Serious CG issues at SingPost (2)

The one person who wrote a lot about CG issues concerning SingPost is Mak Yuen Teen.

Many of his letters can be found in the "letters" department in the local newspapers. They can also be found on Mak's website.

The articles and letters concerning SingPost can be found here.

One rather remarkable aspect is that this is not the first disclosure lapse by SingPost, as detailed here, some snippets:


The group’s recent admission of disclosure failure may remind some observers of what transpired with ACCS 10 years ago. SingPost had announced its intention to invest in ACCS in early March 2005, after ACCS shocked the market by saying that it had lost almost all its Nokia contracts, had overstated its earnings, and was under CAD investigation.

Soon after, the deal came under intense scrutiny when it was disclosed that three SingPost directors – Mr Goh, Mr Lim and Tan Yam Pin – held stakes in ACCS.

Mr Goh, who had failed to disclose his substantial stake in ACCS, blamed “inadvertence”. Mr Lim revealed that he had bought shares in ACCS after it announced the Nokia contract losses, and that he stopped buying just days before talks on the planned investment started.

A bombshell came when SingPost and Mr Lim said in late March 2005 that they were helping in a CAD probe, triggering speculation that this was linked to Mr Lim’s purchase of ACCS stock. However, this was not confirmed. The CAD cleared Mr Lim of any wrongdoing a few months later, in October 2005.


It appears SingPost, despite the above negative experience, has not put proper processes in place to deal with acquisitions where directors seem to have a conflict of interest.

Serious CG issues at SingPost

Very good article in The Star regarding corporate governance issues regarding a "government-linked logistics and e-commerce group".

We can safely assume that the company in question is non other than SGX listed SingPost.

The article centers around important issues like conflict of interest, independence of directors, “box-ticking corporate governance approach” and the important role of "public outrage".

The special audit report regarding the matter can be found here.

On one side, there is quite a lot of useful information to be found in this report about the process regarding the three acquisitions.

On the other side I think important details have been left out. For instance, a broad background of the three companies could have been given (some key numbers before and after the acquisition of each company plus the price for which they were acquired). The companies were acquired one, two and three years ago, so it would be interesting to know how they have performed since their acquisition.

Also, the money that Tay and his company earned through the transactions would have given more context: was it a tiny amount, or were millions of S$ involved?

And why did the three companies hire Tay's company as advisor, surely there must be hundreds of this kind of financial arrangers/advisors, was it mere coincidence?

It appears that the terms of reference for the special audit were too narrow to provide this kind of information, missing out on an opportunity to clear the air once and for all.