Deciphering SingPost's governance review report
In future, the company should pick only consultants that provide practical advice and write reports that can be understood.
Add BT as a preferred source
THE long-awaited report on the corporate governance review of Singapore Post (SingPost) by the consulting firm Heidrick & Struggles was finally published on July 4.
A recent Straits Times report (July 5) quoted me as saying that "I think that implementing the recommendations . . . should go a long way towards addressing not only the disclosure lapses but also some other issues I had raised, such as the size, independence and competencies of the board". The report did not mention what I thought about the SingPost report and my reservations about some of the findings and recommendations.
When I read the executive summary of the special audit report released in May, I wished that I was able to read the full report. When I read the executive summary of the corporate governance review report, my thought was "God help those who have to read the full report".
TRENDING NOW
Singapore at 61: How we can ensure opportunity, security and ownership for the next generation
With tech for fact-checking to cancer care, Singapore startups aim beyond home
Vietnam seeks US$76 billion a year from capital markets to ease reliance on banks
How BYD disrupted Singapore’s car market – and why the strategy is turning on itself
