In Good Company with Nicolai Tangen - Temasek CEO: Investing for the Future, Navigating Geopolitics and Building Trust

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

What drives Temasek's long-term investment philosophy? In this episode of In Good Company, Nicolai Tangen sits down in Singapore with Dilhan Pillay, CEO of Temasek, to explore the philosophy and strategy behind one of the world's most influential investment companies. Dilhan shares how Temasek—often described as Singapore's sovereign wealth fund—sees itself as an investment holding company with a long-term outlook, balancing financial returns with social impact. They discuss the firm's global investment approach, how geopolitical tensions affect strategy, and thoughts on integrating AI into workflows. Dilhan also shares insights on Singapore's governance success and his leadership philosophy built on integrity and trust. Managing $350 billion across 13 offices worldwide, Temasek demonstrates how relationship-focused investing creates lasting value. Tune in for an insightful conversation!In Good Company is hosted by Nicolai Tangen, CEO of Norges Bank Investment Management. New full episodes every Wednesday, and don't miss our Highlight episodes every Friday.  The production team for this episode includes Isabelle Karlsson and PLAN-B's Niklas Figenschau Johansen, Sebastian Langvik-Hansen and Pål Huuse. Background research was conducted by David Høysæter. Watch the episode on YouTube: Norges Bank Investment Management - YouTubeWant to learn more about the fund? The fund | Norges Bank Investment Management (nbim.no)Follow Nicolai Tangen on LinkedIn: Nicolai Tangen | LinkedInFollow NBIM on LinkedIn: Norges Bank Investment Management: Administrator for bedriftsside | LinkedInFollow NBIM on Instagram: Explore Norges Bank Investment Management on Instagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hi everybody. I'm Nicola Tangan, the CEO of the Norwegian Sorean Wealth Fund. And today I'm really delighted because I am here in Singapore with Dylan Pillay, the CEO of Temasek. And Temasek is Singapore's Soan Wealth Fund managing roughly 300 billion US dollars. Now, Dylan, he has been in charge of Temasek since 2021. And after a remarkable journey building up the leading law firm in the country, and so big thank you for taking the time. Thank you, Niklai. Pleasure to be here. Lots of things to talk about.

But let's just kick off first. I wish I've got to give you better weather. I think it's pretty good. What is Temosek? Well, I think that people define us in two different ways. I think most people will see us as a sovereign wealth fund if you're based outside of Singapore, because we're owned by the government.

But we're really an investment holding company. We own three different portfolios. We have operating companies, which together have something like about 150 billion US in revenues. We have a global portfolio of investments around the world, mostly minority investments. And we also have a business that builds asset management platforms and also invest in private refunds and alternative investment managers.

What's the main difference between you and GIC, which is the other? So GIC manages the government's reserves, and so it is really a fund manager, no different from NBIM, I would say. And so there are also multi-asset, multi-strategy. For TAMASIC, we have been set up from day one as an equities owner. So whether it is in relation to the companies that we control or whether it's in relation to our global investment portfolio, we're primarily equities. We have a very small credit portfolio, something like about two-odd percent of our portfolio value, but the rest of it's equity. And so if you look at it from that perspective, the big difference is GIC manages money and we own our assets.

And so therefore, for us, it's very important that we recycle our capital because that's how we get capital to invest. And so we have to make the trade-offs between sometimes owning it for longer or secondly, trying to recycle some of the capital into better opportunities for long-term. And if you look at the two of you combined, how important are you for Singapore? So MES, GIC and TAMASIC are part of what we call the net investment returns contribution framework, which the government put in place some years ago in order for the government to have a view of the expected returns of all three financial agencies, and that will help the government plan its own budgetary requirements, especially in terms of the operating budget, the government. So in a sense, we are very important from the perspective of having to deliver those long-term returns for the government to be able to have that funding available for its own programs.

And quite a bit of it goes towards funding the social programs of Singapore. Do they leave you alone or they interfere in your business? So from a TAMASIC perspective, they have from the first, from get-go, from the day that we were set up, left us alone. Because the government set us up because they wanted to make sure that the policy frameworks governing companies that they had set up a decade earlier would be seen from a regulatory perspective and they would leave TAMASIC to oversee the commercial operations of those businesses. And that has been the case from the very beginning.

