Yeah, the scholars system is irrelevant in these times. By all means give out scholarships to the less fortunate but keep these scholars out of top management and ministry.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
FIRST HE SANK NOL; THEN HE DESTROYED SPH. IS NG YAT CHUNG THE MOST USELESS OBESE PAPER GENERAL EVER?
- Thread starter Voldermort
- Start date
Fat Fuck totally lost the plot. No one is shaking their balls in fear after his ridiculous outburst towards this reporter. In fact the joke is now on him till eternity for as long as this video exists.
threatening a woman in a press conference is easy....
since he fucking tough, he should go a few rounds of armed or unarmed combat to show us his toughness
this fat fuck lost the plot completely...
since he fucking tough, he should go a few rounds of armed or unarmed combat to show us his toughness
this fat fuck lost the plot completely...
This Fat fuck Scholar is a typical PAP's Freeloader, what has he achieved after taken so much frm tax payers?? Still dare to defend his existence.
And he proudly proclaimed he's not a gentleman (towards a woman who merely asked a question!). SAF senior officers, especially generals are expected to be gentlemen and observe unspoken chivalrous social codes. He's such a failure on so many levels. The pap would do good to remove him immediately.
That's not the point. It's how he responded. We expect better behaviour and composure from a highly educated scholar general. His outburst only shows what a piece of shit he is. And an incompetent one too. Perhaps he thought that the best defence is a good offence? Wrong!
Wat the crap is he talking about? In wat way was her questions offensive? From his reply. One can see his attitude n competence (lack off) no wonder even a monopoly with a captive market can fail.
Anyone here care to share wat this Kim Jong Ng service records is during his time with the military?
I, honestly I, I take umbrage at your first question. There are reporters from here who receive substantial uh, f-uh, funding from various sources, and I don’t believe that you would describe yourself as bowing to the needs of advertisers in doing your job. So I think that, please, ok, I, I, I, I would say, at least for SPH far ving(?) you know, we have always, we have always had advertising, and we have never, never conceded, and uh, to the needs of, uh, of the advertisers, alright, so we will always continue to provide fair, reliable, credible reporting. So, in be- in reporting the answer to this, I, I will tell you first that the, the question, the fact that you dare to question the SPH title for, for, for, for, in your words ah, conceding, to the words of advertiser, I take umbrage at the comment, because I don’t believe that uh, even where you come from, you, you concede, alright, in doing your job, you do not concede to the needs of advertisers. So I, I, I must call this out. Ok chair, Chairman is a gentleman, I'm not. SPH, the purpose of doing this is to make sure that SPH media will continue to do the job we have done so well for so long.
L H
5 hours ago
If only his job performance was as strong as his hissy fit....
78
Dislike
REPLY
View 2 replies
didumheir
6 hours ago
Seriously, that is not the way to address the media, coming from someone leading a media company. Can't even keep his cool... How to lead a company....
81
REPLY
View 5 replies
Jay Wai
6 hours ago
So cocky for a paper general whose running two profitable businesses to the ground. So what if you are well-educated, that is no way to speak to a reporter in public. The whole Singapore knows SPH is the mouthpiece for the government.
51
REPLY
SY Tang
3 hours ago (edited)
"I don't believe even where you come from, you concede in doing your job" SAF Gennerman level of English right here
22
REPLY
Lawrence Low
4 hours ago
Seems that our scholar generals are not up to the task of handling the real world lol
18
REPLY
Arun Raj
5 hours ago
He got this position the easy way.. Lucky never bought any SPH shares.. Tomoro going to nose dive..
24
REPLY
David Chang
5 hours ago
"Do the job it has done so well for so long". Ownself evaluating ownself? Makings losses and also tumbling down the rankings of free press isn't how I would exactly consider sph to be doing a good job
19
REPLY
u200275
5 hours ago
Lol Does he think this is the military? CEO of a listed company
29
REPLY
D J
2 hours ago
A short temper can also be a sign of an underlying condition like depression or intermittent explosive disorder (IED), which is characterized by impulsive and aggressive behavior. If your anger has become overwhelming or is causing you to hurt yourself or those around you, it's time to find professional help
6
REPLY
Jeremy Sng
4 hours ago
I really hope he has a sleepness night now that he has time to reflect what he said.
