Politics and the Changing Face of Corporate Malaysia

January 3, 2018

Politics and the Changing Face of Corporate Malaysia

by Chua Su-Ann



Image result for terence gomez book

Dr. Edmund Terence Gomez and Dr. Jomo Kwame Sundaram

THE face of Corporate Malaysia has changed many times over the decades and it is not driven by pure market forces. Instead, it is inextricably linked to state intervention in the economy and politics, says Universiti Malaya’s Prof. Dr. Edmund Terence Gomez.

“The nature of state intervention in the economy is very much driven by the politics of the country,” Gomez says at a lecture at Monash University Malaysia in Bandar Sunway, Selangor.

His lecture illustrated the scale and implication of the nexus between politics and business. These are among the findings that will appear in his book Minister of Finance Inc: Ownership and Control of Corporate Malaysia.

Image result for terence gomez book

From Gomez’s research, there are several defining moments that are inextricably linked to Malaysia’s politics and history.

“Many of the outcomes we see today have been shaped by who was the prime minister at particular moments in Malaysian history,” says Gomez.

The first defining moment, according to him, was in 1970 when the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced by then Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein (dec 1976) to fight poverty and redistribute wealth more equitably. It was then that the government decided to cast away its laissez-faire policy and actively intervene in the corporate sector.

“The NEP was a policy that the country needed. It involves state intervention to rectify the problems that had occurred under colonial rule where the bypassing of Malays in business was a key problem,” says Gomez.

According to his analysis of the most valuable companies in 1971, the key players in the economy were foreign-owned firms and family businesses — owned mostly by the Chinese — which controlled 61% and 23% of the economy respectively.

It was in the 1970s that the state intervened by creating well-funded public enterprises that went out and acquired the assets of foreign companies.

The next turning point came in 1981, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became Prime Minister.

Image result for dr. mahathir mohamad

Malaysia’s Father of Crony Capitalism

“He decided that the purpose of the NEP was to create bumiputera capitalists or bumiputera businessmen, not GLCs (government-linked companies). The [NEP’s] emphasis on education diminished and its focus moved to business,” says Gomez.

This is notwithstanding the fact that the most valuable companies in 1997 were still government controlled, including Telekom Malaysia Bhd, Tenaga Nasional Bhd, Malayan Banking Bhd and Petronas Gas Bhd, all in the top four.

But it marked the start of an era where many public enterprises were privatised in order to help create a class of bumiputera capitalists.

Gomez’s analysis of the top 30 most valuable Malaysian companies in 1997 shows that prominent businessmen controlled 11 of the top 30 firms. They included Tan Sri Halim Saad (United Engineers Malaysia Bhd, Renong Bhd), Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli (TR Industries Bhd, Malaysian Airline System Bhd), Tan Sri Rashid Hussain (Development and Commercial Bank Bhd), Tan Sri Yahaya Ahmad (Edaran Otomobil Nasional Bhd, Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Bhd, Heavy Industries Corp of Malaysia Bhd) and Tan Sri Azman Hashim (AMMB Holdings Bhd).

Then came the 1997 Asian financial crisis, another turning point. “The financial crisis came and all this fell apart. We see the move from private businesses to GLCs coming to the fore and taking control,” says Gomez.

Analysis of the most valuable companies in 2001, after the financial crisis was over, shows the fall of the bumiputera capitalist class. Among the top 30 most valuable firms, Rashid’s RHB Capital comes in at No 14 and Azman’s AMMB Holdings clocked in at 23rd.

Similarly, in 2013, the year of the last general election, the only two bumiputera-controlled companies in the top 30 list were SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd (controlled by the Shamsudin family) and Azman’s AMMB Holdings at No 15 and 20 respectively.

“The key figures in 2001 were the GLCs, and 12 years later, in 2013, the key figures in the corporate sectors were still the GLCs. The GLCs have emerged as key players in the economy and have sustained themselves,” say Gomez.

What does this say about the GLCs? Gomez cautions against assuming that GLCs are underperformers or run-of-the-mill firms. “What we are seeing here are dynamic firms maintaining their performance as the top companies in the country.”

By 2013, seven of the top 10 companies were GLCs, which also made half of the top 30.

During Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s time, he pushed for GLC transformation, which saw a new class of professional managers take the reins at important companies.

The other interesting development in 2013 is that foreign-controlled firms were re-emerging as important players in the economy. They included DiGi.Com Bhd, British American Tobacco (M) Bhd and Nestlé (M) Bhd, which are among the top 30 most valuable companies in Malaysia in 2013.

Gomez also points out another important finding — manufacturing firms are no longer a major force in the economy. “The industrial elite of old have fallen away. Industrial companies have not been investing in R&D. They have been fearful of the state,” says Gomez.

“Where are all the companies involved in the high-technology sector or highly innovative companies? If you look at this list, we are looking at companies involved in utilities, finance, construction and property development. It’s not going to take you anywhere in the long run.”

Where does it leave us today?

The first phase of Gomez’s research focuses on the government-linked investment companies (GLICs), which are major players in the economy by virtue of their web of ownership and control over a vast empire of companies.

The seven GLICs analysed by Gomez’s team are Minister of Finance Inc, Permodalan Nasional Bhd, Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP), the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Lembaga Tabung Haji and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera.

These GLICs control over 68,000 companies directly and indirectly with minority interest. “The seven GLICs control important companies in the economy. They have majority ownership of 35 public-listed companies and in terms of market capitalisation, they control about 42% of the entire Bursa Malaysia,” Gomez says.

