socrates469bc

7 minutes ago, Homelander said:

Forest City? This one got international recognition on it

 

The other one is the Iskandar hub which also didn’t take off. Wanted to build uni, hospital, commercial, residential together with legoland and hello kitty land. 

iskandar hub, compared to forest city, can be considered a success alrdy.

at least there r 2 hospitals with 5-star hotel services.

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

9 hours ago, Homelander said:

Informative, guess a lot of grand plans or visions. Not easy to realize. Haha

at first, limpeh thot this was the most kumgong project in jb.

then this project came along to be contender for the most kumgong project of jb.

wahahahahahahahahahahahaha

41 minutes ago, The_King said:

Here’s a gripe I’ve heard a couple of times before from my Grab driver(s). 

It goes along these lines:

“All these big companies need to start hiring locally for senior roles. 

But instead of tapping on local Singaporeans, they use foreigners instead. 

It used to be angmohs — Americans, Europeans and Aussies. But now there are also Indian and Chinese nationals who are 'stealing' these big positions.”

Does he have a point? Well, somewhat. 

While in recent years many Singaporeans in senior positions have become more visible — think Chew Shou Zi, TikTok’s CEO, or Jessica Tan, Ping An Insurance’s executive director — there’s still a lack of Singaporeans in senior positions.

According to a 2023 study by the American Chamber Of Commerce (AmCham), only about one-third of companies in Singapore have more Singaporeans than foreigners in senior positions. 

So yes, some Singaporeans are making it to the senior levels of the corporate ladder. But what about the rest? We spoke to some HR professionals to test out our theories. 

Tough truth #1: We lack overseas exposure

 

Many MNCs are in Singapore, but they’re not here only for Singaporean customers.

Rather, they want a place where it's easier to reach the hundreds of millions of potential customers in Southeast Asia. This is also increasingly true for Singaporean SMEs.

This means they need people who can help them navigate these countries well. This might be having a good understanding of local customs, language, legal frameworks, business practices and having strong networks there.

Often — but not always — this cannot be acquired just by staying in Singapore.

Unfortunately, that’s what many of us tend to do. For all the complaints we have about Singapore, we’re often reluctant to leave the safety, convenience and familiarity of Singapore to seek opportunities beyond. 

But here’s the thing: a multinational company often requires a multinational, and multicultural workforce. 

One HR source at a FMCG multinational said while it was possible to make Director without having worked overseas via Cultural Intelligence training (to manage regional personnel), these personnel didn’t make it to Vice President. 

Tough truth #2: We’re picky about overseas opportunities

 

Even when the opportunity to work overseas does present itself; Singaporeans tend to be ultra-selective, or some will say, picky. (Kinda like how we pick our BTOs.)

We tend to gravitate towards developed countries like Australia, US, Japan, Europe or the UK. While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, these are often competitive roles where Singaporeans don’t have an edge in. 

Ironically, it is the very countries that Singaporeans shun that are where we have an advantage. This is true for Southeast Asia, where people are generally less proficient in English, and have trouble communicating with the global market. 

One observation made by all our interviewees is that Singaporeans also tend to ‘wait’ to be posted overseas by their existing jobs. This is opposed to, say, actively looking for jobs outside of Singapore.  

Tough truth #3: Singaporeans don’t utilise their networks

 

Here’s a common complaint we hear often: Once a foreigner in a senior position gets the job at a MNC, they tend to start hiring their own nationalities. Over time, the entire team becomes foreigners.

Singaporeans? We don’t do things like that.

Instead, we tend to believe that people should be hired and promoted based on merit, hard skills and experience. Hence, the de facto way to move up the corporate ladder is as follows:

• Keep your head down

• Be humble

• Work hard

• Have excellent hard skills

• Hope to get noticed, or apply for your next job through a portal

In some strange way, Singapore’s commitment to meritocracy actually hurts us, especially in a global workplace where everyone utilises their personal networks to get a job. 