5
REPLY
View reply
Wombat
4 hours ago
"continue to do the job it has done so well for so long" LMAO nice try
13
REPLY
Frédéric Wong
5 hours ago (edited)
Even in the west, the decline of established mainstream media has already started....it is just the beginning now....... watch and enjoy their decline.....With the advent of YouTube, podcast and other ways to get information, mainstream media now are becoming so irrelevant now and whatever goodwill or disciplined they are, they would still decline, if you cannot beat them join them....
Read more
7
REPLY
SouthEastDirector
55 minutes ago
Hahahaha the ending is golden. Look at his face!
2
REPLY
Horology Enthusiast
8 minutes ago
Backstage: "Hail Hydra"
REPLY
HC1
2 hours ago
Doing so well?? Kaki kong kaki song.
5
REPLY
YH Shannon Ching
5 hours ago
I guess someone needs some PR classes...
16
REPLY
DerangedSloth555
1 hour ago
Paper general parachuter buay song
2
REPLY
KW
5 hours ago (edited)
This is embarrassing. He is addressing the public as the CEO of a PUBLIC company - not as the head of military. Also, he says the purpose (whatever that is) is to make sure SPH will do the job it has done for so long but the press conference was to tell the whole world that they failed to make sure SPH is profitable in the first place? Har?
Show less
24
REPLY
View 2 replies
Vincent Lee
1 hour ago
Continue to do the job for so well for so long?
REPLY
ZHamRoller z
6 hours ago
Garangz
2
REPLY
larry destiny
3 hours ago
He thought he's still in the military? Zero professionalism
9
REPLY
KenZu
3 hours ago
NOL 2.0
3
REPLY
Andew Mole
4 hours ago
I, honestly I, I take umbrage at your first question. There are reporters from here who receive substantial uh, f-uh, funding from various sources, and I don’t believe that you would describe yourself as bowing to the needs of advertisers in doing your job. So I think that, please, ok, I, I, I, I would say, at least for SPH far ving(?) you know, we have always, we have always had advertising, and we have never, never conceded, and uh, to the needs of, uh, of the advertisers, alright, so we will always continue to provide fair, reliable, credible reporting. So, in be- in reporting the answer to this, I, I will tell you first that the, the question, the fact that you dare to question the SPH title for, for, for, for, in your words ah, conceding, to the words of advertiser, I take umbrage at the comment, because I don’t believe that uh, even where you come from, you, you concede, alright, in doing your job, you do not concede to the needs of advertisers. So I, I, I must call this out. Ok chair, Chairman is a gentleman, I'm not. SPH, the purpose of doing this is to make sure that SPH media will continue to do the job we have done so well for so long.
About NOL
What went wrong with NOL?
The APL Temasek. NOL acquired American President Lines (now known as APL) in 1997, and gained a vast network of logistics support and key terminals in the United States and Asia. NOL's ships still operate under the APL brand today.PHOTO: NOL
In its heyday as recently as a decade ago, home-grown shipping line Neptune Orient Lines (NOL) was sailing ahead with confidence on the world's premier trading routes.
Back then, NOL was ranked among the five largest global carriers - in a business harking back to Singapore's origins as an entrepot, or transshipment, port. It was so well-regarded that national investment firm Temasek Holdings in 2004 aggressively lifted its stake to more than 50 per cent, even launching a surprise $2.8 billion cash offer at $2.80 a share.
Today, however, NOL finds itself navigating treacherous waters. The carrier has gone from being one of the industry's strongest profit leaders to one struggling to stay afloat.
Temasek, too, which holds a 67 per cent stake in the firm, has taken a buffeting: It is set to sell NOL to France's CMA CGM for less than half the 2004 share price it paid to lift its stake. The offer price, announced on Dec 7, is $3.38 billion or just $1.30 a share.
CLIMBING TO THE TOP
NOL, founded in 1968 as Singapore's national flag carrier, was set up by the Government with the aim of cementing Singapore's status as a global trading hub.
Its mission was to facilitate industrial development by carrying the nation's trade at fair freight rates, while maintaining its own ships to carry cargo in times of crisis.
By the mid-1970s, as containerisation radically changed the profile of the industry, NOL had expanded its humble five-vessel fleet to comprise some 20 ships. It turned its first profit under managing director Goh Chok Tong, who went on to become Singapore's second Prime Minister.
