Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Singapore Airlines |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved |
Russavia Vegaswikian Jpatokal Huaiwei |
Mediator(s) | dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Singapore Airlines]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Singapore Airlines]]
Everyone RomanceOfTravel Russavia
Russavia deletes the Flight Numbers and Codeshare section of the Singapore Airlines article. This is then reverted by other editors.
To get some comment. Certain editor(s) seems more interested in boosting their ego through manipulation of language against eachother which bounces on the line of childishness and flambait intentionally. It is unhelpful.
OK, if it's OK with everyone, I'll take this case. Please just leave a comment below this stating you're OK with me mediating, and we can start discussing from there. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Concensus has been reached by members of the Airline wikiproject that flight numbers and codeshare destinations do not belong in articles, and should be removed inline with this concensus and project guidelines. Project guidelines state that codeshare section should only include the airline, not destinations. These revisions to this article are wholesale reverted by Huaiwei and RomanceOfTravel. It is those who are doing the reverting who are going against concensus already gathered. -- Russavia ( talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to read some previous cases, one being 2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines and the other being 2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll go first. There have been many editing issues with aviation related articles involving Asian subjects. The airline wikiproject as well as other aviation wikiprojects have established project guidelines that try to establish a common layout of these articles. In addition they have reached consensus on what material is encyclopedic and also reached consensus that certain types of material is basically directory like and should not be included.
There are some very strong opinions from editors of some of these articles taking exception with the guidelines. The arguments in some cases claim that discussions on the article talk pages trump any project level guidelines, even if the project guidelines were established or reconfirmed after the talk page discussions. There have been charges that that some editors have decided that they own the articles. As you can see from the comments above, assume good faith is a concept that tends to be put aside at times.
We need to put an end to the edit wars and look at articles that create a cohesive encyclopedia and establish a framework for writing FA types of articles. The guidelines need to be followed unless there are good reasons for exceptions that get a consensus to avoid edit wars. We need to spend more time improving articles rather then bickering. We need to send more time contributing rather then making changes, trying to delete articles or taking actions only to make a point. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me attempt a statement of facts we can all agree on, and then I'll present two ways to approach the problem.
As far as I can see, the various expressed reasons above fall broadly into two camps:
So, is this mediation cabal about the narrow problem of SQ as a special case, or the wide problem of the general enforceability of WikiProject decisions? Jpatokal ( talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem from the above that Vegaswikian and Jpatokal and Russavia agree that the flight numbers info etc. (just call it flight numbers for convenience, for now) are not encyclopedic, and this is backed up by
WP:AIRLINES. While the airlines WikiProject isn't a policy, etc., it does have
consensus at this time. I assume that RomanceOfTravel agrees with this, while Huaiwei and Russavia are is of the opposing belief. If they could provide a reasoning or rebuttal the above comments, we can start discussion a compromise.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder to those involved that we're still alive and kicking. :) dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone watching the current round of edit waring? Anyone notice how the talk page is not being used to resolve problems? Vegaswikian ( talk) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The best solution is to state the simple, verifiable fact that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (trading as Singapore Airlines), which together with its subsidiaries, joint ventures and associate companies is known as the Singapore Airlines Group. Any attempt to split the airline out from the company is problematic for the following reasons, 1) it would be setting a precedent on wikipedia which I would presume would be overturned quick smart. I can find no other company article (not just airlines) where this is required, 2) doing so is only going to set the 'airline' article up to be a free-for-all PR-advertising fest. As has been pointed out on previous occasions, the airline is the company, and the company is the airline. It is really that simple. Just the same as Telstra; the telecommunications operator is the company, the company is the telecommunications operator. The problem with the article as it stands now, is that it is too crufty, too much unimportant information which is not going to mean a thing to the reader, when you consider that a reader of the article at the moment will know how to decode the SIA timetable (flight numbers) and will know how many Lufthansa destinations in Germany have flights to them with SIA flight numbers on them (codeshare destinations), and a spotter will be pleased to find that 9V-BFN is listed (fleet article), yet a small piece of information which is important in the business world (yes, remember SIA is a actually a company!) is not only missing, but is conveniently glossed over at the same time (even though what it is glossing over isn't even mentioned!), and I am of course talking about what is the parent company (i.e. which entity controls the company). Now, Huaiwei is obviously going to take deep offence at what follows here and may even say something about me having something against the 'little red dot', (just looking at my reservation now for a 4 day junket in May which was bought for the bargain basement price of AU$49.98 return [minus taxes of course, bugger]), as none is intentioned , but the reason that there is some disagreement as to whether Temasek is the parent