Talk:Singapore Press Holdings

Ownership
Is the SPH owned by the Singaporean government? &mdash; Instantnood 15:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you consider a company with the government owning 1.4% of shares as government-owned?--Huaiwei 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have an impression that many companies are, either directly or indirectly, owned by the Singaporean government. I am not sure if this is the case for SPH as well. :-D &mdash; Instantnood 15:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * According to this, Temasek Holdings hold more than 1.4 % of the shares (more than 20% in fact). I don't know about the accuracy, but where did the 1.4% figure come in? Could it be a misprint for 14%? 165.21.154.114 02:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental difference between direct and indirect shareholding (and that between management and ordinary shareholding). The 1.4% I refer to is a substantiated figure as per their direct investment in ordinary shares shown in the latest annual report . Attempting to figure out indirect investments will be much more tricky and debatable, as this would usually involve incomplete information and guesses. The article you point to (which btw seems to present a rather simplistic and skewed way of arriving at a pre-determined conclusion of media control and censorship) attempts to do just the later, but focusing on management shares since ordinary shareholding figures dosent really give them much to criticise on. I also have to remind that the article is woefully outdated. The said monopoly no longer exists with the liberalisation of the media industry, for instance.--Huaiwei 05:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The article itself is neither simplistic nor skewed, although it may be outdated. It dates from 2001.  Now rereading the article, it is probably much fairer in assessment than the government paper itself.  However I realized I made a mistake.  Clearly, Temasek holding 1.4 % of the ordinary shares (as you said) is correct.  However, Temasek Holdings holds substantially more of the management shares, if you add up all that within the article, probably close to 30%, and a major stakeholder.  It also stated as per SPH's annual report (meaning they didn't derive that independently), "the power of management shares is 200 times more powerful than that of ordinary shares on resolutions relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or staff of the company".
 * From your pdf article itself, let's look at the percentage of management shares that the government holds. NTUC, SingTel and DBS are all state-owned, as well as Fullerton.  So the government stakes are 16.3 + 13.3 + 8 + 4 = 41%, meaning the government holds the largest management shares in these respects.  As for the ordinary shares, its largest shareholders, DBS and Raffles Nominees, hold substantial shares in DBS bank (state-owned).  I don't know if they are government companies, but it would seem so. 165.21.154.109 06:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is simplistic, because it attempts to arrive at a conclusion based on such an incomplete and small set of data, with little analysis of actual contents and the political climate in Singapore for today and the past decades. There has been substaintial changes since 2001, with the introduction of shareholding controls in 2002 accompanied by a liberalisation of the industry the same year, both of which have great implications on the study at hand. 4 years is indeed very outdated in such a fast-moving industry.


 * Your subsequent attempts to sum up governmental ownership is similarly erroneous. Simplistically summing up shareholdings like this gives the Singapore government more say than it actually has. Indirect shareholding is usually calculated as a proportion of direct shareholding, if the direct shareholder is not fully controlled. You added Singtel's 13.3%, for instance, even thou that company is not 100% owned by the government. You cant lump the total figures of DBS and Raffles either, since both are similarly publicly traded companies with a complex set of direct and indirect shareholders. Are you going to investigate this for us? In addition, I would also like to know the difference between management and ordinary shareholdings as far as SPH is concerned, and its wider implications on the company and its publications. With substaintiated information, of coz.--Huaiwei 07:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, so how then do you derive the amount of governmental control over the local press? If you can't arrive at it simply, it doesn't mean that government control doesn't exist.  Your rationale is that it's too difficult to derive an accurate assessment of government control of the press, hence government control doesn't exist.  Or that we should simply ignore it.  Logical?  Yes, Singtel isn't wholly owned by the government, but to say that if the state owns 70% of the shares it have (only or merely) a direct 70% say in operations is simplistic in your own terms.  Obviously the government owns MUCH MORE than 1.4% of the ordinary shares you credited in SPH, and its influence much more widespread.  Temasek Holdings isn't the only state-shared property investing in SPH.  As for what makes a management and ordinary share, to put simply a management share allows a shareholder to direct the direction the press is heading, whereas an ordinary share is there simply to make money.  The general public can own ordinary shares, but not management shares. If you are really intend on learning the difference, you can read up the Newspaper Act.


 * As for the so-called liberalization of Singapore, let me ask you, how much change has there been in the Singapore newspaper industry since its introduction? How many major players have entered the market since that liberalization of Singapore?  One?  Two?  Three?  What have the alleged "shareholding controls" in 2002 done to improve the situation in the Singapore press?  You have been evading the question. 165.21.154.112 23:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hah. If your agenda here is to simply say that the local media industry is controlled by the government, then say that outright instead of hiding behind technicalities like this. But may I then ask you: how much does control over management and shareholding have on the content which eventually appears in SPH's publications? I am sorry, but are you a local? Do you read SPF publications every day, and for how long, for a more informed opinion on this? Your deduction that shareholding control automatically equates to content control in proportion to shareholding is about as simplistic as that article you quote from.