The firm in 1975 entered Asia- Europe trade as part of the ACE consortium, known as the "third force" in the container shipping world then. Six years later, it went public on the Singapore Stock Exchange (now known as the Singapore Exchange), raising $155 million. It remains the largest shipping company listed here to date.
BUYING APL
One of the biggest highlights through NOL's history was its US$825 million acquisition of then nearly 150-year-old American President Lines (now known as APL) in 1997. Many analysts saw it as an expensive buy-out for a struggling carrier, but the deal gave NOL the critical mass to compete globally on major container trades.
Former deputy chief executive Lim How Teck tells The Straits Times: "People were saying that we had swallowed an elephant and won't be able to move for months.
"But in hindsight, it was a great buy. APL was worth three or four times its value then. For us, it was more about the long-term view."
With APL, NOL gained a vast network of logistics support and key terminals in the United States and Asia. It also helped "push NOL onto the global stage" and widen its reach, notes Mr Rahul Kapoor, director at Drewry Maritime Services.
NOL's ships still operate under the APL brand today.
But Mr Lim, who was with NOL from 1979 to 2005, acknowledges that "operations became expensive" after the acquisition.
He recalls, for instance, how both male and female staff used to bunk in the same room on overseas work trips to save on costs.
"That changed after we bought APL. We started to do things the American way, so we stopped sharing rooms because suddenly, the issue of possible sexual infringement was there."
NAVIGATING THE CYCLES: MORE MISSES THAN HITS?
An industry depression left NOL battered in the early 2000s, and then-chief executive Flemming Jacobs was asked to leave amid losses in 2003. Former politician David Lim stepped in to take over the role.
Nonetheless, the firm was back in the black with a record US$429 million profit that same year - one that preceded its later successes, which CTI Consultancy partner Andy Lane believes was due to "the foundation laid by Jacobs through some of shipping's toughest years".
Such was NOL's allure during the mid-noughties - against a backdrop of a boom in trans-Pacific trade - that Temasek shelled out $2.80 per share in 2004 to raise its 30 per cent stake in the firm to 68.6 per cent.
Mr Lane notes that NOL was highly regarded in the industry at that time, and that Maersk, which he was then working for, had benchmarked itself against NOL's business model.
It was the global financial crisis in 2007 that dealt a heavier blow to the company, says Mr Lane, given that NOL was "clearly not fit enough for the challenges ahead", losing both market share and profitability.
NOL nearly took another misstep when it mounted a US$7 billion bid for Germany's Hapag-Lloyd - seen by many as grossly overvalued - although it pulled out of the process.
"It would have been suicidal if the bid had gone through," says Mr Lane. "At this point, NOL had gone from champions to one of the worst performers in terms of profitability, all in less than five years. It simply cannot have been making the right decisions during this period."
While 2010 was a rebound year for all lines, including NOL, the year that followed would mark the start of a protracted slump which has left the company bleeding red ink for the past four years.
The company inherited by former army general Ng Yat Chung in 2011 was saddled with high debt levels - to the point NOL had to sell its profitable APL Logistics unit to Japan's Kintetsu World Express for US$1.2 billion (S$1.7 billion) in February this year, in a bid to preserve the shipping line.
"The container shipping industry is in the midst of an overcapacity crisis and it will worsen next year," notes Mr Kapoor, adding that lines globally have to cope with the "double whammy" of slowing demand too.
As for NOL, both its volumes and freight rates have been heading south, he says. "It's a toxic combination that the management has failed to arrest and Temasek appears to have seen the writing on the wall that a turnaround is not imminent."
CHANGING TIDES
The current downturn has come with new challenges, where scale and lean cost structures are king in a highly competitive industry.
But NOL has not been able to keep abreast of change, notes Mr Kapoor, as it continues to have high fixed costs compared with its rivals.
Mr Lane also points out that the company puts its biggest ships on the Asia-Europe routes, where returns are the lowest, instead of more profitable courses. "In today's world, you can't be a global player without thinking on a wider scale."
That NOL has seen frequent and multiple changes at its helm since 2003 likely offered little help as well, notes Mr Lim Meng Kong, NOL's first representative in the United States during the late 1970s.
