THE recent announcement by the Berjaya Group of their incoming Group CEO was apparently matched with strong buying interest in the shares of the group.

The shares became the 10th most actively traded counter on the local bourse, with a trading volume of 186.4 million shares, far exceeding its 200-day average trading volume of 9.83 million shares on the day of the announcement.

Was the euphoria due to the fact that this is the first time in the group’s history that its CEO’s office is occupied by someone who is not a member of the Tan family or to the heightened expectation that the new Group CEO will remake it into the darling of the local bourse?

Or will this question never be answered, in the same way the question of how the new CEO was unceremoniously removed from his previous position was never replied to?

He was previously employed as the CEO of one of the largest investment funds in Malaysia. His tenure, however, was short-lived, lasting a mere 8 months. He claimed he was the target of harassment that made him worry for his family’s safety, resulting in him tendering his resignation. But the company did not say why he resigned.

His resignation coincided with the fall of the previous government, which, when it recruited him, did it with great fanfare, turning the matter into a homecoming of sorts for a Malaysian who used to helm the regional office of an international fund.

A Malaysian who, globally, had managed a fund size far exceeding the Malaysian one he was hired to manage.

Where did it go wrong for him? In a report in a mainstream daily on September 25, 2019, the chairman of the fund was quoted as saying that his appointment as president and CEO was made under a strict, rigorous and robust governance process.

He said that the appointment was deliberated upon by the nomination and remuneration committee of the board.

The chairman even alluded to the fact that the fund has obtained prior approval from the Securities Commission (SC) before hiring him.

The commission said it is clearly stated in the relevant application form that it is the fund’s responsibility to ensure that all information submitted to the SC for the appointment is true and correct.

The issue apparently was that he misrepresented the alma mater he allegedly graduated from.

If his recruitment did undergo a strict, rigorous and robust governance process, how come the “discrepancies” were not noticed till now, especially for an institution like Permodalan Nasional Berhad? Were there lapses in governance and due diligence? Who was responsible and why?

Even his previous employer, Aberdeen Standard Islamic Investment affirmed that he did not misrepresent his qualifications at all.

The Berjaya Group obviously grabbed the opportunity to pick him with the objective of getting him to propel the group to be better than all its competition.

In doing so, it appears that the actions by Berjaya Group indirectly caused 14 million Malaysians who entrusted their savings with the fund to lose trust in it.

This appears to be consistent with a study conducted by Ipsos Malaysia released in Jan 2020 that revealed that government (59%) and media (58%) have the lowest trust levels among citizens of Malaysia.

The study paints a dreary picture of trust in Malaysia, though it shows that most Malaysians believe that trust can improve in this new decade.

Trust-building starts with authenticity and transparency. But do not practice both without adding in morality.

Until today, no individual or parties in the fund that took part in the due diligence and the hiring of their previous CEO took responsibility for that debacle.

The blame seems to end with the previous hire while those who took part in the entire process shamelessly proceed in their employment without giving two hoots to public sentiment and trust in the fund.

To the new hire, it appeared that your appointment created a positive and uplifting impact on the market capitalization of your new employer.

While the blame appears to be laid squarely on your shoulders publicly, you did not fail in your job that led to your departure.

What the fund lost, your new employer gained. Despite the chairman’s public assertion, it was clear that the board at your previous place of employment was guilty of a lack of rigorous oversight, potentially laying the groundwork for the derailment of your successor too. – March 23, 2021.

*FLK reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.