Has The Edge Malaysia Lost Its Edge on Turiya?

EDITORIAL, Oct 19 – The Edge Malaysia has built its name on business journalism that readers trust to be precise. Its Oct 16 report on Turiya Berhad fell short of that standard.

The article, “Vijayasundaram Jeyabalan emerges as Turiya’s second-largest shareholder with 9.09% stake via placement”, contains three basic errors.

First, the managing director’s name

The article calls Turiya’s new managing director “Nor Shamir Nor Shahid”. His name is Nor Shahmir Nor Shahid, as The Star correctly reported on Oct 15 and 16. Getting a name right is the first thing a reporter checks, and the company’s Bursa filing would have had it correct. In the business world, a single-letter typo can bounce a cheque, or get a payment rejected.

Second, the headline is wrong

The placement does not make Datuk Vijayasundaram the second-largest shareholder. Bernama reported in April 2025 that Bin Zayed (S) Pte Ltd acquired 28.89% of Turiya, and public shareholder listings show it still at that level alongside Neo Pixel Sdn Bhd. Even after the placement dilutes both holdings, each remains far above 9.09%. The article never mentions Bin Zayed (S) at all. A one-click download of Turiya’s annual report from the Bursa website would have confirmed this.

Third, the stale shareholding figure

The article says Datuk Seri Shamir Kumar Nandy holds an indirect 28.89% through Neo Pixel. That figure is from before the placement. Turiya issued 22.872 million new shares, which dilutes every shareholder who did not subscribe, so Neo Pixel’s stake is no longer 28.89%. The same article gives Datuk Vijayasundaram’s 9.09% on the enlarged share base, so it mixes figures from before and after the placement. Any business reporter should know that a placement dilutes existing holders. While the exact post-placement percentages may not yet be public, The Edge should at least have used the past tense for Datuk Seri Shamir’s indirect holding.

None of this needed exhaustive investigative effort. The Bursa filing and a few earlier news reports would have caught all three.

To be fair, The Edge has a real record of rigorous reporting, and it has defended it in court. The Federal Court’s dismissal of KomarkCorp’s defamation suit this January is one example. That record is why errors like these matter. Readers act on shareholding reports, and a wrong headline about who controls a listed company can mislead investors.

Frankly speaking, one is claiming a pattern from one article. But when one short report gets the name, the ranking and the percentages wrong, readers can fairly ask whether verification is slipping under the pressure to publish fast.

So much for reporting facts, The Edge should correct the article and tell readers it has done so.

–NMT