SingPost special audit report should reveal full methodology

I REFER to the executive summary of the special audit report released by Singapore Post (SingPost). The special auditors did a professional job but may have been hampered by certain limitations in their work. Perhaps as a matter of good practice for special audits, the methodology used should be fully described, even in an executive summary, as it is relevant to the interpretation of the findings.

The special audit relied extensively on interviews, email exchanges and minutes of meetings but the report did not explain how some of the evidence was obtained or the basis of selection or non-selection of individuals who were interviewed. For example, at various points in the report, reference is made to email exchanges. Were the emails obtained through a forensic investigation or were they only emails produced by those concerned? This is important because if only selected emails were available, they may not provide a full picture of what had transpired.

With regards to the acquisition of Famous Holdings Pte Ltd (FHPL), the report quoted interviews, email exchanges, and meetings involving various persons, including the seller Quincy Tan, Stirling Coleman Capital Ltd (SCCL)'s managing director Ang Kay Tiong, SingPost director Keith Tay and various members of SingPost management. Page 6 of the report lists a David Wong as a consultant of FHPL and senior adviser to SCCL but the report's account of the FHPL's acquisition did not include a single reference to any comments made by him. Was he interviewed for the special audit? If not, why not, given that his roles in FHPL and SCCL mean that he was likely involved in the discussions? If he was interviewed, why was there no mention of his comments in the report?