When Mr David Lim left in 2006, German Thomas Held took over the reins for two years, followed by American Ron Widdows in 2008 and later, Mr Ng.
"There was too much of a leadership change in just a matter of a few years," says Mr Lim, who remained in the industry after he left NOL in 1984. "This would have made it hard for there to be continuity."
Meanwhile, NOL's strategic significance as a national flag carrier has diminished - a possible impetus for Temasek to cut the loss-making line out of its portfolio. Credit Suisse analyst Timothy Ross, as quoted in The Business Times, used the potent seafaring metaphor of Temasek "cutting loose the albatross" of NOL, a reference to a burden released.
This marks a striking contrast to Singapore's earlier years, when having a national shipping line was crucial to the country's growth.
Despite all the red ink and the bleak industry outlook worldwide, market watchers agree NOL is still an attractive asset.
The carrier is, after all, South-east Asia's largest container shipping firm, operating about 90 vessels. It has retained a strong presence and market share in the trans-Pacific and intra-Asia lanes - a "part of the world where CMA CGM is underepresented", notes Mr Ross.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES?
News that NOL is to be sold, for some, was tough to stomach.
"NOL was one of those companies the Government set up in its efforts to globalise the country," says Mr William Tay, a former executive vice-president at NOL during the latter part of his 20-year career there.
"It should be continued, like Singapore Airlines or DBS Bank. You mean we really don't have the people to run our own shipping line?"
Mr Lim How Teck thinks selling NOL two or three years down the road could have fetched better prices, given that the industry is now knee-deep in the cyclical trough.
Or, it could have "carved out" and sold segments of its business separately to glean better gains, rather than sell the firm as a whole, notes the shipping veteran. "They can sell the terminals in Asia and the US - which the PSA, I think, would be keen to buy - and then the container business on its own."
NOL owns five terminals across Japan, Taiwan and the US.
"But there's the worry that if they don't sell (NOL) now, there may not be a suitor later," adds Mr Lim.
"As part of the old guard that helped to grow the company for so many years, it's sad that NOL is going to disappear.
"Unfortunately, I do not have the money to do a national buy-out," he says, with a laugh. "At least the price is fair."
Join ST's Telegram channel here and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on December 31, 2015, with the headline 'What went wrong with NOL?'. Subscribe
What went wrong with NOL?
In its heyday as recently as a decade ago, home-grown shipping line Neptune Orient Lines (NOL) was sailing ahead with confidence on the world's premier trading routes.
Back then, NOL was ranked among the five largest global carriers - in a business harking back to Singapore's origins as an entrepot, or transshipment, port. It was so well-regarded that national investment firm Temasek Holdings in 2004 aggressively lifted its stake to more than 50 per cent, even launching a surprise $2.8 billion cash offer at $2.80 a share.
Today, however, NOL finds itself navigating treacherous waters. The carrier has gone from being one of the industry's strongest profit leaders to one struggling to stay afloat.
Temasek, too, which holds a 67 per cent stake in the firm, has taken a buffeting: It is set to sell NOL to France's CMA CGM for less than half the 2004 share price it paid to lift its stake. The offer price, announced on Dec 7, is $3.38 billion or just $1.30 a share.
So what has happened to rub the lustre off NOL - once ranked among the country's golden cash cows, underpinning national development?
CLIMBING TO THE TOP
NOL, founded in 1968 as Singapore's national flag carrier, was set up by the Government with the aim of cementing Singapore's status as a global trading hub.
Its mission was to facilitate industrial development by carrying the nation's trade at fair freight rates, while maintaining its own ships to carry cargo in times of crisis.
By the mid-1970s, as containerisation radically changed the profile of the industry, NOL had expanded its humble five-vessel fleet to comprise some 20 ships. It turned its first profit under managing director Goh Chok Tong, who went on to become Singapore's second Prime Minister.
The firm in 1975 entered Asia- Europe trade as part of the ACE consortium, known as the "third force" in the container shipping world then. Six years later, it went public on the Singapore Stock Exchange (now known as the Singapore Exchange), raising $155 million. It remains the largest shipping company listed here to date.
BUYING APL
One of the biggest highlights through NOL's history was its US$825 million acquisition of then nearly 150-year-old American President Lines (now known as APL) in 1997. Many analysts saw it as an expensive buy-out for a struggling carrier, but the deal gave NOL the critical mass to compete globally on major container trades.