We do not have a government nominee on our board. Our chairman was a former government minister, but he operates independently of the government. And so that is a bit unique, I would say, in terms of what people will classify as a sovereign wealth fund. Now, in countries like Norway, the government owns stakes in the businesses individually. Well, Thayer, you put it into a holding company.

What are the kind of pros and consul operating like this? Well, I think that if you own them separately, I think you have to figure out whether you get the benefit of synergies between those companies, whether the insight to get from one, you can put it across to the others as well. Take sustainability, for example. Because we have it under one umbrella,

we have something called the TAMASIP portfolio company Sustainability Council. We are a member of it as well. And we bring in the CTOs and CEOs of all our companies together with ourselves so that we can exchange ideas, get insights and so on. If we think about adaptation and resilience, some of our companies are far more ahead of the curve than even we are.

And so the learnings that we can have from that is actually quite critical for us. And having all the companies in one umbrella allows us to convene these companies and share their insights with each other. It's a bit like the function of the Wallenbergs in Sweden, I guess. It is that way. Now, we don't set up these companies

under an umbrella for us to be able to do things together. If there are opportunities to do things together, it must come bottoms up, a willingness by them to collaborate together. Or if we have a point of view, then we will sort of put it across to them. But really, the getting together of our companies

is really up to those boards. Because ultimately, we hold them accountable for their performance. What would you say is the investment philosophy? How do you think? time frame and how do you think? So the idea for us to do is to deliver sustainable, good sustainable returns over the long term. So the first thing is the long term orientation of our portfolio. And by the way, it's a necessity given that we own these operating businesses and many of which

we would continue to hold for a long time. So in that respect you have to think about things like climate change and AI because these are going to be drivers of value or they're going to help displace you in some form another. So for us, it's about delivering financial returns, but being able to deliver other outcomes associated with the kind of companies that we own and operate. From the perspective of global portfolio, there are, I would say two things that we look for. Number one is clearly financial returns. That's the first and foremost requirement. The second is insights that we get that we could then use across the portfolio in order to enhance value. And that would

include not just the Singapore-based companies, but other companies who invest around the world. So this network effect is quite important for us. So we say that we have to be a networked organization going into this decade and beyond. And when we look at a networked organization, we have an internal focus on that between ourselves and our offices around the world. But we also want to make sure our portfolio companies are networked where it makes sense as well. How do you make investment decisions? What does a structure look like? Well, much of it is devolved to the management team of TAMASIC,

and we have a certain threshold value where anything up to that level is determined only by the management team through our investment committee, which actually is technically a committee of the holding company, but devolved to management to make decisions. And beyond that level, it goes to executive committee of the board, of which I'm a member. And then beyond that, if it's very large, it goes to the board. Now, that's for investments. And so how big does it need for it to be before you get involved? It has to be over a billion dollars, US, for it to go beyond the management team.

Right. Yeah. And per transaction. And that includes if you structure in a way where the amounts may be invested over a period of time. But I would say that the most important thing is that institutional issues where it concerns a shift of the organization or shift in strategy, that has to go to the board. Because the board ultimately is responsible to the shareholder for how we operate. So, for instance, you have the geographical split of your assets. And I think it's quite cool. You have it down in the reception area.

So it's, well, actually, it's out on the street. We're very transparent. Approach your building, you can see where you have the money. How is that decision made? That's made by management and proposed to the board for the board to understand where we are headed towards in terms of portfolio construction. And that goes towards the capital allocation that we put in place year by year. That capital allocation is also shared with the board for them to endorse. So tell me about the split now, the current split, just how, what does that reflect in terms of your, I guess, geopolitical thinking?

So much of how we have constructed a portfolio over the last 20-odd years since we started to become a global investor has really been determined by the external environment. So if you look at the 2000s, really it's about the opening up of Asia following WTO, the extension of India and China in particular, and the ability of these two economies are becoming not just plugged into a global economy, but becoming leading economies for the world, which has largely happened. India a little bit later than China, obviously. And so, you know, when we looked at it, we realized that, you know, we couldn't be Singapore-centric. We had to step out, and therefore, going out to Asia first made sense since Asia is our sort of

backyard, if I can call it that. But in the 2010s, following the GFC, we recognize that you need to have a balanced portfolio and you couldn't just have an emerging market focus, which is really where we were for the previous decade outside of Singapore. And so that's when we start to invest significantly in the U.S. and Europe. So our exposure to US and Europe in 2011, before we embarked on a 2020 roadmap, was by 11% in aggregate. By the end of decade, it was 33%.

