On 16 June 2023, SPH Media Group’s Audit and Risk Committee published its report investigating the issues surrounding the inflated circulation numbers of SPH.
The report highlighted a barter arrangement between SPH and another media company, which it called “X”. Media company X provided an unspecified number of e-paper digital subscriptions to SPH in exchange for 15,000 Straits Times and Business Times digital subscriptions (from SPH). The amounts paid by X to SPH and vice versa were offset against each other. SPH reported these 15,000 copies in its (inflated) circulation numbers. According to the report, there was no evidence that the digital access codes for the Straits Times and Business Times digital copies were distributed.
In Parliament on 6 July, I asked Minister for Information and Communications Josephine Teo whether there would be any investigation into media company X as to whether they too were inflating their circulation numbers. The Minister replied that she was not at liberty to disclose the full range of the Police’s investigations. She added that it was for the Police to decide whether to specifically look into establishing liability on the part of X.
Separately, a fund, known as the NIE Fund, was set up to pay for the distribution of newspaper samples to students, needy families, halfway houses and charities. The report found that during the review period, approximately $748,000 from the NIE Fund was used to pay for bulk copies of newspapers to “shore up” the circulation numbers, cushion the fall in print circulation numbers and to meet circulation number KPI targets. The report found evidence to suggest that some of SPH’s clients were not aware that monies they had paid would be used for the purposes of purchasing bulk copies.
I asked the Minister what kind of accountability had been given to the donors and the clients who had contributed to the NIE Fund on the understanding that they were helping the underprivileged in society but were instead used to shore up the circulation figures for SPH. The Minister replied that the purpose of making “full disclosure” on the findings was to allow these entities to decide if they wanted to take further action. She added that they could, if they chose to, but the Government would not decide on their behalf.
This is the link to the full Audit and Risk Committee Report: https://static.sph.com.sg/uploads/2023/06/Annex-ARC-Report.pdf
This is the Parliament exchange I had with the Minister:
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam. Madam, the ARC report stated that the X Barter Deal was not a genuine arrangement. The corresponding revenue and expenses should not have been recognised and the corresponding circulation numbers should not have been counted. So, my question is, if it was found that the X Barter Deal was not a genuine arrangement, will there be any investigation into the other media company, which was named as “X” in the report, and whether they were also inflating their numbers?
Secondly, the Minister said that the question of loss of public funds does not arise. But what kind of accountability has been given to the donors and the clients who had contributed to the NIE Fund on the understanding that they were helping the underprivileged in society but were instead used to shore up the circulation figures for SPH?
Mrs Josephine Teo (Minister for Communications and Information): Mdm Deputy Speaker, at this point, we will not be at liberty to disclose the full range of the Police’s investigations. Are they specifically looking to establish liability in the context that Mr Giam described? That is for the Police to decide.
On the Member’s second question on accountability to the donors and the other parties that made resources available to SPH Limited, the purpose of making full disclosure on the findings is precisely to allow these entities to decide if they want to take further action. So, they can, if they choose to. It is not for us to decide on their behalf.
