Singapore cannot afford to let bad actors trade on its trust

[SINGAPORE] The news of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s extramarital liaison with an alleged Chinese spy should perturb Singaporeans – if nothing else, because the woman in question reportedly entered his circles as the executive of a Singapore-registered data-centre company.

Even before the news of the affair broke, that company, Megaspeed, came to attention in late 2025 as the subject of separate probes – both in the US and Singapore – around alleged contravention of US curbs on the sale of Nvidia chips to China.

Blending adultery, espionage and international trade conflict, the ongoing scandal is another troubling instance of a Singaporean connection to cases of transnational intrigue.

Unfortunately, the Republic’s pro-business landscape, and crucially, a reputation for zero tolerance of corruption, have created a phenomenon that some dub “Singapore-washing”.

Destination: Singapore

The term, referring to the use of a Singapore base to downplay affiliations to mainland China and circumvent scrutiny from unfriendly regulators, was popularised a few years back, amid worsening trade and geopolitical tensions between Washington and Beijing.

The practice of shopping for a convenient jurisdiction in which to do business is not inherently wrong, and the vast majority of companies relocating to Singapore have been operating above board.

Still, the idea that setting up shop in Singapore lends a veneer of legitimacy to questionable corporate activities has been around for a long time.

Remember “S-chips”? In the 2010s, these Singapore-listed, China-based corporate equities picked up the stench of what The Business Times senior correspondent Jude Chan vividly recounts as “‘missing’ cash piles, phantom factories and the sudden disappearances of CEOs”.

Dodgy players were able to leverage a Singapore bourse membership to win the trust of the retail investors who ultimately ended up burnt by dubious stocks.

Nonetheless, potential Singapore-washing is not the province of companies from any single nation.

For instance, while the large agricultural plantations that have been fingered for potential culpability in episodes of regional smoke pollution are located in Malaysia and Indonesia, many of their operators are registered and headquartered in Singapore, and even listed on the Singapore Exchange.

Cleaning house

Still, even if they are calculatedly capitalising on a Singaporean association, legitimate businesses, including the family-owned plantation conglomerates with complex transnational supply chains, naturally have an incentive to comply with the law.

The waters get muddier when malicious actors – such as alleged smugglers, sanctions evaders, money launderers or even spies – are thrown into the mix.

Companies elect to set up shop in Singapore for an array of reasons, many of them valid. The ease of incorporating a business is often cited as a strong point. But bad apples, both foreign and domestic, have long taken advantage of this ease for their own nefarious ends.

The Republic must continue to strenuously guard against “reputation-laundering” efforts, especially when these activities may carry serious economic and geopolitical implications, and negatively affect legitimate companies conducting business by the book.

That efforts at Singapore-washing have persisted over the decades indicates the immense challenge of surveillance and enforcement. Still, the authorities must be both vigilant and proactive in closing loopholes and prosecuting malefactors.

English playwright and poet William Shakespeare famously wrote in Othello that “he that filches from me my good name… makes me poor indeed”.

Singapore has long traded on its reputation. Policymakers cannot tolerate any action that would tarnish the value of this vaunted and irreplaceable asset.