So three times, and the portfolio doubled in value. So that's a significant uplift. That meant that capital out of that. What drove that? What was the thinking behind? Well, because the one thing that the GFC thought is that actually you have to look at, first of all, macro factors and look at strength of economies. As you think about your thematic investing, you've got to go where there is capital.

the capital flows, but also where you see the best of innovation. And quite apart from what we saw in China, we thought that the U.S. would be clearly their leader in innovation. For Europe, we always felt that they had globally competitive companies that were extremely good, despite whatever people may think of in the macro of Europe. We still have that view that you can, you know, we're not a macro investor, so we're not saying avoid Europe because of the macro. But we are investing in companies. So what was driven by was this whole issue of globalization and which are the likely winners depending on the sectors that we were in

Now in the last decade when we started to really push out In actual fact, we were driven by themes You know we were looking at things like urbanization Rising middle-income populations You know the comparative advantages of companies which would be like linked to IP for example For example biotech and then we're looking at domestic champions who will go beyond Their geographies into the world Later on we looked at

trends. And trends are things like, you know, four broad trends we have digitalization, future consumption, longer lifespans, sustainable living, which embodies within it, obviously things like sustainability. And so as we looked into that, you know, you could find, you could actually determine which geographies are more likely to give you those opportunities. And so allocation capital went to some extent according to trends, geographies according to where we thought that would be flows and where we could get the alpha, and then finally intersectors. And so So, yeah. You sourced some of the increased allocation here by reducing your exposure to China.

Actually, I would not say that we reduce exposure. Exposure kept on going up, but we could monetize on China, but China is giving us true alpha and take that capital and invest in the U.S. and Europe. Do you think you can predict the future? No, no. And the reason I'm saying that, last weekend, I sat together with seven of the cleverest people I know. And we did the same a year ago and we tape record

what we thought was going to happen over the next 12 months and we talked about financial markets, geopolitics, just all the variables and we didn't predict any of the things. I think we were like 80% wrong.

I think we've taken a view who can never predict. It's incredible. Now, you can't predict. So how do you operate in that world then? That's the tricky thing for all of us. You know, I think the first thing

you have to do is to make sure that you engage. Engage broadly, globally. You can't sit in Singapore and feel that you will only get information when reading things, doing Zoom calls

or team calls and things like that. You have to go out there and meet people, meet them regularly, exchange views. They see things from a different angle,

different perspective from where they are seated and you see things from a different angle. And I think that helps the learnings for all of us. And I think that's the first thing.

The second thing, you have to be very clear-eyed about what are your objectives at the end of day. You know, financial returns and other outcomes you need to do. And you have to then

be disciplined about how you allocate a capital for those outcomes, but also how you want to build muscle in the organization for that. So one of the things that we have learned over the last, I would say, 15 years, is that investment capabilities by themselves will not be enough for you to get around the shifts that you see out there. So we've been building our geopolitical capabilities since 2017. You know, we set up office in DC in 2017, people asking us, why do you feel you need to set an office in 2017? And we felt that what was happening back then, not just U.S. China, but even with the United States,

required us to be on top of shifts that were happening there that could have global ramifications. And so we've been building that. We've been building up more portfolio strategy, risk management capabilities and tools, AI, you know, digitalization. So without talking about politics, just from your point of view, what are the main geopolitical? trends you're seeing just now, which have implications for you? Well, I think the first thing we have to bear in mind is that the impact of Liberation Day and the tariffs, I don't think anybody can predict what the real impact would be. Today, you're increasingly hearing that it's a one-time effect on inflation, perhaps,

but over time it just becomes part of cost structure and won't see accelerating inflation. That means you have to take the view that the costs involved in production will continue to be stable. So what do you think of the long-term implications of the tax? Well, so tariffs, first of all, I think that you will see, I think, some inflationary impact, but it will be different depending on countries and geographies and sectors and products and services. You cannot negate the effect of China as the leading manufacturing hub of the world, but you can then talk about resilience. So tariffs makes you re-classify or recalibate what it means to have supply chain resilience. Because before, supply chain