Further reading:

• Why you should learn to market stuff (including yourself)

Tough truth #4: There are simply not enough senior positions 

 

 

Many Singaporeans have a rigid idea of what success looks like to them. A senior, high-paying position in a big company. 

But here’s the thing.

There are about 7,000 multinational companies located in Singapore. This sounds a lot, but we also have 2.3 million citizens in the workforce. 

Assuming (generously) there are 30 senior positions in each MNC, that means there are ~210,000 senior positions — in reality, there are probably less. 

Subtracting the number of self-employed people (about 12.2% of the workforce), that’s still 2 million people competing for the same desired positions in one city. Not all of us will get what we want. 

For many people, waiting in a long line in an MNC is the far more attractive option as compared to…

• Working in a SME (because of notions of bad culture and low pay)

• Becoming self-employed or starting own business (cos risky)

• Leaving Singapore to work overseas (see above)

Further reading:

• The uncomfortable truth about crowded corporate ladders

Tough truth #5: Our skills are just not good enough 

 

 

 

Source: AmCham Singapore 2023 Manpower Survey Results 

According to the same AmChan survey, a lack of ‘Technical skills & knowledge essential for the job’ is a top reason why foreigners get hired over Singaporeans. ‘Adaptability & resilience’ and ‘Creativity’ (or a lack thereof) were second and third respectively.

The classic reaction to this is to blame our education system: “We have so many universities, but we are not producing talent. The education system must be broken!!!”

Well… if this survey was about fresh graduates not being able to find jobs, then that argument would be true.

But the roles Singaporeans struggle to fill aren’t ‘entry-level’ roles. They are for roles that require more than five years of experience.

This means it has less to do with what we’ve learnt in university, but more of what we’ve done with our careers after — more specifically, in those 5–10 years after university. 

One HR professional we spoke to remarked that Singaporeans think they’re all that, but in reality, we are not as good as we imagine: 

“When it comes to software development, there are many Vietnamese, Indians and Indonesians that are more proficient. If you want to have someone face clients sometimes Singaporeans are just not vocal and outspoken enough. 

Once you take into account the higher salaries Singaporeans want to be paid, then it often just doesn’t make sense.”

Tough truth #6: Maybe we are just not ambitious in the workplace 

 

 

Last but not least, we acknowledge that there’s a segment of Singaporeans out there who simply don’t want to dedicate their lives to climbing the corporate ladder. 

Many Singaporeans prefer to become middle managers, while striking the perfect balance between work-life balance, job stability, and salary. They want time for their hobbies and loved ones. 

If you ask us, that’s a respectable, worthy and valid choice.

After all, the workplace isn’t the only place to be ambitious. You can strive to be a good child to your aged parents. You can strive to be a good father or mother. Or even an important member of your community. 

That said, all choices have trade-offs. People who climb the corporate ladder often sacrifice work-life balance, health, sleep, and relationships in the pursuit of success.

Those who choose not to climb? 

They will often earn less than the high earners around them.

Further reading:

• Is it bad to be average?

A parting word

 

Singapore is a city trying to attract the world’s best talent; that’s a lot of people you’d likely be paid less than. And keep in mind that if middle managers overseas get good enough, they will become your direct competition and further depress the wages. 

Can the average Singaporean accept that? 

Given how our society is wired to pursue a narrow definition of success — both personally and professionally — we’re not so sure. 

But what we do know for sure is this: If you indeed want a better life year after year, then you’ll need to find ways to deliver value. More than what AI is delivering. More than what our Southeast Asian neighbours are delivering. 

This means Singaporeans need to learn to work with our upskilled foreign labour, not directly compete with them. But that means we ourselves need to upgrade our skills even further. 

That’s tough, but the decades old adage is true: no one owes Singapore a living.

And well, the rest of the world doesn’t owe Singaporeans a senior position too. 

Stay woke, salaryman.

40 minutes ago, XianGe said:

Answer ish sb61 likes sinkie pwn sinkie... 

diam diam lah, kumgong pappy serfs!!!!!!!!

