Suri Iskandar · Chief Financial Officer · Singapore / Southeast Asia
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Audit following an assessment of the specific mandate · Finance and investment · Risk with a logistics-contract focus |
The best fit would be an established regional service business examining expansion, customer terms or the duration of its operating commitments. I would value a chair who wants financial consequences explained plainly and a management team willing to discuss what a service promise requires before it is sold. My experience would be less useful if the expected role were to approve a predetermined growth plan or provide informal executive cover for a missing finance function.
I would ask the prospective company to explain the contribution it needs, its ownership context, committee expectations and material relationships. Independence and eligibility would need a specific assessment with appropriate advice. I hold one executive seat and have no IICA databank registration. Those facts should remain clear in any conversation about an Indian or other international appointment. The objective is a well-matched responsibility that I can discharge with care, not a general claim that experience in one logistics enterprise qualifies me for every board mandate.
Served as a director
Executive board responsibilities; financial and investment reporting
February 2021–present
I serve as an executive director alongside my CFO role and contribute to collective decisions on funding, capacity and the regional plan.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board financial reviews before director appointment
October 2018–January 2021
I presented enterprise finance as CFO before joining the board; the two capacities have different start dates.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I am not registered in the IICA databank. A potential Indian role would require a separate review of eligibility and applicable requirements.
I would help a board interpret the relationship between a service promise and the financial resources it consumes. Forwarding experience has taught me that an attractive revenue figure can contain substantial purchased transport, while a delivered shipment can leave an unresolved customer account. I would ask directors to consider the service, cost, evidence and collection together before judging the next commercial commitment. That contribution is particularly relevant where an enterprise purchases capacity or accepts long obligations against shorter customer arrangements.
I have served as an executive director since February 2021, following my CFO appointment in October 2018. In an external role I would need to contribute through collective oversight rather than carry my present operating authority into another company. I would listen carefully to directors with safety, customer, legal and regional experience that differs from mine. Finance can make a consequence clearer, but it cannot alone decide whether a service promise is operationally sound or a contractual interpretation is correct.
The air programme showed why a board should understand the amount payable when expected demand does not arrive. We had a reason to secure space, but the actual tonnes were below the reservation. I would bring that experience to an external board by asking management to show both the effective cost over the volume used and the uncertainty of the alternative. A spot quote at approval does not prove equivalent availability later. Equally, that uncertainty should not conceal the cost we actually accepted. The next decision may involve a smaller base commitment, stronger customer terms or a different service offer. I would want each option's operating consequence heard before endorsing a financial recommendation, and I would resist judging the original decision through hindsight that removes the risk from an unexecuted alternative.
In the unbilled-shipment review, the team made progress through several stages. Some charges became invoices, some invoices were paid and other files remained incomplete or disputed. I would use that experience to ask whether a board report keeps the original population and distinguishes each outcome. A director should be able to tell what was collected, what remains a receivable and what still requires commercial or accounting judgement. The review's cost belongs in the account as well. This is not a demand for the board to supervise individual files. It is a way to assess whether management understands a material balance and is changing the process that produced it. I would look for evidence that the next booking has clearer instructions and records, rather than assume that a successful recovery team is a permanent substitute for a sound operating process.
I would begin by learning how the company actually allocates responsibility across its services and counterparties. The same logistics label can describe different obligations, and I would not assume that Neravelle's model applies elsewhere. I would review the major commercial contracts, reporting definitions, cash cycle and capacity commitments, with induction from operating and specialist colleagues. I would also ask the chair how the board receives information about service failures and safety matters, recognising that financial expertise does not replace those disciplines.
After induction, I would agree where my experience can add most value. Finance, investment or audit committee work may be suitable after assessing the mandate and existing skills; I do not claim immediate chair readiness. I would favour a small set of stable reports on material customer balances, capacity utilisation, funding and longer commitments. The purpose would be to help directors follow management's decisions over time without creating an additional operating hierarchy. At the first annual review, I would seek feedback on the usefulness of my challenge, the quality of my preparation and whether I had respected the distinction between oversight and instruction.
I would map relationships through carriers, large shippers, warehouse counterparties, investors and professional advisers before accepting an external seat. Two enterprises can have different customer brands while relying on the same capacity provider or competing for a sensitive commercial arrangement. Those connections may change as the business expands. I would therefore maintain disclosure and seek the company's advice on the appropriate response, rather than treat an initial declaration as the end of the review. A material conflict could make the appointment unsuitable even if it were disclosed openly.
Time needs the same practical treatment. Twenty-six annual days is an initial allowance to discuss, including preparation and travel. Reporting cycles, a disruption or a financing decision can create concentrated demands in my executive role. I would compare those demands with the proposed board calendar and expectations for exceptional events. If the commitment could not be served properly, the attractive title would not make it appropriate. I would also keep any private platform assessment outside the public profile and avoid presenting it as proof of eligibility.
My current directorship is executive. Any external independence assessment must consider the particular company's commercial, ownership and professional relationships.