residents would have meant China plus one, and the plus one could be Mexico, could be Southeast Asia. Today or India, today, that question of plus one is also up in the air because of tariffs. So then the question comes about is, okay, if you want to have supply chain residents, how do you then operate in markets where you have something that gets yourself out of the realm of the highest impact of tariffs, you know, in particular, especially going to the major markets, and that's really the United States where tariffs are relevant. The second thing is you've got to think about what it means for global trade, because all of us are trading countries, you know, every one of us.

And so our lifeblood is trade and investment, and they go together. And so as you look at what's been happening with tariffs, then the question comes as to what happens not just with point-to-point trade, but intermediate trade, which is so much part of the supply chains that we've been relying on, in effect, to get a disinflationary world, you know, from a cost basis. when you look at production. And then you've got to think about where, you know, what you have to, you have to think about things like, you know,

the U.S.-China competition. How does it affect you in terms of where you invest in the U.S. and where you invests in China? And for that matter, we're investing in other countries as well. So increasingly, if you think about the world today, it's not a bipolar world. It's a multipolar world. But the definition of multipolarity depends on the person who thinks about it.

But you do have a strengthening of the block of India, Russia, China, which you didn't have before, as exemplified in the recent meeting. I don't think that would have been foreseen by the United States, up to about four weeks ago, for example. But you do have cause and effect. So when something happens, then you know that other things may well happen. You can't predict all those things, but some things you could say as a scenario, could possibly happen, which is why we believe that scenario planning is so critical for us today,

you know, to know what could possibly happen. And so if we look at the China, India, Russia meeting that happened, you know, at the SEO, clearly I think that's also a question of ensuring resilience against vulnerabilities for all of them, for each one of them. But it means different things to each one of them. It means a different thing for China, for Russia and for India. And that's sort of one example, you know. But I think that when we look at geopolitics, you also have to think about, for example, how is Europe going to react to all of this? It's sort of caught in the middle.

And how will Europe react? I mean, I'm hoping that they react in a way that focuses on growth, you know, because when you focus on growth, you're creating economic opportunity for your companies. Are you seeing signs of this? You know, I think that there is a willingness to look that way, but the actions have not yet come out at a pace that we would like. Look at the US. It's moving so quickly. Other countries are reacting. Europe seems like it's still moving at a glacial pace. It needs to up itself, you know, because we want to put more capital in Europe. But Brussels has to figure out how to be an enabler for business. And, you know, you can't be putting yourself in a situation.

where you're pressing the brake if there's nobody pressing the accelerator. Yeah. Okay. And we need a capital market union and so many other things that goes. Talking about accelerator, you briefly mentioned the themes, right, that you are looking at in the world now. Should we, can we just unpack that a bit? Yeah.

So the four themes that you're talking about. Yeah. So, you know, I think, quite frankly, I think we have to really look at our themes because a lot of things have changed. But the four teams are still relevant. You know, the issue of digitalization includes, therefore, digital data, AI. So now it's much more broader than just a generic definition of digitalization. What does AI mean for countries, for businesses, and for society?

The second thing is, of course, if we took a longer lifespan, the developed world is aging. And therefore, what does that mean in terms of sectors which are relevant? Could be health care, could be retirement savings, and therefore asset management, insurance, and like, if you look at, and that also goes to future consumption, because future consumption is different for emerging markets versus developed markets, for demographics as well. If you ask me, the India story is a story of consumption. It's not so much a story of industrialization. It's actually the effect industrialization on the Indian consumer, you know, quite part for whatever else is going on now. India has been a services sector for the longest time,

and so the benefits of that in the context of rising consumerism is high. if you think about things to do sustainable living, it used to be associated with just moving into green energy. But let's face it, today, it's energy itself. Because when you talk about energy, you know, energy, you have to talk about energy security, energy affordability. It's not just about going from brown to green. You know, you've got to go from brown to light brown to greenish,

brown to light green to green. And so for us, the question is what's the mix that's going to be relevant to get the net zero? So, for example, we started to invest in nuclear energy a few years ago. And we not just invest in nuclear fission, we also invest in nuclear fusion. We are still invested in LNG. 96% or 95, 96% of Singapore's energy source is LNG because we can't produce renewable energy. First of all, land mass, secondly, cloud cover.

