We’ve seen headlines about a large sum of money being “given” or “handed” to Singapore gaining many views and reposts on social media. In these headlines, the claim is that the UK has decided to channel £70 million into a clean energy initiative in Singapore – with some even describing it as giving “aid” to Singapore Government.
Responses to these claims by British social media users are dominated by outrage –slamming the apparent misuse of taxpayer monies by the current Labour Government and emphasising that Singapore is one of the “richest countries in the world.” Many posts also list alternative uses for this money – such as “hiring soldiers” or “fixing the broken NHS.”
Is there any truth to this claim?
We scanned news reports for more context and found that an announcement about £70 million being “pledged” to Singapore’s green energy push was made recently by the UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, David Lammy on 12 July during an official visit to Singapore.
A joint press release from the Monetary Authority of Singapore and British International Investment (the UK’s finance institution) released on 14 July with further describes a “partnership” between the two countries to “accelerate clean energy transition and sustainable infrastructure across Southeast Asia.”
However, rather than £70 million being directly paid to Singapore, the money being pledged is specifically to the FAST-P initiative. The Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (“FAST-P”) is a “blended finance initiative” led by Singapore that brings together public and private partners with the aim of mobilizing “up to US$5 billion” to fund green projects in Asia. In particular, the funding aims to “de-risk and finance” transition projects that might not otherwise be attractive to commercial funding and investors.
Singapore itself has pledged to match dollar-for-dollar contributions from other partners up to US$500 million. The UK is also not the first country to announce its contribution, with Australia investing US$50 million.
Therefore, while it is true that the UK has pledged £70 million to a Singapore-led green initiative, the headlines are phrased in inflammatory and misleading terms – with the heavy implication that the UK is giving “aid” to an already wealthy foreign government. This, in turn, has a high chance of leading to misinformation or misunderstandings about the facts. We give this claims a rating of somewhat true.
The way this claim is being framed by UK-based accounts critical of the Labour Government is an example of how strategic omissions of certain facts and context can stir up and inflame existing tensions.
While Singapore’s role in this claim is as a bystander, being alert to how such omissions can occur in the headlines we come across daily is key to being an active and critical consumer of news.