Former deputy chief executive Lim How Teck tells The Straits Times: "People were saying that we had swallowed an elephant and won't be able to move for months.
"But in hindsight, it was a great buy. APL was worth three or four times its value then. For us, it was more about the long-term view."
With APL, NOL gained a vast network of logistics support and key terminals in the United States and Asia. It also helped "push NOL onto the global stage" and widen its reach, notes Mr Rahul Kapoor, director at Drewry Maritime Services.
NOL's ships still operate under the APL brand today.
But Mr Lim, who was with NOL from 1979 to 2005, acknowledges that "operations became expensive" after the acquisition.
He recalls, for instance, how both male and female staff used to bunk in the same room on overseas work trips to save on costs.
"That changed after we bought APL. We started to do things the American way, so we stopped sharing rooms because suddenly, the issue of possible sexual infringement was there."
NAVIGATING THE CYCLES: MORE MISSES THAN HITS?
An industry depression left NOL battered in the early 2000s, and then-chief executive Flemming Jacobs was asked to leave amid losses in 2003. Former politician David Lim stepped in to take over the role.
Nonetheless, the firm was back in the black with a record US$429 million profit that same year - one that preceded its later successes, which CTI Consultancy partner Andy Lane believes was due to "the foundation laid by Jacobs through some of shipping's toughest years".
Such was NOL's allure during the mid-noughties - against a backdrop of a boom in trans-Pacific trade - that Temasek shelled out $2.80 per share in 2004 to raise its 30 per cent stake in the firm to 68.6 per cent.
Mr Lane notes that NOL was highly regarded in the industry at that time, and that Maersk, which he was then working for, had benchmarked itself against NOL's business model.
It was the global financial crisis in 2007 that dealt a heavier blow to the company, says Mr Lane, given that NOL was "clearly not fit enough for the challenges ahead", losing both market share and profitability.
NOL nearly took another misstep when it mounted a US$7 billion bid for Germany's Hapag-Lloyd - seen by many as grossly overvalued - although it pulled out of the process.
"It would have been suicidal if the bid had gone through," says Mr Lane. "At this point, NOL had gone from champions to one of the worst performers in terms of profitability, all in less than five years. It simply cannot have been making the right decisions during this period."
While 2010 was a rebound year for all lines, including NOL, the year that followed would mark the start of a protracted slump which has left the company bleeding red ink for the past four years.
The company inherited by former army general Ng Yat Chung in 2011 was saddled with high debt levels - to the point NOL had to sell its profitable APL Logistics unit to Japan's Kintetsu World Express for US$1.2 billion (S$1.7 billion) in February this year, in a bid to preserve the shipping line.
"The container shipping industry is in the midst of an overcapacity crisis and it will worsen next year," notes Mr Kapoor, adding that lines globally have to cope with the "double whammy" of slowing demand too.
As for NOL, both its volumes and freight rates have been heading south, he says. "It's a toxic combination that the management has failed to arrest and Temasek appears to have seen the writing on the wall that a turnaround is not imminent."
CHANGING TIDES
The current downturn has come with new challenges, where scale and lean cost structures are king in a highly competitive industry.
But NOL has not been able to keep abreast of change, notes Mr Kapoor, as it continues to have high fixed costs compared with its rivals.
Mr Lane also points out that the company puts its biggest ships on the Asia-Europe routes, where returns are the lowest, instead of more profitable courses. "In today's world, you can't be a global player without thinking on a wider scale."
That NOL has seen frequent and multiple changes at its helm since 2003 likely offered little help as well, notes Mr Lim Meng Kong, NOL's first representative in the United States during the late 1970s.
When Mr David Lim left in 2006, German Thomas Held took over the reins for two years, followed by American Ron Widdows in 2008 and later, Mr Ng.
"There was too much of a leadership change in just a matter of a few years," says Mr Lim, who remained in the industry after he left NOL in 1984. "This would have made it hard for there to be continuity."
Meanwhile, NOL's strategic significance as a national flag carrier has diminished - a possible impetus for Temasek to cut the loss-making line out of its portfolio. Credit Suisse analyst Timothy Ross, as quoted in The Business Times, used the potent seafaring metaphor of Temasek "cutting loose the albatross" of NOL, a reference to a burden released.