company or not, is that in very plain terms, Singapore is a government-state in which the economy is almost controlled by the government; I don't mean in terms of regulations and laws and the like, but in the sense that the government has its fingers in almost every pie in town, and the government has ensured that it controls the biggest pies of all, e.g. SingTel, Singapore Airlines, Neptune Orient Lines, Singapore Technologies Engineering, Singapore Technologies Telemedia, MediaCorp, PSA International (the ports), etc, etc, and in some cases (such as Singapore Airlines for example), these companies will also be listed on the stock exchange, albeit whilst the government still retains a majority stake and control. Notice two different concepts here - 'majority stake' and 'control' - just because an entity has a majority stake it does not mean that it has control, as it can come down to many different complex laws concerning companies and their structures - however, due to company laws in Singapore, Singapore Airlines have made it very, very simple for us - in their annual report, it is very clearly stated that each ordinary shares carries a weight of 1 vote, and according to the structure of the company, all that is needed is a simple majority of votes in order to pass motions, make business decisions, etc. As Temasek owns just over 54% of these shares, this means that they will always have a clear majority of votes, and therefore they control the entity in its entireity; which in effect means that the shareholders who hold the other 46% of the shares are simply there for the ride. And this is the major reason that Singapore Airlines itself is wanting to get rid of the 49% it holds in Virgin Atlantic, due to it having absolutely zero influence at the decision making level of the board, whatever Branson says goes, goes. And it is the same with Temasek's control over SIA. However, with SIA, there is an extra surprise. Apart from the ordinary shares, the annual report also mentions that the Minister of Finance holds a single 'special share', the so-called golden share (that is sooo 1980s); with the Minister holding the golden share, if management should make a decision which the Minister deems is not in the best interest of the company, they can use their golden share to veto that decision. The golden share also has another purpose, in that if SIA should become the target of a takeover (like we saw with Qantas and the Airlines Partner debacle), the minister can use his share to block this takeover, thereby keeping the strategic interest in the hands of its parent (Temasek, which just so happens is 100% owned by the Ministry of Finance). Now is likely going to be the argument that Temasek isn't the parent company because it takes a hands off approach to the management and board. Whether Temasek appoints directors or not is totally irrelevant, and in fact, if Temasek's share of board directors is not appointed directly by Temasek, this in itself is a form of control in that it chooses 'not to exert influence' on the SIA board. From what Huaiwei has said in the past, it seems to me that it doesn't matter what Australian, American, British media, etc say, we are just all NPOV when it comes to Singapore, because we don't take into account what the Singapore media says to make it NPOV - of course, it is difficult to continue to argue that, when Singapore Airlines, a company domiciled in Singapore, and listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, issues an annual report which is it required to do under Singapore law, in very plain English (one of the official languages of Singapore), which contains the following statement: Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. Now, that isn't the Singapore media, and Huaiwei said that the Singapore media tends to simply state that Temasek Holdings is a majority shareholders. Well firstly, I have provided quotes from Channelnewsasia, Straits Times and a host of other Singaporean media sources which state that Temasek is the parent company, including Today, the Singapore government owned (via Temasek of course) daily newspaper. Now of course, Singaporean media sources aren't exactly going to go out on a limb and mention active government controlling of these companies (which Huaiwei deems to be a prerequisite when its not!), when Singaporean media has a history and expectance of self-censorship and is made all the more difficult when Singaporean politicians, and especially Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong (his son and now prime minister) [who's wife Ho Ching is the CEO of Temasek by the way], have a long history of suing for libel anyone and everyone who should even so much as infer anything that they don't like to hear, and that is especially true when its foreign media and domestic political opponents. Now Huaiwei has brought up the issue of the Singapore Companies Act just recently (can't find it now, so perhaps he can point out where he wrote it). Let's look at this act, which can be found at this link. What is relevant in this discussion is: s. 5 (Definition of subsidiary and holding company) - funnily enough the Singapore Companies Act (as well much of Singaporean law) has its roots in English law, and in recent decades has borrowed much from Australian law - as per s. 5, Temasek fulfills the requirements to be deemed the parent company of Singapore Airlines. If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to contact Singapore Airlines, Ernst & Young and the Singapore Stock Exchange. Now the article as it stands now states:
The Singapore government has regularly stressed its non-involvement in the management of the company, a point emphasised by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when he declared that the aviation hub status of Singapore Changi Airport will be defended, even at the cost of SIA.[36] However, he was personally involved in defusing tensions between the company and its pilots,[37] warned the airline to cut costs,[38] and made public his advice to the airline to divest from its subsidiary companies.[39] Still, independent research typically rates the airline as practicing sound corporate governance policies in accordance with national regulations.[40] In the lead up to the conclusion of the Open Skies Agreement with the United Kingdom on 2 October 2007, the Singapore aviation authorities referred to the airline's audited annual reports to dispel the notion that SIA receives state funding, subsidies or preferential treatment from the government, despite being a Government-linked company.