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

56 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

@The_King this one can go right up top with your quiet series

if jb property can make money, this kl developer alrdy develop the land surrounding their shopping mall liao.

wahahahahahahahahahahaha

https://www.southkey.com.my/index.html

original plan 12 yrs ago

now...............

On 2/27/2024 at 7:49 PM, The_King said:

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian businesses are paying a high price for their country’s weak currency, which is making importing materials and servicing foreign debt more costly.

With the ringgit hitting a 26-year low, industries from airlines to raw material-intensive sectors are particularly at risk, according to S&P Global Ratings.

The ringgit has slid to its lowest level since the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, and the government has assigned the central bank to closely monitor the currency, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said on Feb 23.

 

Malaysia’s central bank said on Feb 27 that the ringgit is undervalued and should be trading higher on account of the country’s positive economic fundamentals and prospects.

Bank Negara Malaysia governor Abdul Rasheed Ghaffour said in a statement that the central bank has stepped up engagements with government-linked investment companies, government-linked firms, corporations and investors to encourage continuous inflows to the foreign exchange market.

“Given Malaysia’s positive economic fundamentals and prospects, the ringgit ought to be traded higher,” he said.

 

 

The ringgit last week slipped past 4.8 against the United States dollar, the weakest level since January 1998, during the height of the Asian financial crisis.

 

 

It strengthened slightly to 4.779 against the dollar by 1.04pm on Feb 27, and was trading at 3.5552 against the Singapore dollar.

“We have already been feeling the impact as the ringgit has been falling,” said Mr Chin Chee Seong, national secretary-general of the SME Association of Malaysia.

“Now, it will be even more severe. Those of us in the services sector that import materials and products will lose even more.”

 

The weak ringgit could add strain to Malaysia Airlines, still recovering from restructuring its debt in 2021, as well as budget carrier AirAsia.

“The airline sector is the most exposed to risks due to currency mismatch in operations,” said Mr Xavier Jean, senior director for corporate ratings at S&P in Singapore.

He added that the airlines have expenses, including fuel and leases, in US dollars and revenue in ringgit.

“Debt in these companies is often denominated in dollars,” he said. “They have the double whammy of operating and financial exposure to currency depreciation.”

Malaysia Airlines declined to comment about the impact of the currency weakness on the company’s bottom line.

AirAsia Group chief executive officer Tony Fernandes said he is not concerned about the ringgit “as it is mostly sentiment”.

While 70 per cent of the carrier’s costs are paid in US dollars, “we have good ancillary income and fares are strong”, helping to buffer the company against the weak local currency, he said.

Construction companies that depend on imported raw materials, as well as telecommunication firms, whose capital spending is in dollars, also face a financial fallout, S&P said.

For Axiata Group, Malaysia’s biggest wireless carrier, the biggest concern is the rising cost of servicing debt. The company has about US$3.6 billion (S$4.8 billion) of US dollar debt.

“The real concern is we have a large dollar debt, about 50 per cent of that is hedged already,” said Mr Vivek Sood, the company’s CEO.

Some companies, such as state-owned oil and gas company Petronas, are in a position to benefit from the plunge in the ringgit.

A significant amount of its operations is either in the foreign markets or pegged to the dollar, S&P said.

Sime Darby Plantation said the weak ringgit is beneficial for the company because its revenue is in US dollars.

“That is actually very promising for us,” said its chief financial officer Renaka Ramachandran.

“We bring in dollars and convert them into ringgit,” he added.
BLOOMBERG

really think limpeh never read economics.

airasia receive revenue in ringgit but pays for the plane leasing in usd, so how to profit in a weak ringgit environment?????

sime plantation sell in usd, but buys fertilizer in usd and their foreign workers demand higher pay in ringgit, so where got extra profit??????

petronas receive revenue in usd but capex also in usd, weak ringgit means bolehsian zheng hu has to pay more in subsidies and welfare.

smlj logic is weak ringgit beneficial for these usd receiving companies??????

