THE unceremonious sacking of Prasarana chairman Tajuddin Abdul Rahman late yesterday – an action as rare as a full blue moon over Malaysia – was precipitated by political gamesmanship and less by the 130,000 or so outraged citizens clamouring for his removal, after his cringeworthy performance before the media.

This performance  – which the intrepid Cdr (Rtd) Thayaparan described in a published comment as “a cocktail of hubris, arrogance, vulgarity, bigotry and coarseness – is a fine example of what this regime values in its minions.”

Since we don’t know if the erstwhile chairman is in fact a representative sample of other political appointees helming the 70-odd GLCs nationwide (if only because they have not been similarly tested in a crisis), they should be given the benefit of doubt… and not be tarred with the same brush.

However, the very fact that the appointment of this serial politician (once removed from his party’s Supreme Council for “money politics” – an UMNO code for corrupt practices) did not set off alarm bells across government and industry means that the missions of these outfits can and will be compromised. 

GLCs in Malaysia have a formidable presence in the economy, accounting for 42% of the total market capitalisation of the stock exchange.

They are, as noted by The Edge, “companies under the Companies Act 1965 and considered ‘commercial’ because they engage in markets where competition occurs or could occur.”

That is significant because it also means that the Companies Act is no bulwark against the appointment of dubious characters from the politically connected class.

With the government taking a controlling stake in major decisions such as the determination of management positions, contract awards, strategy, restructuring and financing, acquisition and divestments, the quality of its appointed leaders becomes vital for commercial success.

Yet, the chairman’s position in these commercial entities – almost equivalent to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) elsewhere – has long been a prize doled out to supportive political hacks, genuflecting loyalists and most recently, to entice politicians help prop up a minority government despite their notoriety, incompetence and questionable history.

Therefore, the question is why? To get to that answer, we need to recall the reasons GLCs were first conceived and established.

According to the Government-Linked Companies Research Centre (GLCRC), which describes itself as “a leading International government linked companies research centre that drives superior knowledge creation and dissemination through industrial linkages”, there were two reasons:

First, GLCs “would speedily achieve the New Economic Policy’s (NEP) goal of providing more avenues for bumiputera businessmen to participate in economic activities; and second, “privatisation would reduce the government’s burden in providing essential services to the public (for example road construction, health services, energy and power).

As such, these services were privatised to bumiputera private companies, which had the right expertise and resources.

So GLCs, it appears, are integral to the success of the NEP and the oft-touted (but always murky) bumiputera agenda.

So why then was a politician of Tajuddin’s repute and proclivities appointed by this government?

How many more of his ilk have been put out there since February 2020 to perform “national service”?

Clearly, as things stand today, the revised objectives of the NEP in its second iteration or the lessons learned from earlier financial disasters such as MAS have not forced the adoption of merit and competence as criteria for key GLC roles.

If anything, they have only served to do more of the same. Thus they subvert both the policy and the agenda. – May 27, 2021.

* M.S. Abasir 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.