And so, and with climate change, that's becoming even more difficult. But when you look at LNG, how can you have low carbon energy? Blending is one element of it, making sure there's no leakage of methane. is the second. Otherwise, it's just as bad as coal. The third thing is, if you think about coal, then it's managed phase out of coal. Then how do you help accelerate that? How do you contribute towards that issue? Do you also get involved in blended finance for that? So that there is, in fact, a just transition. Before, you can even think about renewable energy and infrastructure that's needed to go into that between battery storage, upgrading the grid, and the renewable

energy infrastructure with solar panels and wind farms and what have you. So therefore, we look at sustainable living and living is for humanity, you know, you have to be, I would say, quite considered about the things which you can do in the near term, in the medium term and the long term. But you must be clear eyed about the fact that the world needs to get greener, because without that we have a bigger problem. How do you think about private versus public markets? Well, going back almost a decade. So private are the companies which are not listed on a stock exchange. Yeah, going back more than decade. When we started our 2020 strategy in April of 2011, 80% of our portfolio was publicly quoted, 20% was private. Fast for a decade

later, it was 50 odd percent private, 40% publicly quoted. And if you include in a public coded, our Singapore companies that we control, you know, from 20% to 50, 60%. That means a very small part of our portfolio is actually really publicly quoted. And by the way, you know, I would say in a low-interested environment and in a rather benign 2010's decade, going into private made a lot of sense, you know, because first of all, you didn't have to- And where are we now? I think now you have to be a little bit more circumspect. I think private still gives you a lot of value because I think it's wrong to conflate

a generic model into where you should invest in the private markets. So there's still value in private equity, but you have to be very good in manager selection. There's still good value in private credit, despite what people think, because if you are very clear-minded about how you invest in private credit and you're looking at actually cash yield rather than just pure pick and so on, you know, you might have a good opportunity set even as you go to cycles. The third, of course, in the private markets, it's core-plus infrastructure. And core-plus infrastructure is not a public market.

product. It's a private market product, but it gives you a yield and a decent low double-digit returns. What's more risky? What's more risky now, private or public? Both are risky for different reasons. Okay, for different reasons. I would say that the problem of private markets is you have more opacity. As an investor in the private markets, you don't have the same access to information to know what to do. If you're in a private market, because it's illiquid, you can't pivot easily. So you have to be clear that when you put money to private markets, you're in there for a long haul. Well, in today's terms, five years could be long hauled. And you are in there with long-term partnerships. Yeah. How do you think about your partners and who are

they? Yeah. By the way, before I forget, the danger of public markets is that if you're measured from year to year, the volatility hits you. So it has been managed. So long-term partners. So I believe that really, and I've said this internally with everybody, I said, look, you know, we have to look at ourselves as a network organization as one focus on partnerships. So in everything we do now, we should find ourselves thinking first and foremost, who could partner with us on this. Unless it's a investment opportunity where it doesn't allow us to look for partners. But I think that's important because we need to realize that at TAMASIC, we do not have all the skill sets needed for all the opportunities to come through our door. And so we have to augment it with

others who have it. Therefore, partnership is more important from that perspective. It's not about risk diversification. We don't look for partners or risk diversification. We look at them as partners to augment what we already have. How do you work with them? Well, I think that we are seen to be more relational and less transactional. I think that's generally what most people would say about us. We take time to build the relationships. And we have a very good two and four discussion, so we feel we should also bring something to the table and not just get ideas from them as well. What does it mean to be relational in your means? I think that's where your first, when you want to form a partnership, you've got to bear in mind that there must be this level

of trust with each other. Trust, not just in terms of something you want to get into, but even about sharing your information, knowledge, perspectives and things that. The higher the level of trust, the higher the quality relationship. And then if it translates into something tangible in terms of doing something together, it's more likely to succeed than not because of that. Do you think there's some Asian thinking into your relationship thinking? I don't want to say that relational is only Asian

because I have so many friends in the US and Europe and elsewhere where they have the same way of thinking. So I would say that it's very much up to the individuals and how they look at things in life. I do think that the world has become more transactions. And I think that, you know, since countries have become transaction or countries could become more transactional and multilateralism gives rise to transactionalism, the world may start to change a bit. And then finding those people who think the same way as you do may not be as easy as before, other than the relationships you already have. I wouldn't, but I would say in Asia, trust comes from spending time building relationships.