In essence, the Singapore government (via its 100% holding in Temasek) acknowledges that it has control of Singapore Airlines, yet it states that it doesn't exert its power of control, rather it allows the board to act independently, and that the company will be run along commercial lines only. Of course, I can quote reliable sources that say such a notion is totally absurd given the ownership structure and vested interests. I have not challenged the glossing over of this government-PR POV in the article but if need be will do so now, because if having the parent company as Temasek is POV, then so is the government notion. Prime example, looking at the first 'however', that being of Lee Kuan Yew being 'personally involved in defusing tensions between the company and its pilots' - got involved? I urge all parties to read these articles relating to the pilots and Lee to gain a bit of understanding as to why 'got involved' is a total misunderstatement: http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040111.htm http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040314.htm http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19525384_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20989535_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3676881.stm http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436475894.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12930113_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31250489_ITM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a02SpliJZs7Q&refer=home http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-899544_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20921982_ITM http://www.rsi.sg/english/connections/view/20040108132053/1/.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19910464_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20937158_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20937089_ITM And of course, there is this selection of articles, in which even a PAP member questions Lee Kuan Yew's continued interference in company affairs. And this article in which a Murdoch University professor states:
In the long run, China's economy may evolve in the direction of Singapore, where Temasek played a key role in building many of the city-state's most famous international brands, including Singapore Telecom and Singapore Airlines. It has since stepped back from management decisions, and now controls seven of the country's 10 biggest listed companies and a portfolio worth an estimated $65 to $70 billion--or 34 percent of the value of all shares traded on the local exchange--as a major institutional investor. Rodan, however, argues that "if you look at the whole history of so-called privatization in Singapore, control hasn't really been surrendered, but capital has been redirected" into areas the state considers strategically important. In March, for example, Temasek sold a $1.25 billion stake in SingTel to fund expansion overseas. "I see this continuing, and maybe even accelerating, into the future," says Rodan.
and a generalised comment which is so appropriate to this dispute over 2 words:
In a sign of the disrepute that global markets still attach to state companies, every one of these firms downplays or denies its ties to the government. Putin recently noted that Russia's oil patch is less "fully monopolized" than that of most Middle Eastern states, or even Norway. Temasek insists it's no different from a private investment fund. Dubai companies like the airline Emirates describe themselves as "self-financing"--launched by the state but no longer subsidized by it--and publish annual reports vetted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers to prove it.
I'd be more than happy to introduce parts of this to the article to balance out this extended NPOV issue, of course, it can be resolved simply by stopping the obfuscation of facts in regards to Singapore Airlines --> Singapore Airlines Limited --> Singapore Group of Companies - I am not going to explain this anymore, I have done enough professoring for now, so I will leave it up to others to consult the relevant TAXATION laws and COMPANIES/CORPORATIONS law and find out for themselves what the differences are (there isn't any) - and acknowledge that if a source which was demanded (i.e. a company source) states that it is a subsidiary of Temasek then this means it is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (aka Singapore Airlines Limited). -- Россавиа Диалог 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
An interesting discussion to look at is at Talk:Singapore Changi Airport#Destination box. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that other non-involved editors have commented on this, and Huaiwei is now claiming that the inclusion is political, as can be seen from this diff. His arguments hold little to no water when you consider what has occurred on SingTel, take this diff for example, in which he has stated
News articles are not always accurate (remember "direct flights"?) Cite official statements from the annual reports for one.
This has already been done on the Singapore Airlines article on umpteen occasions, and has been removed, somewhat sneakily as this diff shows, and it continues to be removed from this article, but other articles are left with this information. Is there some point in time at which one can honestly stop assuming good faith, particularly as shown above, the editor in question refuses to answer any questions, only saying that they will do so in their own good time. -- Россавиа Диалог 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Singapore Airlines |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved |
Russavia Vegaswikian Jpatokal Huaiwei |
Mediator(s) | dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Singapore Airlines]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Singapore Airlines]]
Everyone RomanceOfTravel Russavia
Russavia deletes the Flight Numbers and Codeshare section of the Singapore Airlines article. This is then reverted by other editors.