 * Next, you react strongly to what you seem as simplisity "on my terms" over your calculation of governmental ownership. I now have serious doubts over your familiarity with the corporate world. Indirect shareholdings is ALWAYS calculated according to the proportion if the shareholding is not 100%. For an example, Temasek owns 59.1% of Singtel's ordinary shares. Singtel in turn owns 13.3% of SPH's management shares. If we may assume both are ordinary shares for now, basic conventions in the corporate world would calculate that Temasek has an indirect control of SPH via Singtel of 7.86%. Not a full 13.3% you simplistically assume. And it is of coz more complicated then this. Are ordinary and management shares comparable? Not always. I asked you for this difference, but you fail to give me any knowledge beyond the obvious. If that publication you quote cannot find this information, I would love to know how you could, and if you may direct me to the EXACT source. Dont simply tell me to read an entire act. Further, I of coz know that other Temasek-linked companies cros invest in each other, including in SPH. Since you are determined to come up with a figure for this, then as I said, go ahead and do the research. Did anyone tell you to ignore them?


 * Management shares have a 200 times more influence than common ordinary shares in SPH. It is written in the shareholders' booklet.  I appreciate you don't be so defensive on a patriotic sense but look carefully at the facts of the question.  The fact is that neither of us have access to government-controlled data, but the article as it stays is not accurate or neutral. And yes, I've been reading SPH for some 10 over years now.  I'm also a Singaporean. 165.21.154.114 16:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I mention the two changes in 2002 to inform you that the industry is fast-moving, and that the article is outdated. I do not think I have made a single comment on just how much change there is in the industry. If you may want to know, I would say lots (and no, I am not implying all of these changes neccesarily lead to greater liberalisation of the industry). I do not think it is neccesary to go into details now, and may I also remind that these nitty-grtty details should not appear in this page. Feel free to include them in topics directly addressing press freedom in Singapore, however.


 * Evading the question? I am sory, but was there a question? ;) --Huaiwei 08:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a local, Huaiwei. Check out my IP address. When you go overseas and come back and read SPH papers, you realized to a certain extent it is state-controlled. 165.21.154.114 16:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is up-to-date and accurate information on the percentage of stake held indirectly by the Singapore Government, why don't we present them as such? &mdash; Instantnood 09:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have that figure?--Huaiwei 10:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in things related to SPH, but I guess those figures are available from annual reports if SPH and its owners are listed. If such figures are not available we should at lease provide the information in the article that the Singapore Government holds some more shares indirectly. &mdash; Instantnood 10:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dont guess. Go ahead and check. If you actually take some interest in reading what has been said, it is already mentioned that this information is lacking. If you are interested enough to input this information, then please go ahead and investigate instead of asking for it to be included with no intention to do any investigation on your part. And if you think the article should mention that government holds indirect interest, why arent you adding the information yourself? Its not like anyone is opposing this, right?--Huaiwei 11:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw a debate here between you and an anonymous user, and I was just curious to ask a few questions and see if that can help. I am not as interested in SPH as you might think. &mdash; Instantnood 12:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * So we conclude that you are not interested in the topic at hand. Yet you bothered to intervene with no sign of any "asistance" beinf offered. May I then ask what is your true purpose here?--Huaiwei 12:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this a signal from you that I'm not welcome to say anything on this talk page? Fine. &mdash; Instantnood 12:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of evidence even from above to suggest the government do control Singapore local press to some extent. How much is debatable, but certainly not as little as Huaiwei suggests, 1.4%. Sorry, I'm a local, I disagree with a lot you say. 165.21.154.114 16:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You apparantly fail to grasp the root of the message I am conveying. Questioning the actual amount of shareholding ownership of the government in SPF, and questioning the assumption that stakeholding automatically leads to, and is said to be proportionate to the amount of stakes owned, is not denying the fact that some extent of governmental manipulation exists. I do not think anyone can deny external influence and control happens here, just as it happens in just about any media out in the world today. You completely miss the point by taking my words at facial value, interpreting them via your own terms, and thereby assumming I am attempting to whitewash governmental influence in the local media.


 * Instead of simplistically attempting to suggest this happens merely by amount of stakeholding, I am calling for more substantiated factors behind this "influence" and "control". How does it affect content, and by how much? Any actual evidence to show? And we need to further ask....would this form of control exist even without the government owning any stake in SPH and any other relevant local media company? Do self-censorship play a bigger part, rather than via verbal direction? If we were to keep to your preoccupation with the % of shareholding, will we ever reach this level of analysis and thought?


 * So, what do you actually "disagree" with what I say, if you cannot even get the essense of my message? You do not have to keep insisting you are a local as though that underscores your point. I am very much a local myself, thank you very much, and no, I do not believe locals have any greater say in local issues, especially in the context of wikipedia where plurialist views are encouraged. I deeply deplore the tendency in many of adopting the "provincial mentally" and claiming local views should take precedence over foreign ones.--Huaiwei 17:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Huaiwei, you obviously didn't get my message either. I'm saying very simply that the article as it stands, as you amended, stating that the government holds a mere 1.3% of SPH shares, is misleading and inaccurate.  Since you are not willing to stand back and make emendations, I'm asking you how this could be corrected so that it reads more accurately and neutrally.  Also, instead of throwing the questions to me and taking a backseat, tell us clearly what your opinions are, so we can have a discussion.  You categorically mentioned four questions.  Fine.  Give me your opinions and we'll see how the article can be ironed out.  As you are doing, you are taking no more than an apologist stand.


