Yesterday, I posted about my experience attending the virtual SPH EGM. I faced some technical issues and was only able to get in 15 minutes after the meeting started – more than 45 minutes after I started the process of getting the login link.

This morning, a SPH shareholder wrote to me saying he felt that the restructuring was a done deal partly because of the impediments shareholders face. He pointed out that no physical documents were sent out. Shareholders had to download, print and then either mail in the proxy form, or scan and email it in. He felt this would have discouraged many shareholders from voting and helps explain why only 23% of the shares were voted at such an important meeting.

To attend the meeting, one has to register online and then go through the process I went through yesterday. For someone who is used to electronic communications and seldom far away from a laptop, I was on the verge of giving up after repeated attempts.

I can understand that many others would have faced greater impediments and would not even bother.

This morning, I was reading the minutes of an EGM of a small company listed in Brussels which held a contentious EGM a few months ago. Compared to this company, SPH is a giant. Brussels would not be considered a “major European exchange” or “major European financial hub” but yet, shareholders  of companies listed on  SGX – a so-called “major Asian exchange” and “major Asian financial hub”  – are far more disenfranchised.

The EGM of the Brussels-listed company was hybrid. Shareholders could either attend and ask questions in person, or they could attend virtually and ask questions through “live” chat. Shareholders who did not vote in advance by mail were provided with the possibility of voting electronically during the meeting. They can appoint any proxy, not just the Chairman like here.  Those who have appointed a proxy for the meeting were also provided with a guest log-in to attend the meeting virtually.  In other words, both the shareholder and his proxy can “attend”.  I fail to understand why in a physical meeting, a shareholder can appoint any proxy, but in most virtual meetings here, they must appoint the Chairman. Our rules are so lop-sided in favour of companies and management but this is far from the only instance where investor rights and protection appear secondary.

I was heartened to read on September 9 that SIAS believes that shareholder meetings should be hybrid and that “live” voting should be mandatory, and explaining the current limitations of virtual meetings. These points have been made by others like me, including in the report on shareholder meetings released in March this year.

The next day, SPH held its EGM which ran contrary to what SIAS said. SIAS could have called out SPH on the conduct of such an important EGM when it was first announced, as the company had plenty of  time to plan for the meeting.