“Checks And Balances Must Be Continued Irrespective Of Which Government Is In Power”: Malaysia’s Ex-Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin
Interview conducted by Firoz Abdul Hamid and Jeremiah Capacillo
Read part one of this interview.
PART TWO: Transparency, accountability and the government’s role
Investvine: Government-linked companies and statutory bodies are often a big debate in Malaysia in terms of how they are managed, what the government’s role is in managing them and what the level of political interference from the government in appointments and the like is. Though this sector was started with the view of social development, these companies have evolved beyond their original remits and acts under which they were enacted. How should these institutions be remodeled, moving forward?
Daim Zainuddin: The main issues faced with government-linked companies and statutory bodies is that they often deviate from their original mandates as a result of political pressures and gaps in governance. Several such institutions in Malaysia are significant in size with strong socioeconomic and financial linkages with the broader economy. As such, any potential mismanagement or failure of such entities can be a source of reputational and financial risks to the country. As statutory bodies are typically established to fulfill specific socioeconomic objectives, it is important that their mandates are periodically reviewed. This helps ensure that the institutions continue to operate with relevance, in tandem with the growth and development in our economic and financial landscape and evolving needs.
“As statutory bodies are typically established to fulfill specific socioeconomic objectives, it is important that their mandates be periodically reviewed”
Ultimately, institutionalisation of robust governance and oversight frameworks with appropriate disclosure mechanisms is a power tool to keep these bodies in check and ensure they continue to perform their respective mandates in a responsible and sustainable manner.
The money handled by these bodies is the people’s money. There must be a clear priority to protect it and see that the specific social mandates are fulfilled.
Although these bodies are called “government-linked”, they must not be subject to the whims and fancies of the government of the day. At the moment, some of the regulations that govern statutory bodies and government-linked companies explicitly place power in the hands of individual ministers. This, combined with lack of transparency and public accountability put these bodies – and with it the people’s money – at risk of abuse by political actors, which was not uncommon in the past. The previous government was in the process of amending related laws.
Today many politicians have been appointed as chairpersons of various government-linked companies. Not only are they earning fat salaries, people are also wondering what contributions they make that will help the companies they are heading function more effectively? Will the boards be brave enough to stand up to their chairpersons if they feel that political interests are interfering in the running of the companies?
The way government-linked companies should be remodeled moving forward is by putting in place safeguarding measures which ensure that political appointees have limited say over major decisions. Further by reassessing the salaries of chairpersons and board members and even CEOs so that these companies are not seen as “personal enrichment” bodies, as they are now.
I had mentioned the need for government-linked companies to relook at their salary structures earlier. More so today, when people are losing jobs, when private companies are slashing salaries and are laying off staff. Government-linked companies should have been leading the way by announcing salary and allowances cuts. Instead they sat silent and are still refusing to take any steps to reduce their operational costs. It seems they would rather post lower profits and even losses than sacrifice any of their fat salaries.
What should the role of government be in this case?
I mentioned above the institutionalisation of robust governance and oversight frameworks with appropriate disclosure mechanisms to keep government-linked companies in check and ensure they continue to perform their respective mandates in a responsible and sustainable manner. In order to prevent corruption, it is not just a matter of addressing different individuals and their specific wrongdoings, but rather also fixing the system that allows for the plundering to happen in the first place.
“The government must take active steps to reduce opportunities for potential abuse by political actors over investments made by government-linked companies and statutory bodies”
First of all, there should not be any politicians nor political appointees in the position of chairman or CEO of any of these entities. The government must take active steps to reduce opportunities for potential abuse by political actors over investments made by government-linked companies and statutory bodies.
Secondly, aside from reporting to the relevant ministries, there should also be a parliamentary oversight committee that monitors and has oversight of all those various institutions.
Thirdly, all audited financial reports should be made public and accessible.
These are only a few safeguards to protect the people’s money, regardless of individual ministers that are in charge.
How can appointments be made transparent and how must the government take senior management and board members into account?
Vacancies must be advertised and appointing qualified professionals must become the norm, rather than appointing politicians or their proxies. There should be clear and standardised administrative control measures that prevent the potential for abuse by political actors. The experience and qualifications of professionals appointed to each role should be published openly to allow public scrutiny and accountability.
There should be a standard guideline for frequent reviews of executive salaries and directors’ benefits, to ensure that these are not excessive packages being dished out as a form of political reward. Incentives and bonuses have to be based on performance.
Which government-linked companies in your view are no longer serving their purpose and need to be made defunct or revamped?
Rather than them no longer serving their purpose, there are a few government-linked companies with overlapping mandates, which I believe could be merged in order to improve efficiency and save costs. There are also others which have expanded their scope of business so far and wide that their intention of acting as umbrella bodies to small and medium companies has been totally swallowed up in the maze of subsidiaries that have been set up. In the past, many of such subsidiaries were set up to reward politicians.