On 2/27/2024 at 7:22 PM, The_King said:

Coldplay, Ed Sheeran, and now Taylor Swift. Singapore is eyeing concert economics as its new growth driver, which is set to add hundreds of millions of dollars in tourism receipts.

“The Lion City has traditionally been more a magnet for business travel, but these large-scale global music events are a boon for Singapore’s travel-related services that can add up to 10% of its GDP,” HSBC’s ASEAN economist Yun Liu wrote in a recent note.

 

really think whole pappyland is kumgong pappy serfs

never hear of quality sustainable economic growth meh????????

wahahahahahahahahahahahaha

On 2/28/2024 at 5:39 PM, The_King said:

You want transparent, need to wait for sun to rise from the west

sun rise from north, kym??????

wahahahahahahahahaha

On 2/28/2024 at 5:39 AM, Huat Zai said:

WP Chief Pritam Singh challenges PAP MP Murali Pillai on transparency in Singapore’s reserves. WP MP Jamus Lim disagrees with Pillai’s stance on budget information adequacy, questioning if the government would base policies solely on publicly available data.

 

 

SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh, engaged in a parliamentary debate questioning Mr Murali Pillai, PAP Member of Parliament for Bukit Batok SMC, regarding his speech on the government’s stance on “conscientious objection” to disclosing the full value of Singapore’s reserves and its implications for labelling opposition proposals as populist.

Associate Professor Jamus Lim, WP MP for Sengkang GRC, also voiced disagreement with Mr Pillai’s assertion about the adequacy of information for budget calculations. He further queried whether the government would be open to formulating public policies based solely on publicly available information.

Mr Pillai emphasizes NIRC estimation for strategic budget planning

During his Budget 2024 speech on Monday (), Mr Pillai took on Mr Singh’s earlier remark, in which Mr Singh urged the PAP government to provide crucial information for Singaporeans to actively participate in policy discussions.

Mr Pillai dismissed Mr Singh’s idea and defended that details of the Government’s revenue and expenditure are in the yearly statement of accounts presented to Parliament for MPs’ scrutiny.

With this information widely available, it is incumbent upon MPs to support policy proposals with suggestions about how much it would take to fund them, he said.

Merely proposing that more be done, without also assessing existing programmes and figuring out where the money would come from is akin to populism, he added.

He said that it was a “red herring” to claim that more information is necessary to better inform debate, since “all the information needed to calculate revenue is there”, including the proportion of revenue coming from the net investment returns contributions from investing past reserves, for instance.

He referred to a previous session where Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong provided an overview of the budget projections, in which PL Lee projected a 4% increase in returns from reserves, suggesting that if 2% is spent on the budget, the reserves would grow at a rate of 2% per year, roughly keeping up with the GDP.

 

“So we roughly know what is the band of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) which just remains stable and contributes about one-fifth of our revenue.”

In his speech, Mr Singh highlighted economists’ views from a February Straits Times article, emphasizing one economist’s call for disclosing past reserves. He echoed the shared desire of Singaporeans to scrutinize government actions.

Contrarily, Mr. Pillai defended the government’s “conscientious objection” to revealing reserves. He stressed the significance of estimating Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) amounts for effective budget planning.

Assoc Prof Lim presses Murali Pillai on Government’s policy-making approaches

Mr Pillai’s speech prompted Assoc Prof Lim to seek further clarification from him, He questions the assumptions made about expected returns to reserves, GDP growth, and the amount returned to reserves based on the government’s calculation of the primary surplus versus IMF recommendations. He seeks clarification on whether it is reasonable to question these assumptions in the debate.

Mr Pillai responded by underscoring the relevance of the NIRC to the budget, pointing out its stability and significant contribution to expenditure.

He suggested that the debate over the adequacy of public information and the assumptions used in budgetary calculations might be a red herring, asserting that all necessary information for calculating revenue, specifically the NIRC and operating revenue expenditure, is publicly available.

