Article Prepared By: Sharul Azman Ramli, Internal Audit Division

 

Whenever a financial issue or a high-profile investigation report emerges, people generally tend to divide into two groups.

The first group immediately accepts all allegations as true.

The second group rejects all the findings because they believe the matter is politically motivated.

As an auditor, I would like to suggest a different approach.

In the auditing profession, we do not begin by choosing sides. We begin by looking for evidence.

 

Do Not Begin with a Conclusion

One of the most common mistakes when reading a report is immediately trying to determine who is right and who is wrong.

An auditor does not approach an issue in this way.

Instead, we ask:

What facts have been established?

What assumptions have been made?

What documents support the conclusion?

Are there different professional views on the matter?

A conclusion should only be reached after these questions have been properly addressed.

 

Distinguish Between Facts, Interpretations and Opinions

Not everything written in a report carries the same evidential weight.

For example:

Fact

A policy was approved on a particular date.

This can be verified through documentary evidence.

Interpretation

The policy is considered inappropriate.

This requires analysis based on relevant standards or laws.

Opinion

The policy was introduced with a particular intention.

This requires additional evidence. Without supporting evidence, it remains an opinion.

People often mix these three elements together, making it difficult to distinguish between what has actually been proven and what is merely an inference.

 

Understand That Professional Standards Do Not Always Provide a Single Answer

In auditing, engineering, medicine or law, not every question has a clear-cut answer.

Many decisions require professional judgement.

Two professionals may examine the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions.

Such differences do not necessarily mean that one of them is incompetent.

 

What matters is:

Is the judgement reasonable?

Is it consistent?

Can it be defended based on the relevant standards?

Do Not Rely on a Single Source

Investigation reports are valuable sources of information.

So are financial statements.

So are audit reports.

So are laws and regulations.

However, each document serves a different purpose.

If we rely on only one document while ignoring others, we may understand part of the story, but not the whole picture.

 

Distinguish Between Compliance and Governance

An action may:

comply with the law but still be weak from a governance perspective;

comply with accounting standards but still be insufficient from a disclosure perspective;

or demonstrate good governance while still involving technical errors.

Therefore, we should not assume that because one aspect has been satisfactorily addressed, all other aspects must also be correct.

 

Audit Is Not About Finding Fault

Many people assume that an auditor's job is to identify who is at fault.

That is not the case.

The objective of an audit is to assess whether a decision was made:

based on sufficient information;

through an appropriate process;

in accordance with the relevant standards;

and in a manner that can be professionally defended.

Sometimes, an audit confirms that an action was appropriate.

Sometimes, an audit recommends improvements.

At other times, an audit may demonstrate that more than one acceptable approach could be adopted.

 

Be Cautious of Overly Simplistic Narratives

If a complex issue can be explained in a single sentence such as:

“Everything is wrong.”

“Everything is correct.”

“It is all a conspiracy.”

“It is all political.”

then there is a strong possibility that we have not yet understood the issue sufficiently.

Issues involving finance, auditing and governance usually have multiple layers that require careful consideration.

 

Develop the Habit of Asking the Right Questions

Instead of immediately asking:

“Who is right?”

Try asking:

What standards are being applied?

Are those standards mandatory or merely guidance?

Is there room for professional judgement?

What evidence supports the decision?

Has all material information been disclosed?

Are there other professional views that are also supported by a reasonable basis?

These are the types of questions that distinguish professional analysis from emotionally driven debate.

 

Conclusion

The auditing profession teaches us something extremely valuable.

Evidence matters more than perception.

Facts matter more than narratives.

Analysis matters more than sentiment.

In today's world, we are constantly exposed to statements, commentaries and opinions. Not all of them are wrong, and not all of them are right.

A mature society, however, is not one that rushes to conclusions.

 

A mature society is one that is able to distinguish between facts, interpretations and opinions, and is prepared to assess an issue based on evidence, standards and arguments that can withstand scrutiny.

Because ultimately, how we think matters more than which side we support.

 

The author is the Head of Internal Audit, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM).

Date of Input: 19/08/2026 | Updated: 19/08/2026 | faiz_suparman