Talk:ST Engineering

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge was operated onto ST Engineering, with expansion of its history section. JohnLim99 (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

---

• The former ST Engineering Land Systems and former ST Engineering Aerospace did not function as independent subsidiaries, but rather (at least up to the end-2020) as functional divisions of ST Engineering (similar to the concept of Siemens Mobility and Siemens Digital Industries, for a direct example). However, Effective 1 January 2021, ST Engineering no longer officially group as Aerospace, Electronics, Land Systems and Marine division, instead reorganised as Commercial and Defence & Public Security clusters. See https://www.stengg.com/en/newsroom/news-releases/st-engineering-reorganises-for-global-growth-and-success/ Therefore, it would be no longer appropriate to elaborate them as separated divisions (on the basis that the lines are no longer clear or existent)
• The history section of all 3 articles are incomplete and partially over-generalised, especially missing the part on Singapore Technologies Group. (Singapore Technologies Group not ST Engineering, but the main encompassing entity of ST Engineering, ST Telemedia, CapitaLand and all other former chartered business spin-offs up till it was dissolved in 2004, with assets transferred under Temasek Holdings) For details, the Singapore National Library Board article on Singapore Technologies Group https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=f451bb81-b193-44ac-a235-be03316909f1 would be very informative and relevant for reference. This part of the picture is extremely important as of how and why the company is able to diversity into non-defense industries (such as provision of sub-systems for the Singapore MRT), and eventually having engineering related divisions reorganised into 1 engineering entity.

**However, this part would be slightly tricky (can be a secondary discussion by itself whether to have a dedicated article, or to tug it in the history of Temasek Holdings.) For this merger proposal, the focus would be the companies that eventually made up the functional divisions and critical service components of the ST Engineering Limited (i.e. Sheng-Li, which includes its subsidiary Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS), as well as spin-off ventures ST Electronic and Engineering, ST Automotive (which forms part of former ST Kinetics), ST Aerospace, ST Shipbuilding (which forms part of former ST Marine), ST Capital, ST Computer Systems & Services)

• I agree that this company would be a BIG BIG pain to write on and would require a lot of sources that might be offline (e.g. news articles, reports etc), but I believe merging the articles of the former Land Systems and former Aerospace divisions and documenting it would present greater coherence and clarity to the messy history that wasn't well elaborated in the articles presently. Especially that there wasn't coverage on other former functional divisions, taking an example ST Engineering Electronics. A proper "History" and "Area of Business" section would do the job well.

JohnLim99 (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning to Support Might be a viable idea to consolidate the topics of ST Engineering Land Systems and ST Engineering Aerospace under ST Engineering on point 1, BUT due care must be taken on the history section such that it is not too out of scope. Reason being, ST Engineering is NOT exactly Singapore Technologies (and its predecessor Sheng-Li Holdings). ST Engineering is only part of Singapore Technologies which spans across multiple industries such as defence, food, telecom, semiconductor. --Lyg 2001 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Additional Comment You are right to point out its links with Temasek, since Singapore Technologies was transferred from Singapore Government to Temasek in 1994, and eventually dissolved in 2004 (which is how ST Engineering came directly under Temasek). BUT I don't think it is a good idea to tuck the history before 1994 right into the Temasek article. Rather, it can be a new independent article on the Defence Industry of Singapore, and touch on the commercialisation and diversification. That can be a good anchor point to link the complicated history up, given that there is no article at present to clarify things as yet, apart from a small un-cited paragraph tucked under Military history of Singapore. Might want to link that chunk of words to the new article if you would consider doing this. --Lyg 2001 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion on improving the neutrality of this article

Two things that I might suggest here that might help with the current problem of the article seeming overly fluffy.

First is that the notable products part seem to take up a sizable part of the neutrality problem. Suggest to make it a list of products with just short, one-liner descriptions if necessary, rather than spanning paragraphs describing the product where there is already an article about it.

Second, the "Core Capabilities" section can be cleaned up into "Area of Business" to cover the broad aspects of what this company do, and to comb thru it to keep it objectively factual. EverrrHong (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! Have did a cleanup based on the above suggestion. Feel free to build on and discuss to improve the article's neutrality and representation of the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! EverrrHong (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You are right to point out the section is quite messy, since it inherits some of the contents directly from the merged articles. It is also missing much of the business activities by the broad looks of it. Lyg 2001 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Have did some cleanup and added more verifiable recent developments. Might not be the most ideal way of writing. @ all feel free to edit and improve it. Lyg 2001 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks okay to me in terms of neutrality, was a huge improvement from what it was in September of 2025. A quick run through the referencesas of the current revision. roughly 54 out of the 185 total references are primary sources. That is about 29%. Still on a high side. Will still be leaving the reliance on primary source tag on, probably until this article have adequate amount of secondary citations. Ideally 10-20% Tayx81992 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)