To get some comment. Certain editor(s) seems more interested in boosting their ego through manipulation of language against eachother which bounces on the line of childishness and flambait intentionally. It is unhelpful.
OK, if it's OK with everyone, I'll take this case. Please just leave a comment below this stating you're OK with me mediating, and we can start discussing from there. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Concensus has been reached by members of the Airline wikiproject that flight numbers and codeshare destinations do not belong in articles, and should be removed inline with this concensus and project guidelines. Project guidelines state that codeshare section should only include the airline, not destinations. These revisions to this article are wholesale reverted by Huaiwei and RomanceOfTravel. It is those who are doing the reverting who are going against concensus already gathered. -- Russavia ( talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to read some previous cases, one being 2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines and the other being 2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll go first. There have been many editing issues with aviation related articles involving Asian subjects. The airline wikiproject as well as other aviation wikiprojects have established project guidelines that try to establish a common layout of these articles. In addition they have reached consensus on what material is encyclopedic and also reached consensus that certain types of material is basically directory like and should not be included.
There are some very strong opinions from editors of some of these articles taking exception with the guidelines. The arguments in some cases claim that discussions on the article talk pages trump any project level guidelines, even if the project guidelines were established or reconfirmed after the talk page discussions. There have been charges that that some editors have decided that they own the articles. As you can see from the comments above, assume good faith is a concept that tends to be put aside at times.
We need to put an end to the edit wars and look at articles that create a cohesive encyclopedia and establish a framework for writing FA types of articles. The guidelines need to be followed unless there are good reasons for exceptions that get a consensus to avoid edit wars. We need to spend more time improving articles rather then bickering. We need to send more time contributing rather then making changes, trying to delete articles or taking actions only to make a point. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me attempt a statement of facts we can all agree on, and then I'll present two ways to approach the problem.
As far as I can see, the various expressed reasons above fall broadly into two camps:
So, is this mediation cabal about the narrow problem of SQ as a special case, or the wide problem of the general enforceability of WikiProject decisions? Jpatokal ( talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem from the above that Vegaswikian and Jpatokal and Russavia agree that the flight numbers info etc. (just call it flight numbers for convenience, for now) are not encyclopedic, and this is backed up by
WP:AIRLINES. While the airlines WikiProject isn't a policy, etc., it does have
consensus at this time. I assume that RomanceOfTravel agrees with this, while Huaiwei and Russavia are is of the opposing belief. If they could provide a reasoning or rebuttal the above comments, we can start discussion a compromise.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder to those involved that we're still alive and kicking. :) dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone watching the current round of edit waring? Anyone notice how the talk page is not being used to resolve problems? Vegaswikian ( talk) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The best solution is to state the simple, verifiable fact that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (trading as Singapore Airlines), which together with its subsidiaries, joint ventures and associate companies is known as the Singapore Airlines Group. Any attempt to split the airline out from the company is problematic for the following reasons, 1) it would be setting a precedent on wikipedia which I would presume would be overturned quick smart. I can find no other company article (not just airlines) where this is required, 2) doing so is only going to set the 'airline' article up to be a free-for-all PR-advertising fest. As has been pointed out on previous occasions, the airline is the company, and the company is the airline. It is really that simple. Just the same as Telstra; the telecommunications operator is the company, the company is the telecommunications operator. The problem with the article as it stands now, is that it is too crufty, too much unimportant information which is not going to mean a thing to the reader, when you consider that a reader of the article at the moment will know how to decode the SIA timetable (flight numbers) and will know how many Lufthansa destinations in Germany have flights to them with SIA flight numbers on them (codeshare destinations), and a spotter will be pleased to find that 9V-BFN is listed (fleet article), yet a small piece of information which is important in the business world (yes, remember SIA is a actually a company!) is not only missing, but is conveniently glossed over at the same time (even though what it is glossing over isn't even mentioned!), and I am of course talking about what is the parent company (i.e. which entity controls the company). Now, Huaiwei is obviously going to take deep offence at what follows here and may even say something about me having something against the 'little red dot', (just looking at my reservation now for a 4 day junket in May which was bought for the bargain basement price of AU$49.98 return [minus taxes of course, bugger]), as none is intentioned , but the reason that there is some disagreement as to whether Temasek is the parent company or not, is that in very plain terms, Singapore is a government-state in which the economy is almost controlled by the government; I don't mean in terms of regulations and laws and the like, but in the sense that the government has its fingers