That's for sure. It takes longer. It takes longer. Well, we have things to learn here, I think. Moving on to the organization, so you are a bit more than 900 people, 13 offices. What do the people do? Apart from working hard. My colleagues may say that we work sometimes too hard, but up to that side, everybody works hard, especially in this world.

We have about 950 people in Tamarsing, and that's sort of like a stable number for time being. And like you mentioned, we have 13 offices, 12 outside of Singapore. We have 650 people in Singapore. So the other 300 are. So two thirds in Singapore, one third outside. And in Singapore, we have a multinational cohort here. We have some of the 35 nationalities working in Tamasik globally. In the markets, the majority of people there are investment folks.

In Singapore, the majority of people who support the investment engines. because we've actually put more people out into the markets directly. So currently, in terms of headcount, in the markets, the U.S. is the largest, followed by China, then Europe, than India. And in the U.S., the vast majority, I think, I would say 80% of people we have there, are investment folks. The same thing with China, the same thing with Europe and India. What type of people do you hire?

What do you look for? Historically, we looked at people from investment banking. because we found that they came well-trained, especially we would hire them for the best banks, and they would know how to access the right information flows, because that's what they would do as a normal thing. And they'll come with some domain capability in terms of understanding the sectors that we hire them into.

And I'll talk about investment folks only here. More recently, we've been trying to get people who come from private equity, and when we look at the public markets part of the house, We get people from long, long acetyl managers as well as from hedge funds. But we also will lose them also, as you know, back to where they came from over time. But it's really still like a Temasek way of doing things. I mean, it's still like a Bible or like a holy script.

It's like, this is the Temosek way of doing things and this is how we train you and this is how we do things. I think every organization has something like that. I mean, we are very focused on our values. You know, we have six components of what we call merit value. system. And so we're very focused on this whole issue about excellence, meritocracy, respect, integrity, teamwork, trust. That won't change. So that's actually culture. I think in any organization, values, cultures, behaviors, sense of purpose is critical. But that forms the foundation that people can then leverage off for how they do their work in Tamasi. So that's the first part

of our script. We look for the values in people, not just expertise. Increasingly, we are toggling between people who can be generalists and people who are specialists. And I say that because of the complexity of portfolio. And so if we look at the three different components of portfolio, each one of them has different characteristics. If you are going to be at the apex of organization, you have to be flexible in your thinking. And therefore, even if you are specialists, having some level of understanding about things like geopolitics, global shifts, for example, makes you a better leader. So therefore, we have to train people to do that. Now, is there such a thing as a Singaporean value?

We like to say that's a Singapore DNA. What is that? Well, first of all, I think for, okay, so if we look at our value system, I would say Singapore stands for similar things, meritocracy, excellence, respect for each other. Integrity is the most important value. Okay. When we say something, people have to, you know,

you want people to take us at our work. I have done so many things, Nikolai, with my counterparts in the US elsewhere, where it's done on a handshake, where the lawyers and the colleagues on both sides say, no, no, we have to put in writing. And the two of us say, nope, we promised each other, we will keep to our word.

That's important. And if you don't have that sense of integrity and therefore trust in each other on the basis of that, there will be a limit to what you can do. So I think in Singapore, that has always been something of value. We do things on a principled way. Now, that's how we look at things. Why has Singapore been so incredibly successful?

Much of it, I think, is due to our founding fathers. Li Kuan Yew and his first generation of leaders. And not just the political leaders, but also the civil servants who supported them. It was a whole team that took, I would say, took over a Singapore that became self-governing away from a connollial running of our country to one that became part of Malaysia for two years to become independent without natural resources. where your only resource are your people. That's how I say, Tamasic's not really primarily in the investment game. We're in the people game.

Because the only way for us advance is to make sure the quality of our people, how we train them is critical. But if you look at the civil servants, they are much more highly paid than in most countries relative to... So are the politicians. Absolutely. Civil servants, politicians really highly paid, very highly educated. They work very hard too.