 * There's no need to insist also that I'm clearly quite dull (obviously your subconscious intention). I clearly get your message alright. Sorry to be direct, but your attitude towards Instantnood and this anon user is hardly civil.  I'm quite sure your impatience stems understandably from patriotism, but hey, listen before you type and cut out the sarcasm, OK?


 * I mentioned I'm a local because, quite clearly, you challenged me to it. (quote: I am sorry, but are you a local? Do you read SPF publications every day, and for how long, for a more informed opinion on this?) 165.21.154.109 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On hindsight, never mind. Maybe I never ought to come to Wikipedia.  Oh well. 165.21.154.112 18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I heard your message loud and clear, and I think I made indications of that. The problem is I have gone beyond this message, while you are still stuck arguing over the exact % of ownership. It is clear all of us cannot find a hard figure to replace that 1.3% of shareholdings. I attempted to find the data, failed to do so, asked if you may do the same, and you did not come up with any substaintiated data either (not including the bunch of numbers I rejected above). Given this, can we not move beyond these numbers, and start asking ourselves if we may present any other hard evidence to demonstrate media control? I too call for greater nuetrality in the article, but certainly not by corrected an understatement with an overstatement. And the simple reason why I "throw questions" at you, is because I dont exactly see myself the advocator here, and I am merely stating my opinions on an attempt to amend the article. I do not think I have more comments to add until more opinions are presented on the table?


 * Depending on how you define the word "dull", I am not too sure if you got my "message" right. How you are as a person is non of my concern. My only concern is if you are here to present a POV at the expense of other POV. You may see this as "patriotism" and what have you, but I see it as part of my agenda in presenting Singapore with as much balance as possible. To put it bluntly, your preoccupation with using shareholding as a measure of control over content, and your reliance on a third party source which itself is an advocacy for human rights is not nuetralily in my books. As for my treatment of instantnood, I have a long history with him, the details of which I do not think you will want to know. That said, I dont exactly accord anons like yourself similar treatment, and it is unfortunate if you take it to be the same.


 * As for that thing over "local", perhaps my question was taken out of context. If you may read my whole comment in full: I am sorry, but are you a local? Do you read SPH publications every day, and for how long, for a more informed opinion on this?, I was clearly concerned over your familiarity with SPH publications (pardon my typo in the original text) over a sustained period of time. If I may further clarify over my view on local/foreign viewpoints, I differentiate between the assumption that locals are more factually informed on local issues (which I generally agree), and that local viewpoints are factually correct (which I generally disagree). Anyhow, you have not really answered this question. How often, and for how long have you been reading SPF publications?


 * I simply dont see why you need to throw in the towel just because of this conversation here.--Huaiwei 20:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can all be more civil in Wikipedia. As for SPH, I used to argue that Singaporean papers have been over-demonize for self-censorship. However, with hindsight, I think that might not be the case. Now I realize The Straits Times does practise a lot of self-censorship; whether that's because of government participation is hard to say. Mandel 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've at long last added a drily factual Ownership section -- let the readers draw their own conclusions. Jpatokal (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why edit warring is bad for the soul
This article is a fine example of why edit warring accomplishes exactly nothing. For all the prolific debate and arguments and reverts and whatnot you can see above this section, no one saw that this article is a copyvio from the SPH website. I have now flagged it as such. Shame on all edit warriors.

A new article written from scratch will be at Singapore Press Holdings Limited/Temp until the copyvio gets deleted. Kimchi.sg 05:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That temp article has now replaced the existing one. I have left the talk page here as it may be relevent to the new article.  Kcordina Talk 15:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to correct Information from Deror Wong
Greetings. I'm a teahouse host and a Mr. Deror Wong who says his title is Senior Executive Corporate Communications & CSR DID posted the following question: "The information under History isn't accurate. Would you change them to: Singapore Press Holdings Limited was formed on 4 August 1984 through a merger of three organisations - the Straits Times Press group, the Singapore News and Publications Limited and Times Publishing Berhad which was later de-merged from SPH in 1988. The merger brought together the English, Malay and Chinese newspapers under one roof. SPH later also bought Tamil Murasu Pte Ltd." He has received the standard reply that since he is (I think) a member of Singapore Press Holdings he can't edit the article and we can't just take his word for what is accurate information. But I thought it worthwhile to post his comment here in case he is right about the accuracy and in case someone can verify it in an independent source. I noticed that there seems to be some controversy here and I'm not trying to take sides or stir things up, just thought perhaps his comment might have merit if it can be verified. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing, here is Mr. Wong's user ID in case anyone wants to contact him. I think he is a Wiki newbie and not real familiar with how things work here yet: 202.27.30.75 (talk)    --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)