Regulatory bodies in Malaysia have come under fire with the many financial scandals during the time of the previous government. How should regulatory and oversight bodies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission reorganise themselves and how should regulators themselves be monitored?
Unfortunately, for a long time these agencies were used as political tools against opposition politicians and those who have expressed contrary views. The Pakatan Harapan government did start a move towards making these agencies more independent and answerable to parliament instead of being answerable to the government. Unfortunately, before it could achieve this, the takeover occurred. And one of the first things that happened – and people found it difficult to accept – was the clear reversion back to using these regulatory agencies as weapons against opposition politicians. We see them making decisions and statements which are really troubling. The manner in which Riza Aziz [stepson of former prime minister Najib Razak who was embroiled in the 1NDB scandal] was let off from his charges caused a lot of anger. More importantly, it caused a lot of fear. And now we read of all sorts of investigations into alleged sedition by members of parliament, non-governmental organisations, activists, individuals and even the media.
That culture of fear that was so evident just prior to the 2018 general election, seems to have returned with a vengeance. The placement of numerous politicians in positions within the GLCs and GLICs has gone uncensored even though it is obvious that their appointments are nothing less than buying their political support.
“That culture of fear that was so evident just prior to the 2018 general election, seems to have returned with a vengeance”
What the Pakatan Harapan tried to do in placing these regulatory bodies under the oversight of parliament should and must be continued irrespective of which government is in power. The public, non-governmental organisations and other parties must continuously push the government of the day to implement these changes. If we slip back into complacency and allow the government to just do as it pleases, we will see a comeback of all these financial and other scandals, perhaps on an even bigger scale.
Structures, legislation and policies, as well as code of conducts have been put in place by the authorities to ensure accountability, honesty, effectiveness and efficiency in the running of the regulatory and oversight bodies. Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement regarding their implementation and monitoring, as well as in the development and revision of policies in order to more systematically draw on lessons learned and to enhance information exchange among the various bodies.
With regards to the capital market, there are already mechanisms for internal reporting of corruption, whistle-blower protection and so on under the purview of Securities Commission Malaysia, namely the Capital Markets and Services Act¹ of 2007. There is also the Corporate Integrity System Malaysia, a framework initiated by the Malaysian Institute of Integrity that aims at enhancing corporate governance, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. The Corporate Integrity Pledge² is a tool used by the Corporate Integrity System Malaysia that allows a company to make a commitment to uphold the Anti-Corruption Principles for Corporations in Malaysia.
You have mentioned in other interviews the importance of Malaysia seeking out and working with foreign investors. In a post-Covid 19 economy, are there any specific countries that are most promising to become investors in Malaysia? And in what sectors?
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US are presently moving their productions out of mainland China. Our neighbours have been working hard to entice these investors to set up shop in their home countries. China has shown a preference for Vietnam, the US has chosen Indonesia.
I believe we still stand a chance of obtaining investments from China, Japan and South Korea. However, we need to act quickly and decisively. We have to ask ourselves: what are the incentives that Malaysia has to offer? What are our comparative and competitive advantages? How can we differentiate ourselves from our neighbours?
For one, the tech industry’s supply chain is highly concentrated, with most hardware being produced in five main countries, namely, China, South Korea, the US, Japan and Taiwan. These main producers will be looking to decentralise their supply chains to build resilience against future disruptions. Are we ready to take on the challenge?
Our local agriculture industry also has plenty of room for growth. We have an abundance of underutilised fertile land and are still a net importer of agricultural food produce. By securing the right investors from nations that are experienced in modern agriculture, such as the Netherlands or China, we can turn the tide.
“What are the incentives that Malaysia has to offer? What are our comparative and competitive advantages? How can we differentiate ourselves from our neighbours?”
Malaysia is well-positioned, with many comparative advantages, to seize new opportunities arising from the impending economic transformations and to compete effectively for foreign investments. For example, our electronics and electrical industry forms part of the global technology value chain and is poised to benefit from emerging opportunities from a low-touch economy.
With some businesses looking for alternative production sites after the Covid-19 pandemic and after the US-China trade war exposed their heavy dependence on China, Southeast Asian economies including Malaysia also stand to benefit from such relocations and reorientation in global supply chains.
Recently, when the federal government issued support measures for the economy, nine state governments chose not to implement the government’s orders. How will the federal and state government relations shape itself in this new landscape in the future?
I would say that maybe apart from Penang, Sabah and Sarawak, none of the other state governments are very secure. Now there is even talk of destabilising the government in Sabah even though it is a government with a big majority. Sarawak goes into state elections next year, and it is difficult to predict whether the outcome could lead to another fragile state government. This means that the state governments will begin thinking about what to do to secure their own positions. And knowing that the federal government is also very fragile, state governments will have no qualms making demands to the federal government with threats of changing allegiance.
