For much of the past decade, Singapore has quietly become a refuge for Chinese companies trying to expand globally. By shifting headquarters or key operations to the small Southeast Asian financial hub, firms hoped to soften their ties to China and gain easier access to global markets, investors, and advanced technologies.

The strategy became so widespread that analysts gave it a name: “Singapore-washing.” But now, as scrutiny intensifies from both Washington and Beijing, the tactic is increasingly being exposed and challenged. What once looked like a clever geopolitical workaround is becoming far more difficult to sustain.

What “Singapore-Washing” Means

Singapore-washing refers to the practice of Chinese companies relocating headquarters or registering holding entities in Singapore in order to present themselves as more neutral global businesses rather than Chinese firms.

The approach emerged as geopolitical tensions between the United States and China escalated. Chinese companies worried that being labeled “Made in China” could limit their ability to raise capital, acquire technology, or operate in Western markets.

Singapore offered an appealing alternative. The country has a reputation as a stable financial hub with strong legal institutions and global credibility. As one economist explained, “The Singapore brand is trusted worldwide. Singapore is valued for its international flavour, neutrality, and is culturally easy for Chinese firms and their expats to adapt to.”

Singapore also provides structural advantages. The country has 28 free trade agreements and relatively low tariffs from the United States. That makes it an attractive base for companies hoping to avoid trade barriers or export controls tied to China.

For Chinese firms seeking to expand globally, Singapore-washing promised several benefits.

First, it allowed companies to appear less politically connected to Beijing. By relocating headquarters or incorporating new holding companies in Singapore, firms could present themselves to Western regulators and investors as multinational businesses rather than Chinese state-linked entities.

Second, the move opened doors to foreign investment and capital markets. Companies hoped that a Singapore base would ease concerns among venture capital firms, stock exchanges, and institutional investors wary of Chinese regulatory influence.

Third, Singapore provided a gateway to advanced technologies and global supply chains. Firms operating from Singapore could sometimes avoid restrictions that applied directly to Chinese companies.

This combination made the city-state a magnet for Chinese firms across industries including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, critical minerals, and technology infrastructure.

High-Profile Examples

Several prominent companies have attempted versions of the Singapore-washing strategy.

Fast fashion giant Shein moved its headquarters from Nanjing to Singapore in 2021 as it pursued a global public listing. The company had long emphasized its Singapore identity to reassure Western regulators and investors worried about its Chinese supply chains.

Yet Shein’s founder Chris Xu recently delivered a speech reaffirming the company’s Chinese roots. At a government forum in Guangdong, Xu praised the region’s “complete industrial ecosystem and first-class business environment,” noting that Shein supports more than 600,000 jobs there.

Analysts believe the shift reflects changing geopolitical pressures. As economist Qu Feng noted, “Given Shein’s setbacks in the U.S. and Europe in recent years, it appears to be strengthening its ties to China and repositioning itself in the global market.”

TikTok offers another example. Its parent company ByteDance invested billions building TikTok’s international headquarters in Singapore and emphasized the nationality of CEO Shou Zi Chew, a Singaporean citizen. Despite these efforts, U.S. officials continued to view TikTok as controlled by its Chinese parent, leading to legislation forcing ByteDance to divest the platform’s U.S. operations or face a ban.

Artificial intelligence startup Manus followed a similar path. Born from a Chinese startup called Butterfly Effect, the company moved its main operations to Singapore and shut down most of its activities in China. The move helped position the company for a $2 billion to $3 billion acquisition by Meta.

But even that strategy drew scrutiny. Chinese regulators have launched a review of the deal for potential export control and national security violations, arguing that the company remains under Chinese jurisdiction because of its origins.

Why Washington Remains Skeptical

From the perspective of U.S. regulators, simply relocating a headquarters does not change the underlying reality of where a company is rooted.

Western officials increasingly examine deeper connections such as ownership structures, supply chains, and data flows. As business scholar Le Xu explained, regulators now analyze “the entire vertical value chain, including ownership structure, supply chain, data flows, and operational control.”

That level of scrutiny has made it harder for companies to obscure their origins. Even firms with Singapore headquarters can still face restrictions if they rely heavily on Chinese suppliers, engineers, or parent companies.

The result is that relocation alone no longer shields firms from geopolitical tensions.

Pressure From Beijing

At the same time, Chinese authorities have grown uneasy with companies distancing themselves from China.

Some officials view the strategy as disloyal, particularly when firms emphasize Western identity or “American values.” According to one analyst, Shein’s attempt to balance both sides by promoting Western branding while maintaining Chinese supply chains amounted to “a political miscalculation.”

Beijing is also beginning to review international deals involving companies that relocated abroad. The government’s investigation into Meta’s acquisition of Manus signals that Chinese authorities may intervene when they believe domestic technology or talent is leaving the country.

One analyst warned that China still has leverage over founders and employees even when they relocate. As one source familiar with the situation put it, “You don’t personally need to be in China for China to have a lot of leverage over you.”

Why the Strategy Is Unraveling

The Singapore-washing model is now under pressure from both sides of the geopolitical divide.

Washington is treating Chinese-founded companies as Chinese regardless of where they are incorporated. Beijing, meanwhile, expects companies with Chinese origins to demonstrate loyalty and comply with domestic oversight.

This dual pressure makes it increasingly difficult for companies to occupy a neutral middle ground.

“Singapore-washing has become less effective, as corporate backgrounds are far more transparent than before,” said Le Xu.

Experts also argue that the strategy tends to work better for small companies that can operate quietly. Larger global platforms like TikTok and Shein are simply too visible to hide their origins.

Despite these challenges, analysts say Chinese companies can still build successful global businesses. Platforms such as TikTok and Temu demonstrate that Chinese innovation can achieve massive international reach.

But the rules of globalization are changing. As geopolitical tensions reshape technology markets and capital flows, companies must adapt their strategies.

According to Brookings Institution fellow Kyle Chan, founders are learning that ambiguity may no longer work. “Chinese tech founders can no longer stay silent, as Beijing seems to be demanding public support from these companies,” he said.

If companies with Chinese origins will be treated as Chinese regardless of where they relocate, they may need to pursue different paths. Some are splitting domestic and international divisions, while others are choosing listings in markets such as Hong Kong rather than Western exchanges.

The era of quietly relocating to Singapore and presenting a neutral corporate identity may be coming to an end. In a world of intense geopolitical scrutiny, where a company comes from may matter more than where it claims to be headquartered.