in almost every pie in town, and the government has ensured that it controls the biggest pies of all, e.g. SingTel, Singapore Airlines, Neptune Orient Lines, Singapore Technologies Engineering, Singapore Technologies Telemedia, MediaCorp, PSA International (the ports), etc, etc, and in some cases (such as Singapore Airlines for example), these companies will also be listed on the stock exchange, albeit whilst the government still retains a majority stake and control. Notice two different concepts here - 'majority stake' and 'control' - just because an entity has a majority stake it does not mean that it has control, as it can come down to many different complex laws concerning companies and their structures - however, due to company laws in Singapore, Singapore Airlines have made it very, very simple for us - in their annual report, it is very clearly stated that each ordinary shares carries a weight of 1 vote, and according to the structure of the company, all that is needed is a simple majority of votes in order to pass motions, make business decisions, etc. As Temasek owns just over 54% of these shares, this means that they will always have a clear majority of votes, and therefore they control the entity in its entireity; which in effect means that the shareholders who hold the other 46% of the shares are simply there for the ride. And this is the major reason that Singapore Airlines itself is wanting to get rid of the 49% it holds in Virgin Atlantic, due to it having absolutely zero influence at the decision making level of the board, whatever Branson says goes, goes. And it is the same with Temasek's control over SIA. However, with SIA, there is an extra surprise. Apart from the ordinary shares, the annual report also mentions that the Minister of Finance holds a single 'special share', the so-called golden share (that is sooo 1980s); with the Minister holding the golden share, if management should make a decision which the Minister deems is not in the best interest of the company, they can use their golden share to veto that decision. The golden share also has another purpose, in that if SIA should become the target of a takeover (like we saw with Qantas and the Airlines Partner debacle), the minister can use his share to block this takeover, thereby keeping the strategic interest in the hands of its parent (Temasek, which just so happens is 100% owned by the Ministry of Finance). Now is likely going to be the argument that Temasek isn't the parent company because it takes a hands off approach to the management and board. Whether Temasek appoints directors or not is totally irrelevant, and in fact, if Temasek's share of board directors is not appointed directly by Temasek, this in itself is a form of control in that it chooses 'not to exert influence' on the SIA board. From what Huaiwei has said in the past, it seems to me that it doesn't matter what Australian, American, British media, etc say, we are just all NPOV when it comes to Singapore, because we don't take into account what the Singapore media says to make it NPOV - of course, it is difficult to continue to argue that, when Singapore Airlines, a company domiciled in Singapore, and listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, issues an annual report which is it required to do under Singapore law, in very plain English (one of the official languages of Singapore), which contains the following statement: Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. Now, that isn't the Singapore media, and Huaiwei said that the Singapore media tends to simply state that Temasek Holdings is a majority shareholders. Well firstly, I have provided quotes from Channelnewsasia, Straits Times and a host of other Singaporean media sources which state that Temasek is the parent company, including Today, the Singapore government owned (via Temasek of course) daily newspaper. Now of course, Singaporean media sources aren't exactly going to go out on a limb and mention active government controlling of these companies (which Huaiwei deems to be a prerequisite when its not!), when Singaporean media has a history and expectance of self-censorship and is made all the more difficult when Singaporean politicians, and especially Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong (his son and now prime minister) [who's wife Ho Ching is the CEO of Temasek by the way], have a long history of suing for libel anyone and everyone who should even so much as infer anything that they don't like to hear, and that is especially true when its foreign media and domestic political opponents. Now Huaiwei has brought up the issue of the Singapore Companies Act just recently (can't find it now, so perhaps he can point out where he wrote it). Let's look at this act, which can be found at this link. What is relevant in this discussion is: s. 5 (Definition of subsidiary and holding company) - funnily enough the Singapore Companies Act (as well much of Singaporean law) has its roots in English law, and in recent decades has borrowed much from Australian law - as per s. 5, Temasek fulfills the requirements to be deemed the parent company of Singapore Airlines. If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to contact Singapore Airlines, Ernst & Young and the Singapore Stock Exchange. Now the article as it stands now states:
The Singapore government has regularly stressed its non-involvement in the management of the company, a point emphasised by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when he declared that the aviation hub status of Singapore Changi Airport will be defended, even at the cost of SIA.[36] However, he was personally involved in defusing tensions between the company and its pilots,[37] warned the airline to cut costs,[38] and made public his advice to the airline to divest from its subsidiary companies.[39] Still, independent research typically rates the airline as practicing sound corporate governance policies in accordance with national regulations.[40] In the lead up to the conclusion of the Open Skies Agreement with the United Kingdom on 2 October 2007, the Singapore aviation authorities referred to the airline's audited annual reports to dispel the notion that SIA receives state funding, subsidies or preferential treatment from the government, despite being a Government-linked company.