Mr Pillai maintained that this information suffices for budget analysis and policymaking.

Assoc Prof Lim further clarified his inquiry, “the government routinely made policy. My question is whether he (Mr Pillai) thinks that the government would be willing to be comparably hamstrung in terms of only making public policies on the basis of all the publicly available information, or they feel that the government can only make policy when there is additional propriety information?”

 

In response, Mr Pillai claimed there’s a false premise in the question, arguing that the government provides operating revenue, proposed operating expenditure, and ensures a balanced budget, allowing for analysis based on constitutional requirements.

Assoc Prof Lim further sought clarification on whether Mr Pillai believes that the stable share of NIRC has nothing to do with the assumptions about expected returns or GDP growth.

Mr Pillai responded by stating that the stability of the NIRC is an empirical fact presented in budget statements. He acknowledged that projections are made by reference to a certain framework, subject to the assumptions inherent in that framework, and not arbitrarily plucked out of the air.

 

WP Chief sought clarification on the “conscientious objection” remark by Mr Pillai

WP Chief Pritam Singh subsequently weighed in on the debate and sought clarification on Mr Pillai;s remark about the government’s “conscientious objection” to certain alternative parties’ proposals.

“If there is a conscientious objection, then what happens to the populism argument? Is it wrong for the opposition to bring up those points?”

Mr Pillai clarified that his reference to conscientious objection specifically relates to non-disclosure of the total value of reserves, emphasizing its connection to maintaining fiscal prudence rather than directly addressing populism.

He implied that responsible fiscal proposals, regardless of the party, should avoid populism and be grounded in thorough analysis and fiscal sustainability.

Mr Singh also sought clarity on how proposals, such as building more HDB flats than currently planned by the government, should be substantiated in Parliament.

 

In response to Pritam Singh’s reference to the BTO example, Murali Pillai advises using the analytical framework he proposed.

He encouraged identifying the program, determining the committed spending, expressing a stance on the matter, and addressing financial issues by considering budget allocations for other aspects.

Mr Singh challenges this framework, asserting that examples like the BTO would fail the test Murali Pillai presented.

“Nobody said cost of living crisis, but I heard “affordability crisis” today, by PAP members.”

“I am assuming that in Mr Murali’s schema, that analysis would also have to follow.”

Murali Pillai reaffirms that the analytical framework applies to proposals involving extra spending, whether from the PAP or the opposition.

He emphasized that going through this framework will provide clarity on whether the proposed extra spending is in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Singh further probed Mr Pillai on whether government commitments, like the S$40 billion for Forward Singapore initiatives, should also be subjected to the same scrutiny.

 

Mr Pillai avoided a direct answer, emphasizing the application of the analytical framework’s principles. He cited the WP’s example of establishing the Parliamentary Budget Office, focusing on preventing populism in politics.

“I would rather that the points I made not be obscured, let’s stick on the principle and the focus is really to make sure that the ugly head of populism doesn’t reel in our politics.”

 

https://gutzy.asia/2024/02/27/wp-mps-challenge-murali-pillai-on-government-transparency-regarding-reserves/#

never hear of government pension fund of norway meh???????

On 3/7/2024 at 10:05 AM, XianGe said:

Can trust? Lol

On 3/7/2024 at 11:16 AM, Huat Zai said:

Never trust a commie, especially a commie that says he's commie, rule like autocratic, and earn money like a capitalist.

 

 

diam diam lah, kumgong pappy serfs!!!!!!!!

wahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

this week, limpeh intro a little known revolution b4 the big kumgong revolution.

this little known revolution unintentionally led to a big kumgong revolution which reverberate until the present day.

next week, limpeh will intro a book abt this big kumgong revolution.

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

23 hours ago, Homelander said:

 

Shit management...if not monopolized locally already dead company...internet and social media really poke sph in the ass

internet and social media poke the pgds of many in the media industry.