He argues that this is of concern because this points to extreme concentration of power in Minister of Finance Inc.

The nature of corporate control was different under the different prime ministers. “The nexus between state and business is under constant transition. Under Razak, it was about public enterprises, Mahathir was about big business, Abdullah was focused on SMEs and [Datuk Seri] Najib [Razak] is back to the GLICs.”

As Gomez describes it, Dr Mahathir was “extremely involved” in the economy while Abdullah was not very involved. Najib, on the other hand, is selectively involved in the economy.

“There is an unprecedented concentration of power in the executive. The key company here is MoF Inc, the super entity … What does this control allow the executive to do?” he asks.

Gomez is proposing several reforms to reduce this concentration of power. He says that to ensure proper checks and balances, the prime minister cannot also maintain the finance portfolio.

Gomez is also calling for an operational oversight body for GLICs and GLCs, instead of concentrating it in the Ministry of Finance. This could provide policy coherence and coordinate GLIC and GLC activities to achieve specific social and economic objectives.

Gomez points out that the professional managers of the GLICs and GLCs should be given autonomy to run their respective companies. “Professional managers with autonomy but accountable to parliamentary select committees headed by opposition members. This can be done tomorrow.”



5 thoughts on “Politics and the Changing Face of Corporate Malaysia

  1. I refer to this segment, with respect to Tun Mahathir:

    “He decided that the purpose of the NEP was to create bumiputera capitalists or bumiputera businessmen, not GLCs (government-linked companies). The [NEP’s] emphasis on education diminished and its focus moved to business,” says Gomez.

    I would like to know….what was NEP’s emphasis on education?? And subsequently, what are the facts that support Mahathir’s downplay of education and move to business?
    Dr. Alatas,

    Being in academic, you should be able to tell us what is happening in our universities. I know they are in a mess. With few exceptions like you, Gomez, and Rajah Rasiah who I Know personally and respect, most are pro-UMNO village professors.–Din Merican

  2. Quote:- ““Many of the outcomes we see today have been shaped by who was the prime minister at particular moments in Malaysian history,” says Gomez.

    Perhaps it is also arguable that who happened to be the deputy prime minister was also critical?

    This is true not only of Mahathir’s tenure but Najib as well, i.e. would Muhyiddin, (who was and always will be an out-and-out Mahathir man), had kept his mouth shut on 1MDB and remained deputy.

    If Mahathir had deputies that were not so charismatic and more importantly ambitious as Anwar, (his alleged un-Islamic sexual orientation notwithstanding), there would have been no “Reformasi”, Anwar would be PM as a matter of course, followed by most probably Najib, (with Mukriz as his deputy or finance minister), and he, (Najib), need not contend with Anwar and now with Mahathir as an Opposition leader.

    I would also like to think that Najib in the above scenario need not have to buy so many people and therefore the level of corruption would correspondingly be more acceptable in our Malaysian context.

  3. GLC business are franchise from govt. They are NOT efforts of pure independent enterprise as such they are ALWAYS INEVITABLY LIMITED in their ability to produce benefit for the economy and the people. Their share of economy reflects a LACK OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE ECONOMY AND THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. They reflect poor economic freedom of the people, their faith not truly in their hands.

  4. A good read, but nothing ecstatically new, i would venture. The authors certainly have their wits about them, unlike the headless GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) Pe-Ems we seem to be saddled with.

    True, we had OctoGOAT – cronyism, pragmatic corruption and failed Bumi tycoons; and DopeyGOAT with the Islam Hadhari which micronized SME into Halaldom. But the last, KleptoGOAT takes the biggest turd cake! That’s why we morphed into Malusia..!

    KleptoGOAT’s idea of economics and development is limited to premature ejaculations:
    1. Like another superfluous ‘sovereign’ investment fund based on borrowed money from international Ah-Longs. For personal use as mandated by Manifest Destiny (aided no doubt by the Shaman Feh Jloh and his Gawdmudder) and
    2. The process of emasculating a healthy, progressive industrialization – by de-industrializing and pretending to be postindustrial – just because his ethnic cohort can only be used as an incompetent industrial detergent. All due to the zero entrepreneurship skills, lack of vision, technical ability, perseverance and creativity. Tongkat Syndrome inbred with Religiofascism and Rent-Seeking Hubris.

    In the past, when EPU was really in charge, there was some semblance of order.
    MinFin’s dabbling and dribbling was confined to holding the golden share and not outright rapine and pillaging the GLIC/GLCs. Otoh, MITI nowadays is like a used, soiled and longgar sanitary pad and just as directionless. Meanwhile, Bank Negara is more concerned about e-finance, banking and commerce – than the angst of cash-strapped man on the street. Priorities and results are secondary to KleptoGOAT’s celebrity status and Manna from PAS.

    All the second MinFins under KleptoGOAT are eunuchs without a shred of moral spine, much less ethical fiber.

    And yeah, a Happy New Year (of the Dog, soon) to All too, from a hopeless optimist:

  5. There was no bumiputra class to speak of in the corporate world during Tunku and Razak’s time. It was Mahathir who kick-started it. After all, he was only a medical doctor. But he had deep understanding of socio-political issues and their impact on the economy and the need for its growth. He sought state intervention in all economic sectors and set up GLCs and other entities to transfer a slice of corporate wealth in the hands of the bumiputras. In his respect Mahathir has done far more than any other PM. But I suspect the Malays generally do not appreciate his contribution sufficiently enough and give him the due credit he fully deserves.

Leave a Reply to bigjoe99 Cancel 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.