This marks a striking contrast to Singapore's earlier years, when having a national shipping line was crucial to the country's growth.
Despite all the red ink and the bleak industry outlook worldwide, market watchers agree NOL is still an attractive asset.
The carrier is, after all, South-east Asia's largest container shipping firm, operating about 90 vessels. It has retained a strong presence and market share in the trans-Pacific and intra-Asia lanes - a "part of the world where CMA CGM is underepresented", notes Mr Ross.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES?
News that NOL is to be sold, for some, was tough to stomach.
"NOL was one of those companies the Government set up in its efforts to globalise the country," says Mr William Tay, a former executive vice-president at NOL during the latter part of his 20-year career there.
"It should be continued, like Singapore Airlines or DBS Bank. You mean we really don't have the people to run our own shipping line?"
Mr Lim How Teck thinks selling NOL two or three years down the road could have fetched better prices, given that the industry is now knee-deep in the cyclical trough.
Or, it could have "carved out" and sold segments of its business separately to glean better gains, rather than sell the firm as a whole, notes the shipping veteran. "They can sell the terminals in Asia and the US - which the PSA, I think, would be keen to buy - and then the container business on its own."
NOL owns five terminals across Japan, Taiwan and the US.
"But there's the worry that if they don't sell (NOL) now, there may not be a suitor later," adds Mr Lim.
"As part of the old guard that helped to grow the company for so many years, it's sad that NOL is going to disappear.
"Unfortunately, I do not have the money to do a national buy-out," he says, with a laugh. "At least the price is fair."
Join ST's Telegram channel here and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on December 31, 2015, with the headline 'What went wrong with NOL?'. Subscribe
I don't find the questions posted by the reporter offensive in anyway...
SPH CEO Ng Yat Chung agitated by 'editorial integrity' query
Thu, 6 May 2021, 8:27 pm·3-min read
Singapore Press Holdings CEO Ng Yat Chung. (Yahoo News Singapore file photo)
SINGAPORE — Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) chief executive officer Ng Yat Chung took offence to a reporter's question about SPH's goal of "editorial integrity" at a news conference on Thursday (6 May) to announce plans to spin off the conglomerate's ailing media business.
Ng, who became SPH CEO in 2017, was responding to a question fielded by a CNA digital reporter who asked if the plans would mean the media business would pivot to emphasise editorial integrity ahead of advertiser interests.
Scroll to continue with content
The move to restructure SPH's media business comes as its core segment's revenue and profit continued to plunge amid falling advertisement revenue.
Ng, who was with the Singapore Armed Forces for almost 30 years previously, said, "If I may just interject, I honestly, I take umbrage at your first question. There are reporters from here who received substantial funding from various sources, and I don't believe that you will describe yourself as bowing to the needs of advertisers in doing your job."
The former Chief of Defence Force and CEO of Neptune Orient Lines stressed that SPH publications have always had advertisers and that the company has "never, never conceded" to their needs.
"We will always continue to provide fair, reliable, credible reporting." Ng added. "The fact that you dare to question SPH titles for, in your words, conceding to advertisers – I take umbrage at that comment."
Ng pointed out to the reporter that he does not "believe that even where you come from, you concede to the needs of advertisers.
"I must call this out. (SPH) Chairman (Lee Boon Yang) is a gentleman. I am not," a visibly agitated Ng retorted.
Raising his voice in concluding his answer, Ng stated, "The purpose of doing this is to make sure that SPH media will continue to do the job we have done so well for so long."
Last year, SPH recorded its first-ever full-year net loss of $83.7 million in its 2020 financial year, attributing it to the economic disruption brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.
For its half year ended 28 February, SPH recorded a 26.1 per cent increase in net profit to $97.9 million due to better performance in its non-media businesses, while overall revenue fell 4.2 per cent to $460.3 million.
However, the media business continued to drag down its bottomline over the period due to lower advertisement revenue and circulation revenue.
Revenue for the media segment fell 23.9 per cent to $193.1 million while pre-tax profit plunged 70.9 per cent to $3.1 million. Excluding the Jobs Support Scheme of $12.8 million, SPH would have recorded a loss of $9.7 million.
SPH had also carried out two restructuring exercises in the marketing division and magazines business.