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

never hear of condom meh??????

thats why limpeh dont support paying abortions via the public health system which many feminists want.

wahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

1 hour ago, The_King said:

SPH Media now appears to be accountable only to MCI, adding to the image that it is the Government’s mouthpiece

If you want to be magnanimous, you can choose to headline the debate on the Government’s funding of the media this way: SPH Media puts funding to “good use’’.

If you’re not feeling charitable, you can write this: SPH Media has “considerable catchup’’ to do, or SPHMedia fails to meet some KPIs.

The quotation marks are used because those are Minister for Communications and Information Josephine Teo’s own words.

Mrs Teo was responding on Friday (March 1) to questions from Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh about updates to the Government’s funding to SPH Media, which comes under the budget of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI).

All three headlines are accurate even if they don’t tell the full story.

But what are journalists to do when her obviously scripted speech needed editing — to plug information gaps and for a logical structure?

SPH Media did not hit the mark, yet received increased budget for FY2024

First, the maths.

The Government had announced in 2022 that it would set aside S$900 million for SPH Media Trust to be disbursed over five years. That averages out to S$180 million a year.

Over the past two years, it gave the media group S$320 million, which is S$40million short of S$360 million.

Source: MCI Singapore on YouTube

Mrs Teo said the full budget was not disbursed because SPH Media did not meet some key performance indicators (KPI).

 

While most other companies would cut the budget because of failed KPIs, the Government has instead budgeted S$260 million for 2024 alone.

If it sticks to its refrain of providing up to S$900 million to SPH Media over five years, that leaves S$320 million for the last two years.

 

Which leads us to the next question — what were the KPIs and which were met? Have new KPIs been set befitting the use of S$260 million next year?

SPH Media failed to hit four indicators

From what Mrs Teo said yesterday, she was pleased with two KPIs. She said SPH Media had been strengthening its digital systems with, for example, a new digital content management system and mobiles apps for every title.

She also noted its “extensive efforts” to improve the retention of journalists and quality of its newsrooms through training, scholarships and fellowships with overseas institutions such as the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

There is no doubt that money has been poured into technology and talent. The question is whether the efforts are reflected in the outcomes, like higher quality content and increased reach.

They haven’t.

As Mrs Teo said, for FY2023, SPH Media failed to meet the targets for youth reach, digital reach and vernacular reach, as well as the average time spent on its websites and apps.

She didn’t say what the targets were or how far off the mark SPH Media was. Rather generously, she said that SPH Media’s efforts were “just the beginning’’.

“SPH Media will need to do more to maintain its relevance in this challenging media environment and will need continued support as it strives to get onto firmer footing,” she had added.

SPH Media now appears accountable to only MCI

What struck me as decidedly odd is how the old publicly listed company that was Singapore Press Holdings was so much more transparent about numbers.

We can rely on shareholders to raise questions at annual general meetings and scrutinise its annual reports and financial statements. We know what it costs to run a newsroom and how much money it makes whether from advertising or circulation.

Now, as SPH Media, it seems accountable to only MCI, which gets updates every six months. And we need MPs to pose questions to MCI about a supposedly independent media.

Recall the hype that surrounded its transformation into the Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) and how this will free the entity to explore other sources of revenue so that it won’t get gripped by commercial interests that only want to make more money at the expense of public service journalism.

Examples such as The Guardian owned by Scott Trust were thrown up. Go to The Guardian’s website and see how much more information it gives about the newsroom’s operations and the effort it put into engaging the readers. There are financial reports, information about the Scott Trust, corporate policies and more.

Now compare it with SPH Media’s bare bones in its About Us section.

SPH Media is no longer beholden to shareholders who at least can get answers to questions. It is accountable only to MCI, which as I mentioned, responds to MPs.

What about the members of the Trust, you say? They are supposed to take care of corporate governance issues. There are 12 institutional members, a throwback to the old SPH board and comprising banks and big local companies, which also happen to be the major advertisers.

Another four institutes of higher education were added to them. As a CLG, they are supposed to hold an annual meeting by law. But no annual report nor financial statement is required.

