SIA in the Parliament file as a question minus all his emotive invoke statement in the social media as a responsible MP, it will not have subsequently trigger public backlash and result in hate speeches and insult against the Indian community (in which he knew that hate speech against Indians on Nepal disaster and association with Ceca is already happening in the background).
2. His actions in social media outside of Parliament had further add salt to the wound.
====
@Andrew KEK:Opinion:- I would like to understand the distinction between SIA and NTUC Income.
SIA is a listed commercial company, yet many of its directors and senior leaders have backgrounds in the public service or government-linked organisations. If the Government says it does not control SIA simply because of these connections, then why is NTUC Income treated differently?
Income Insurance is now a public company and is controlled by NTUC Enterprise. If it is considered a private commercial company, why was the Government able to intervene and prevent the proposed Allianz sale?
My question is not whether the Government should protect the social mission of Income. My question is about consistency and corporate independence:
If government-linked individuals serving on a company’s board do not mean the Government controls SIA, then what makes Income Insurance different? And if the Government has the authority to intervene in Income’s ownership because of its history and social mission, shouldn’t this distinction be clearly explained to the public?
I think Singaporeans deserve a clear explanation of where the line is between government influence, shareholder control and regulatory authority.
@Babe:The Singapore government blocked the proposed sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance to German insurer Allianz is due to a massive S$2 billion surplus exemption and the structure of the transaction.
The issue involves public funds and cooperative assets, rather than typical corporate grants. The government blocked the transaction through urgent amendments to the Insurance Act.
@Babe:Other than this caveat, government cannot intervene in a commerical transaction.
====
Babe: "SIA's ability to serve Singaporeans not affected by Air India investment: Jeffrey Siow to WP's Kenneth Tiong.
The Workers' Party MP asked if the government would rule out direct support through Temasek if "Air India goes wrong", but Mr Siow said Air India’s losses do not automatically become SIA’s liabilities."
Singapore Airlines says India investments have been and will remain internally funded.
Air India’s transformation is a “complex, multi-year programme and is not expected to be linear”, SIA says.
Source :- CNA
COMPLEX, MULTI-YEAR PROGRAMME"
SIA said on Tuesday that Air India's transformation is a "complex, multi-year programme" that is "not expected to be linear".
Challenges cited include the prolonged closure of Pakistani airspace to Indian carriers, the Air India crash last year that killed 260 people, the rupee's depreciation against the US dollar, supply chain disruptions, the loss of a key market due to the Middle East conflict and sustained high fuel prices.
“At the same time, Air India has made tangible progress across customer experience and operational performance,” said the spokesperson.
SIA noted that Air India's net promoter score, which reflects how likely customers are to recommend a brand, has increased by more than 70 points since November 2022.
In May, the carrier received a four-star airline rating from review site Skytrax, while Air India Express was certified as a four-star low-cost airline, “on par with leading international carriers”.
“SIA and Tata Sons have both publicly acknowledged that there is still much work to be done,” said the spokesperson. “Both remain committed to supporting Air India’s long-term transformation programme.”
The spokesperson said Air India has a strong presence in both the full-service and low-fare segments, and in domestic and international markets, with access to "valuable slots and air traffic rights at key domestic and international airports" that were not available to Vistara.
“Today, the SIA Group is the only non-Indian airline group with a direct stake in this important and fast-growing market,” said the spokesperson, adding that the investment has deepened commercial cooperation between the two carriers and strengthened Singapore and India's complementary roles as aviation hubs.
This has also given Singapore “greater access to India’s vast and fast-growing aviation market, while connecting India more extensively through Singapore to Changi Airport’s global network”.
====
Minister reply to Kenneth Tiong interference into SIA investment.
@Draggo StealHeart:LMAO, the WP wayang is unreal 🤡🎭 ignorant never mind but dun be smart Alec…….First that WP clown Tiong lights the racial/xenophobic fire, sit back and enjoy the outrage 🔥, then suddenly play innocent and “distance” himself from the ugly ones once the message has landed. 🙄😂
Obtuse Tiong really thought nobody would notice the playbook. Stir the pot, get the reaction, then pretend to be the peacemaker. 🤡👏 What a performance. 🎭
====
@Babe:-
1. Racial slur against the Indian descent in Nepal disaster and Air India investment - has very serious consequences to our Society.
2. It can cause tension among Singapore multi-racial communities.
3. Reminiscing the 1960s racial tension and racial riots, pitting one community against other communities lead to racial riot, communities arming themselves with parang, iron rods and weapons to hack one another on the street - it is a living hell and everyone live in fear.
4. Singapore must not allow such events happen ever again - whereby Singaporeans live in fear and everytime walking on a street have to look behind our shoulders in case people carry weapons or parangs to hack us.
5. So we must never allow the racial hatred that fester online in social media to manifest into real life.
6. Those racial hatred comments must be relentlessly unmask to reveal those anonymous writers be it :-
a. Foreigners attempting to exploit racial divides.
b. Locals who resented the CECA arrangement - blown up by PSP
To drive larger racial hatred which could later run out of control like in the 1960s racial riot
7. Authority should leave no stone unturned to unmask the online anonymous writers and prosecute under the Racial harmony law design to prevent racial hatred - be it locals or foreigners.
If foreigners are involved, diplomatic channels should be used if possible to nab these foreigners who are trying to drive wedge in our society that could lead to bloodshed - but they escape with no consequences.
Locals who stir racial tensions online should be duly prosecuted via the Racial Harmony Law to drive the message - 杀一儆百。（Punish the small group of instigators to warn the larger mass).
@Babe:Singapore passed the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act on February 4, 2025, to consolidate legal powers and protect the country's multi-racial social cohesion.
Everyone know this law exist - but online anonymous elements be it Locals and Foreigners choose to exploit racial slur to cause tension within our Community.
There is no excuse to be lenient.
====
