1MDB Highlights Need For Institutional Reform of State’s Role in Business


August 16, 2016

1MDB Highlights Need For Institutional Reform of State’s Role in Business

by  Teck Chi Wong
1MDB Highlights Need For Institutional Reform of State’s Role in Business

Malaysia has a long history of high-level financial scandals, some of them involving the country’s government-linked companies (GLCs). Yet, the recent case of 1MDB is particularly shocking. This is the first time that its sitting Prime Minister ( pic above) is directly implicated.

The 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal in Malaysia which has recently become the subject of a high-profile lawsuit by the United States Department of Justice’s asset recovery initiative highlights the problems with state-ownership in the Malaysian economy. To prevent such scandals from recurring in the future Malaysia must define the role of the government in business and develop adequate institutional arrangements to counter potential abuse by politicians.

Malaysia has a long history of high-level financial scandals, some of them involving the country’s government-linked companies (GLCs). Yet, the recent case of 1MDB is particularly shocking. This is the first time that its sitting Prime Minister is directly implicated.

Prime Minister Najib Razak has vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that the money was a ‘donation’ from the Saudi Royal Family. But the investigation by the US Department of Justice

Research into state ownership has long argued that GLCs are vulnerable to the problems of politicisation, corruption, and rent-seeking, which can cause them to be inefficient and mired in scandal. In Malaysia, GLCs have been used as a tool for politicians to direct benefits to their political supporters or even themselves.

Syed Ali Alhabshee–Jangan bohong dan Tembak Lah

The case of 1MDB illustrates the problem. It is alleged a total of US$7 billion of funds has gone missing. A majority of the misappropriated funds has allegedly flowed to offshore companies. It is also suspected that some of these funds were used to support the ruling coalition’s campaign in the 2013 Malaysia General Election.

The concerns only erupted into a scandal in 2015 when the issue was raised by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in an internal party fight with Najib. Hundreds of thousands of people then went into the streets to protest, but Najib has so far successfully resisted the call for him to step down. He has also strengthened his position by sacking critics and the attorney general from his government. He was later cleared of any wrongdoing by the new attorney general.

Excessive State Influence in Business

Malaysia has a long history of high-level financial scandals, but this is the first time a sitting prime minister is directly implicated. Some $7 billion of funds has gone missing from 1MDB. The failure of institutional safeguards to prevent or take action against such irregularities points to major deficiencies within Malaysia’s governance of GLCs.

The failure of institutional safeguards to prevent or take action against such irregularities points to major deficiencies within Malaysia’s governance of GLCs. Six decades of rule by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the main ruling party in Malaysia, has undermined Malaysia’s democratic institutions. There are now no effective institutional checks and balances on the handling of GLCs by the state and politicians.

Underlying the 1MDB scandal is the problem of excessive state influence in business. It is estimated that GLCs account for approximately 36 per cent of the market capitalisation of Bursa Malaysia and 54 per cent of the benchmark FTSE Bursa Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Composite Index (FBMKLCI). GLCs do not only participate in natural monopolies or strategic industries, but compete with the private sector in highly lucrative businesses such as retail, construction and property development.

In the case of 1MDB, the state-owned investment company also has a huge involvement in property development, through the projects of Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) and Bandar 1Malaysia. These projects were particularly controversial because the land was sold to 1MDB at a very low price by the government. Critics argued that the land should instead have been auctioned publicly and that the projects could be handled more effectively and efficiently by private companies.

Although the government embarked on a GLC transformation program in 2004 and committed to divest their non-core holdings and non-competitive assets in 2010, its influence in Malaysian business has never really faded. On the contrary, as argued by Malaysian economist Dr. Edmund Terence Gomez, there is increasingly an ‘extreme concentration of powers by the executive’. To prevent future scandals Malaysia should curb the excessive role of the state in business and put in place institutional mechanisms that subject politicians to proper checks and balances.

There are increasing discussions at a global level, particularly by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), regarding which institutional governance frameworks can best regulate the state in its handling of GLCs while also improving their performance and accountability.

Malaysia should consider adopting the OECD guidelines on corporate governance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to benchmark itself against the world’s best practices. The guidelines recommend a clear separation between the state’s ownership function and regulatory function, which is currently lacking, particularly in the 1MDB case where the prime minister is the ultimate decision-maker.

Both the state and GLCs must also observe a higher standard of transparency. A clear and consistent ownership policy should be established to define the overall objective of state ownership and the state’s role in corporate governance. This move must also be complemented by wider reform in Malaysia’s democratic system. The problem goes beyond the current prime minister. Lasting reform will require ensuring free and fair elections and a true separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary branches as well as strengthening the independence of key institutions, including the central bank and the Attorney- General’s Office.

Comprehensive institutional reform is necessary to restore public confidence. But this process is expected to be difficult given the deep influence that the ruling party holds within the different branches of government.

This article was written by Teck Chi Wong,  a Masters student at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University (ANU). It first appeared on East Asia Forum under a Creative Common license and is produced  here with its  permission.

1MDB Highlights Need For Institutional Reform of State’s Role in Business http://aecnewstoday.com/2016/1mdb-highlights-need-for-institutional-reform-of-states-role-in-business/#ixzz4HR84FfCs

Please copy and share within the spirit of fair use. We protect our copyrights. Citation link required back to source material. Follow us: @aecnewstoday on Twitter

5 thoughts on “1MDB Highlights Need For Institutional Reform of State’s Role in Business

  1. Did you say that this is the first time a shitting Prime Minister is shitting bricks…..? ? – be careful of the brick-bats….. vicious…..
    ______________
    Not just shitting bricks; the guy is banging his double bs (bees).–Din Merican.

  2. The economic collaspse of Eastern Europe is the best example of unrestricted involvement of Government in the economy.

  3. Governments have no business to be in business for the simple reason that no business is ever successful using money that, when the business fails, does not need to be paid back.

    Recently Bank Negara made a big show of imposing a big fine on 1MDB, and did 1MDB even flinch? Such a fine would have crippled a company funded by private money and run by people who actually owns the company and risk their own money.

    But not 1MDB. And what happened to the so-called CEO and members of the Board of Directors, nothing. In a private or listed company, the shareholders would have sued the CEO and Board members for negligence and dereliction of fiduciary duties and made to pay from their own pockets the money the company lose. But not in 1MDB.

    Any business that risk other people’s money is ever viable or successful. Hence the rationale behind privatisation.

  4. Master’s student Teck Chi, with the present regime, you won’t have an ear. Understood? Public policy – whazzat?

    Here’s a song and some wise words for you. Probably, sung at or before you were born – which many oldies here will be wroth to hear:

  5. But the fact is if you look at GLIC – government linked investment corporations, not GLCs as a whole, they have done reasonable well although they are not really globally competitive. It provides an excuse, and in Malaysia, that is all that UMNO leaders and supporters need, to deny the thesis against GLCs and their way.

    Truth is 1MDB and Rosmah is just an extreme example of a culture of indulgence of a whole class of people afforded by both luck and real assets. Cries of need of discipline, top performance, highly sound,. accountable, meritocratic systems, where there is a streak and extreme examples of excesses will fall on deaf ears. They do not see what is the big worry all about?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s