Yeah? Yeah. Extremely hard. What's the consequence of having such like a cater of civil servants and politicians who are so, what should we say, outstanding? That's good for the country. You know, I would say, you know, if you are a young Singaporean, you'd want that to be the case. Because if you have your life ahead of you, if you're 30 years old,

and you're going to work to the age of 80 because you can live to the age of 80, because you can live to the age of 100, you know, you want to make sure that your leadership, your political leadership and your civil service have top-notch people. And they have to be there to formulate policies where business can thrive. Okay, that's the main thing. So you need good people there who are able to engage with industry, both within Singapore and outside, to be able to think of the policies we need in the short term, in the medium, and definitely the long term for Singapore to succeed. The one thing good about government is that they do a lot of long-term planning. So infrastructure build-out is always ahead of demand. You know, we're building Terminal 5 at Changi right now. We're not up to full

capacity in terminals 1 to 4, but we're building it in anticipation of the world of travel, of Singapore as a hub, you know, and we know that we need it. We'll need it in about 10 years time, but we're building it now. So when you do those things, the government plays a very important role as an enabler. First, they're a policy originator, but they're also an enabler. and they have the fiscal balance sheet to do the infrastructure spending ahead of demand. And that helps industry plan as well. So we own an airline. So when we see that, we can also do that and dovetail it with our route network planning,

as well as our fleet planning. And that allows us to think about what kind of aircraft we need to procure and things that. You know, it's very useful. And I think that multinational corporations have understood how to leverage the government's policy thinking for what they do in Singapore, either for export or for regionalization as well. And if you look at Singapore's economy, it's really driven primarily by the fact

that we have these multinationals, mainly from the U.S., Europe, from Japan, and so on here, and we have a bunch of SMEs to support them as part of an ecosystem. The market companies account for maybe just 5% of GDP in Singapore. But yet, of course, we are important in the ecosystems in which we operate, whether it's financial services or utilities or whatever.

But we're leveraging an ecosystem that has also been built because of the other contributors to our economy, especially the multinational corporations. And so we have to be an open economy. We have to be open to all the end to come in because that's the only way for us to remain competitive. The worst thing is for us to protect our own companies. To do that, I think we're setting ourselves up

for a very different future for Singapore. Dylan, moving on to you as a leader, how would people characterize you as a leader? Oh, I don't know, you have to ask them. Actually, I'm not sure that I want to think too much about it because I have a job to do, I've got to do it the best way I can. And what I do is for the organization, and where I do it for the organizers is for the people in a company. I won't be right in everything I do, by the way. What's the key to be an efficient leader?

I think you have to really think about the future all the time. You know, but you have to also prioritize things because the organization has to keep up with you. You have to follow ship and bring people a lot. And that means you have to engage, you know. And I would say that I've gotten better engaging but not quite there yet because I'm also a bit impatient by nature. So how have you developed with age, you think?

In some respects I'm mellowed. I may not have mellowed. You know, when you get older, Nikolai, you realize your runway is getting narrower, you know, so you want to do more things more quickly. But when you get older, you also realize sometimes when to pull back and you know that you might be going too far, too fast. How old are you? 62. That's a great age. I think so. I prefer to be 62 than 25 as of this moment. You said engaging with people. How do you do that? Well, I talk widely, you know, if I can say that, even internally within the company, you know, I've tried to make sure I'm accessible to people. And if you want to have a chat with me, they can have a chat with me.

I make sure that we, there are internal comms, you know, are focused on making sure our people aware of what we're doing. And, you know, I, well, and then, of course, I've, I try to engage widely outside with our portfolio companies, but also with our invested companies around. and people I know around the world. And I try to bring those insights back to the organization where I find them. How do you make sure that you prioritize the right things? You know, you can only know you're doing the right things

if your colleagues are in it with you. And sometimes it takes time to persuade them because they may not see the world the same way you see the world. You know, CEOs tend to see a lot more than others. And it's quite natural because we have to broaden the aperture and go out there and we have to think about many, many different things. and we think of based on horizons. Whereas people who have jobs where they're given a function to do,

they will tend to want to make sure that is done really, really well. And you need both, right? So in a sense, we have to do a lot more persuading these days than before. And so you know you're on the right trend where everybody finally sees what you're seeing, and they're on track, and they're moving faster than you. So on that note, how do you absorb technology and AI

into Temasek, in the way you work? Yeah, so I would say that we're still a work in progress. We have four things that we think about in terms of AI. First is how AI is enabled for ourselves. Second is how do we use AI to future-proof our portfolio? And for that matter, how to ensure our portfolio is future-proof on the effects of AI, for example, operating companies. The third is how do we scale our AI exposure as a firm?