More transparency needed

Is it too much to expect that a public-facing CLG, which bills itself as a public trust, would at least give some details of its operations in an annual report?

Perhaps, the argument is that SPH Media does not get public donations or do any fund-raising (I think) and therefore only needs to report via MCI to taxpayers.

 

If so, I wonder if the expectation is for Government funding to continue forever since advertising and circulation revenue is likely to dip further.

Does SPH Media have plans to wean itself off taxpayers’ money and look at more ways to raise revenue? How much revenue has it raised in conducting classes at its academy, for example?

Instead, it looks like an agency of the Government, which has its funding examined at Committee of Supply debates and other audits out of the public eye.

The principle that the media needs to be subsidised heavily to continue operations is well taken, especially since huge investments in digital infrastructure is needed.

Still, it makes me wonder how a small newsroom such as Mothership can beat the digital reach of mainstream media.

A relationship that could cast doubt on a media group’s independence

Any media chief will know that being too close to the hand that feeds you will lead to compromising situations that cast doubts on integrity and independence.

The way to deal with the perception is to be as transparent as journalists would want their newsmakers to be.

Not utter gobbledygook such as this line as quoted in CNA: “There will be learnings to apply and room for improvement along this journey as we continue to adapt to the evolving media landscape. We believe that our commitment to our transformation roadmap will help deliver outcomes aligned with our mission and objectives.”

Mrs Teo and SPH Media take great pleasure in citing “trust’’ indicators that put the media in a favourable light, such as the 2023 report from Reuters Institute.

Source: Reuters Institute

 

While the trust indicator for The Straits Times (ST) is high at 73%, its online reach is slowly waning and being taken over by other digital sites. The same report shows that its weekly online reach stands at 42%, ranking below Mothership and CNA.

Source: Reuters Institute

 

I read mainstream media because I have to, as they are the main ways to get information about Singapore. I trust that the information is accurate, in so far as the newsmakers have presented it. That is, at face value.

 

Increasingly, however, I cannot depend on the media to go beyond what has been presented to them, to get into the whys and wherefores or even the significance of the information presented.

Professionally speaking, I see too many shortcomings that will sooner rather than later affect trust indicators. I have listed them under #berthablowsup.

I am already detecting a slight shift in emphasis. There is now less talk about “quality journalism’’ but more about “public service journalism’’.

I hope that this is not defined in such narrow terms that it becomes acceptable for the media to cut-and-paste official statements in the name of public service.

In a Linkedin post yesterday (1 March), SPH Media CEO Teo Lay Lim dwelt on the technological transformation in the company.

Source: Teo Lay Lim on Linkedin

She said: “We now transition these Wave 1 initiatives to ‘Operate’ mode, as they become business-as-usual. There is no going back; rather, to continue forward, to learn and master, scale and grow, continuously improve and fine-tune, on the back of these foundations… and enable future waves of the journey.’’

I hope this wave includes stemming the ebb of quality journalism.

59 minutes ago, Huat Zai said:

a stock price says a 1000 words

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

12 hours ago, The_King said:

When ST visited Bedok Food City – the industrial premises that house the 30,000 sq ft Good Meat facility – on Feb 29, workers from other firms in the building said the US company’s two units on the ground floor are shut and were rarely opened for about six months. Boxes of air-purifying equipment sat outside one of the closed units, and benches were piled outside the other.

ST understands that a separate commercial manufacturing facility which previously produced Eat Just’s cultivated chicken products is also no longer producing for them.

Cultivated meat refers to meat products that are made from growing animal cells in a bioreactor – similar to the vats used in brewing beer – instead of slaughtering actual chickens.

This is considered to be a more sustainable meat production method as large volumes can be produced involving less land and labour.

Asked about the delay in the opening of the Bedok facility, Eat Just’s spokeswoman said there is “no firm timeline” on when it will be operational.

She added that the firm has “produced and paused and produced and paused” since it started selling the items. “We’re planning to produce at least twice as much in Singapore this year than any year before.”

