The recent slew of appointments to GLCs has once again invited criticism from different parties. These appointments, deemed “political appointments,” should come under scrutiny due to their nature of being susceptible to allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of power, and corruption. However, Malaysia lacks an adequate framework that clearly defines the criteria, parameters, and procedures that must be complied with when appointing individuals to government agencies and GLCs. As a result, “political appointments” becomes a catch-all phrase that lacks a clear definition and hence, opens up the potential for misuse.
During the first Pakatan Harapan administration, a Parliamentary Select Committee on Major Public Appointments was set up, which was a good step to introduce transparency and accountability. However, the PSC was not properly utilised, and questionable political appointments to GLCs continued. “What Malaysia needs is a consolidated guideline that upholds public interest by ensuring impartiality, competence, accountability, and diversity. This can be modelled after the United Kingdom’s two important documents on appointments, the Governance Code on Public Appointments and the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies,” comments Dr Tricia Yeoh, CEO of IDEAS.
“As for GLCs, we can refer to the Green Book on Enhancing Board Effectiveness issued by the Putrajaya Committee in 2006. For example, some of these stricter criteria should be applied where board members must possess the necessary knowledge, skills and the right mindset. In addition, evaluation criteria of individual directors and the Board collectively should be transparent, customised to the specific company’s needs and requirements, and explicitly linked to clear consequences for non-performance,” adds Dr Yeoh.
Verbally committing to merit alone is not sufficient, as there has to be a highly transparent recruitment and appointment process. In the UK, public appointment competitions are advertised to the public with a selection criteria with limited discretionary ministerial power subject to the advice of an independent panel. Significant key roles will go through a pre-appointment public hearing by a Select Committee and its candidate list will be published, allowing the public to be involved in the appointment of roles vital to the public. Annual reports on compliance to the relevant codes and principles, as well as real-time progress of the selection process are also disclosed to the public.
“The most important thing when making decisions on these key public appointments is consistency. Guidelines must be followed although the parties in government might change. The government must commit to a set of rules that ensure an open, transparent process is being adhered to while also taking into account ministerial discretion and other political considerations. This is a balance that must be struck to ensure the nation’s most important assets and institutions are helmed by those who ultimately have the public’s interest at heart,” concludes Dr Yeoh.