And the fourth is the diffusion of AI within Singapore as a whole because we have so many companies which are involved in ecosystems here which make the country work the way it works or contributes towards that. And so the first thing, of course, is that within TAMASIC, we are now rolling out AI at a much faster pace than before into all our workflows to become more efficient. So that's the one level. And that goes towards productivity. And that's critical because one of the complaints that we've been getting over the years from our young. people especially, there's too much stuff that they have to do, especially if they do administrative stuff in addition to what they're doing on investments and things like that. And so we're trying to make sure that we ameliorate that effect of it, and AI can actually help

quite a bit there. I would say AI can definitely help them in terms of getting the base information that we need for any investment proposal. One can possibly see that chat GPT could replace your associate and senior associate, in which case you have to train your associate and senior associate to be performing a level, two levels above them. You know, that's the only way to do it, you know. And therefore, the brightest minds will have to be given the tools to succeed. So that's the first thing. You know, and all our workflows, I would say, have to be AI-enabled.

The second thing is, AI has to help us get better returns on our portfolio. That's what we should be trying to achieve. And that means AI is a tool for us for sourcing of investments. It's a tool for us for doing performance monitoring. well, performance analysis, I would say investment analysis first, and performance monitoring, and finally, portfolio management. That's critical. And so if we have AI embodied within our investment flows

and the way in which we are approaching the sourcing, the evaluation, the making, and then the managing of our investment opportunities, that I think will enhance the returns we get and also allow us to be more productive. What we want to do is to make sure we do fewer things and get a narrow range of outcomes so that we can get really long-term predictable returns for the purposes of our net investment return contribution.

Some personal questions at the end. How do you relax? I run. Every day or? I try to do it every day. I didn't do it this morning. because I had to wake up early for a 7.30 breakfast meeting, and I finished late last night. But generally, I try to run every read.

What do you read? I read a lot of stuff. Well, everybody reads news feeds, you know. So, you know, you read your local papers, you read the Financial Times, you read, you know, Wall Street Journal, etc. And then obviously things are the economists and so on. So that's given, that's basic. But I read a lot of books. Now, we're having dinner tonight, pepper crab or chili crab?

I prefer pepper crab only because it's less messy. than chili crab. But the chili crab may actually taste better. And I told you, when I was in Oslo in September of 23, I went to a restaurant in Oslo that served chili crab. That's good. I have to figure that one out. What is your advice to young people? Life is a journey. Life is a journey. It's got many phases. You have to be open to learning. So when we talk about lifelong learning, be open to experiences, think broadly, read widely. you know, however you want to read. You know, whether it's through the Internet or chat GPT or books,

you have to read widely because the world now is going into a very different phase going forward. And things are AI, things are climate change and so on, and they all converge at some point in time, requires you to really think ahead because you're going to be living the next, you know, 60, 70, 80 years. You know, that future belongs to you. All of us of our age group has to make sure

that there is a bright future for them, but they are also responsible that. So I feel that in your life, you will have to be open to new opportunities, new opportunities within your organisation and even outside. You know, you can no longer join a company and say, I'm going to be a lifer. The company has got to make it worth your while for you to be a lifer. I'll put it other way around. Okay, so as much as an employee has to justify themselves to employer, the employer has got to be forward-thinking and moving forward to be justifiable to the employee. So I would say that in life, you will find that doors will close, but new doors will open. And so, you know, look at it that way. And be optimistic. Okay, be optimistic because

over, you know, the world history has shown that we go through times of difficulties and we always come out better than the previous generation. So when there's darkness, you know, the dark clouds will give way to light. That's how I believe. Absolutely. Well, optimists are more happy and make my money and I think on that happy no deal. It's been a pleasure. Thank you, Nikolai. Thank you. Thank you very much.