Dr Lee said at the conference, “SPH shareholders are not likely to tolerate the continued negative impact that the media business has on the company’s financial prospects.
“On the other hand, we cannot allow a functioning, trusted and respected media organisation to be whittled down over time by market pressure and commercial constraints.”
Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore's Telegram channel at http://t.me/YahooSingapore
Story continues
SPH CEO Ng Yat Chung agitated by 'editorial integrity' query
Thu, 6 May 2021, 8:27 pm·3-min read
SINGAPORE — Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) chief executive officer Ng Yat Chung took offence to a reporter's question about SPH's goal of "editorial integrity" at a news conference on Thursday (6 May) to announce plans to spin off the conglomerate's ailing media business.
Ng, who became SPH CEO in 2017, was responding to a question fielded by a CNA digital reporter who asked if the plans would mean the media business would pivot to emphasise editorial integrity ahead of advertiser interests.
Scroll to continue with content
The move to restructure SPH's media business comes as its core segment's revenue and profit continued to plunge amid falling advertisement revenue.
Ng, who was with the Singapore Armed Forces for almost 30 years previously, said, "If I may just interject, I honestly, I take umbrage at your first question. There are reporters from here who received substantial funding from various sources, and I don't believe that you will describe yourself as bowing to the needs of advertisers in doing your job."
The former Chief of Defence Force and CEO of Neptune Orient Lines stressed that SPH publications have always had advertisers and that the company has "never, never conceded" to their needs.
"We will always continue to provide fair, reliable, credible reporting." Ng added. "The fact that you dare to question SPH titles for, in your words, conceding to advertisers – I take umbrage at that comment."
Ng pointed out to the reporter that he does not "believe that even where you come from, you concede to the needs of advertisers.
"I must call this out. (SPH) Chairman (Lee Boon Yang) is a gentleman. I am not," a visibly agitated Ng retorted.
Raising his voice in concluding his answer, Ng stated, "The purpose of doing this is to make sure that SPH media will continue to do the job we have done so well for so long."
Last year, SPH recorded its first-ever full-year net loss of $83.7 million in its 2020 financial year, attributing it to the economic disruption brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.
For its half year ended 28 February, SPH recorded a 26.1 per cent increase in net profit to $97.9 million due to better performance in its non-media businesses, while overall revenue fell 4.2 per cent to $460.3 million.
However, the media business continued to drag down its bottomline over the period due to lower advertisement revenue and circulation revenue.
Revenue for the media segment fell 23.9 per cent to $193.1 million while pre-tax profit plunged 70.9 per cent to $3.1 million. Excluding the Jobs Support Scheme of $12.8 million, SPH would have recorded a loss of $9.7 million.
SPH had also carried out two restructuring exercises in the marketing division and magazines business.
Dr Lee said at the conference, “SPH shareholders are not likely to tolerate the continued negative impact that the media business has on the company’s financial prospects.
“On the other hand, we cannot allow a functioning, trusted and respected media organisation to be whittled down over time by market pressure and commercial constraints.”
Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore's Telegram channel at http://t.me/YahooSingapore
Story continues
The 2 of them reminds me of the pioneers of singkieland TV...N funny it's media related..
I take umbrage at your attempt to sully the memory of those two legends of years gone, by your comparison.
I think they will be honoured because they are more respected then their successorsI take umbrage at your attempt to sully the memory of those two legends of years gone, by your comparison.
nah. He didn't curse. He didn't use vulgarities. He did raise his voice a bit. He was clearly angry. Desirable? No. How bad is it? I would say not too bad really.
But it also shows why he cannot be in politics. He has a temper and cannot bite his tongue and roll with the punches. Nothing lah. Move on.
Cannot be in politics and also a CEO of companies. He's clearly out of his depth and element, perhaps he can only be "effective" in a military setting.
Anyway, good to be "talking" to you again. Nice to have you back doc.
Thank you. Hope you are staying healthy.
Actually, he may be laughing. His UMBRAGE diversionary tactic worked wonders.
In our OUTRAGE, we forgot the second raging question which he successfully avoided
answering: who should be held responsible for the failed attempts from the previous
restructuring?
In our OUTRAGE, we forgot the second raging question which he successfully avoided
answering: who should be held responsible for the failed attempts from the previous
restructuring?
Similar threads