In essence, the Singapore government (via its 100% holding in Temasek) acknowledges that it has control of Singapore Airlines, yet it states that it doesn't exert its power of control, rather it allows the board to act independently, and that the company will be run along commercial lines only. Of course, I can quote reliable sources that say such a notion is totally absurd given the ownership structure and vested interests. I have not challenged the glossing over of this government-PR POV in the article but if need be will do so now, because if having the parent company as Temasek is POV, then so is the government notion. Prime example, looking at the first 'however', that being of Lee Kuan Yew being 'personally involved in defusing tensions between the company and its pilots' - got involved? I urge all parties to read these articles relating to the pilots and Lee to gain a bit of understanding as to why 'got involved' is a total misunderstatement: http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040111.htm http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040314.htm http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19525384_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20989535_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3676881.stm http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436475894.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12930113_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31250489_ITM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a02SpliJZs7Q&refer=home http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-899544_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20921982_ITM http://www.rsi.sg/english/connections/view/20040108132053/1/.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19910464_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20937158_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20937089_ITM And of course, there is this selection of articles, in which even a PAP member questions Lee Kuan Yew's continued interference in company affairs. And this article in which a Murdoch University professor states:
In the long run, China's economy may evolve in the direction of Singapore, where Temasek played a key role in building many of the city-state's most famous international brands, including Singapore Telecom and Singapore Airlines. It has since stepped back from management decisions, and now controls seven of the country's 10 biggest listed companies and a portfolio worth an estimated $65 to $70 billion--or 34 percent of the value of all shares traded on the local exchange--as a major institutional investor. Rodan, however, argues that "if you look at the whole history of so-called privatization in Singapore, control hasn't really been surrendered, but capital has been redirected" into areas the state considers strategically important. In March, for example, Temasek sold a $1.25 billion stake in SingTel to fund expansion overseas. "I see this continuing, and maybe even accelerating, into the future," says Rodan.
and a generalised comment which is so appropriate to this dispute over 2 words:
In a sign of the disrepute that global markets still attach to state companies, every one of these firms downplays or denies its ties to the government. Putin recently noted that Russia's oil patch is less "fully monopolized" than that of most Middle Eastern states, or even Norway. Temasek insists it's no different from a private investment fund. Dubai companies like the airline Emirates describe themselves as "self-financing"--launched by the state but no longer subsidized by it--and publish annual reports vetted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers to prove it.
I'd be more than happy to introduce parts of this to the article to balance out this extended NPOV issue, of course, it can be resolved simply by stopping the obfuscation of facts in regards to Singapore Airlines --> Singapore Airlines Limited --> Singapore Group of Companies - I am not going to explain this anymore, I have done enough professoring for now, so I will leave it up to others to consult the relevant TAXATION laws and COMPANIES/CORPORATIONS law and find out for themselves what the differences are (there isn't any) - and acknowledge that if a source which was demanded (i.e. a company source) states that it is a subsidiary of Temasek then this means it is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (aka Singapore Airlines Limited). -- Россавиа Диалог 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
An interesting discussion to look at is at Talk:Singapore Changi Airport#Destination box. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that other non-involved editors have commented on this, and Huaiwei is now claiming that the inclusion is political, as can be seen from this diff. His arguments hold little to no water when you consider what has occurred on SingTel, take this diff for example, in which he has stated
News articles are not always accurate (remember "direct flights"?) Cite official statements from the annual reports for one.
This has already been done on the Singapore Airlines article on umpteen occasions, and has been removed, somewhat sneakily as this diff shows, and it continues to be removed from this article, but other articles are left with this information. Is there some point in time at which one can honestly stop assuming good faith, particularly as shown above, the editor in question refuses to answer any questions, only saying that they will do so in their own good time. -- Россавиа Диалог 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)