Apart from cultivated meat, Eat Just’s plant-based egg business here also appears to be at a standstill.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ducer-eat-just-pauses-operations-in-singapore

12 hours ago, sTiCkY said:

fark vegetarians 

12 hours ago, aaur4man said:

$u$ tainable

10 hours ago, coffeenut said:

Pui ~~

4 hours ago, Huat Zai said:

I guess they can't fake it anymore?

3 hours ago, Satki said:

They can keep their Frankenstein meat

 

Sell them to the MIW

 

I thought Temasick invested in something like this?

diam diam lah, kumgong pappy serfs!!!!!!!

do all u kgks know how advanced the tech is???????????

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

2 hours ago, noobmaster said:

Ya they rather learn Korean than brush up their mother tongue haha

2 hours ago, ManOfTheHour said:

Dumb sheep

then  if she speaks korean to u, kym???????

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

1 hour ago, Satki said:

Finally a Saga in this forum.

 

are we getting more matured in here now?

 

yehaaa

 

 

is this the maturity kor kor talking abt??????

1 minute ago, zendude said:

 

I don't mind going offline entirely. I enjoy my work and family time haha.

 

You've been fun to chat with bro.

so will limpeh be seeing u on live telecast chingay parade next saturday??????

Just now, zendude said:

 

 

Slowly plan ba. In the meantime continue to slave for your overlords like me

so u r 1st ib co??????

really is jin sakti.

wahahahahahahahahahaha

4 minutes ago, noobmaster said:

Honestly, sgtalk is a low ses depressing cesspool with many clowns. You don’t want to be there too long. Here at least no one tries to quarrel lol

and at least more educational in addition to the usual nsfw.

Just now, noobmaster said:

Honestly, sgtalk is a low ses depressing cesspool with many clowns. Here at least no one tries to quarrel lol

well, we just saw one sgtalk clown today.

2 minutes ago, zendude said:

 

In all honesty, I've benefitted a lot from PAP's policies and made most of my fortune thanks to them. I just felt irked because people like you are still getting bullied. I guess you deserve it. 

 

PAP wansui

thats why limpeh say u r a hypocrite, only know how to cry when stupidity sexposed

wahahahahahahahahahahahaha

58 minutes ago, Huat Zai said:

 

I hate to say this, but as long as we are still carrying pink IC, we are all still butt fucked pappy dogs

thats why limpeh smart in planning my exit.

so mai jealous.

wahahahahahahahahahahahaha

29 minutes ago, zendude said:

 

it's possible to be sarcastic and witty without resorting to insults. you were just raised poorly

and the kettle calling the pot black.

u r nothing but a kumgong hypocrite.

1 hour ago, zendude said:

 

blah blah blah just a retard barking

 

 

you are the one who started the insults, now cannot tahan already? go cry can liao don't go jump building hor do ppl inconvenient

wahahahahahahahahahahaha

26 minutes ago, noobmaster said:

He’s not la. Kg pappy serfs will worship Lee family like gods wahaha

thats the best part, many kumgong pappy serfs dont realize they r worshipping the Lee family unknowingly instead of asking questions.

the first question limpeh will ask of xiao lee abt his tenure is how many published papers he has since entering academic since 2009.

and second question limpeh will ask is how many of these r authored or co-authored.

if a student can enter harvard by writing blm and plagiarism by the previous harvard president, shldnt one be asking these questions instead of having such a high opinion on harvard???????

wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

23 minutes ago, kokleong said:

@zendude your multiple flagging over time have been duly noted, but the context of said member's replies are more satire (and ironically in agreement) than personal attack, at least that's the way i see it.

 

should you think otherwise, feel free to add one to your ignore list.

 

in any case both you and @socrates469bc can stop this unproductive argument now; it does nobody any good.

thats why sarcasm is a precious thing.

if one cannot be sarcastic, he/she is destined to be a kumgong slave.

wahahahahahahahahahahahaha