Take the state of Johor, for instance. There are so many UMNO [United Malays National Organisation, Malaysia’s biggest and main national political party] factions there and each and every one of them has to be taken care of. So those UMNO leaders from Johor, who are not in the state leadership, will demand positions at the federal level. Recently one was appointed chairman of a government-linked company after making a lot of statements because he controls a portion of the UMNO pie in Johor. The prime minister knows he has to keep giving in, otherwise those who are state assemblymen or members of parliament will threaten to cross over to the other side.
So there will be a lot of bartering and trading of positions, and the ones who will be the victims will be the people while the politicians are sweeping up everything in their path.
Given the current turbulent and divisive political state, what would your advice be to those tasked with lifting the country from the ravages of the coronavirus? They might find themselves working closely with people they have difficulty trusting, and/or with people having diverging ideologies, for example in different state governments?
Across many countries, a centralised versus decentralised response in managing the Covid-19 pandemic has been a subject of much discussion. While some countries have centralised decision-making about when to impose and lift lockdown measures at the federal government level, many others have left these choices to state governments.
“At a time like this, everyone needs to step up, put aside their own personal interests and think of the greater good of the nation and the people”
For example, India implemented a nationwide lockdown while Pakistan adopted a decentralised approach. Although India said it has contained Covid-19 rather quickly, it is paying a high economic price. On the other hand, Pakistan’s economy was spared the worst, but the country has the highest infection rate in South Asia.
Both centralised and decentralised crisis responses have their strengths and shortcomings. An ideal model is likely to be one that reflects a smart mix of both, supported by inclusive and well-coordinated dialogue across all levels of the government. This is important to ensure clear and coherent design and delivery of crisis responses to battle the Covid-19 crisis and look beyond, hence setting the stage for sustainable economic recovery, as well as safeguarding investors’ confidence in Malaysia’s economy and capital market.
To me, it is important to think of the people. At a time like this, everyone needs to step up, put aside their own personal interests and think of the greater good of the nation and the people, sacrifice for the nation. The nation comes first. We need serve the nation and the people.
Part two of the interview ends here. Read part three.
¹ The CMSA provides protection for certain parties as under Section 321 (protection for persons against retaliation for reporting to authorities in specific circumstances), where the provision provides protection for chief executives, any officers responsible for preparing or approving financial statements or financial information, internal auditors or secretaries of a listed corporation for disclosing vital information of breach or non-performance of any requirement or provision of the securities laws or a breach of any of the rules of a stock exchange or any matter which may adversely affect to a material extent the financial position of the listed corporation.
² The CIP was launched on March 31, 2011 as a result of collaboration between Bursa Malaysia Berhad, the Companies Commission of Malaysia, the Malaysian Institute of Integrity, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and teh National Key Result Area of the Corruption Monitoring and Coordination Division, the Securities Commission Malaysia, Transparency International Malaysia and the Performance Management and Delivery Unit in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Interview conducted by Firoz Abdul Hamid and Jeremiah Capacillo Read part one of this interview. PART TWO: Transparency, accountability and the government's role Daim Zainuddin served two terms as Malaysia's finance minister Investvine: Government-linked companies and statutory bodies are often a big debate in Malaysia in terms of how they are managed, what the government’s role is in managing them and what the level of political interference from the government in appointments and the like is. Though this sector was started with the view of social development, these companies have evolved beyond their original remits and acts under which they...
Interview conducted by Firoz Abdul Hamid and Jeremiah Capacillo
Read part one of this interview.
PART TWO: Transparency, accountability and the government’s role
Investvine: Government-linked companies and statutory bodies are often a big debate in Malaysia in terms of how they are managed, what the government’s role is in managing them and what the level of political interference from the government in appointments and the like is. Though this sector was started with the view of social development, these companies have evolved beyond their original remits and acts under which they were enacted. How should these institutions be remodeled, moving forward?
Daim Zainuddin: The main issues faced with government-linked companies and statutory bodies is that they often deviate from their original mandates as a result of political pressures and gaps in governance. Several such institutions in Malaysia are significant in size with strong socioeconomic and financial linkages with the broader economy. As such, any potential mismanagement or failure of such entities can be a source of reputational and financial risks to the country. As statutory bodies are typically established to fulfill specific socioeconomic objectives, it is important that their mandates are periodically reviewed. This helps ensure that the institutions continue to operate with relevance, in tandem with the growth and development in our economic and financial landscape and evolving needs.
“As statutory bodies are typically established to fulfill specific socioeconomic objectives, it is important that their mandates be periodically reviewed”
Ultimately, institutionalisation of robust governance and oversight frameworks with appropriate disclosure mechanisms is a power tool to keep these bodies in check and ensure they continue to perform their respective mandates in a responsible and sustainable manner.
The money handled by these bodies is the people’s money. There must be a clear priority to protect it and see that the specific social mandates are fulfilled.
Although these bodies are called “government-linked”, they must not be subject to the whims and fancies of the government of the day. At the moment, some of the regulations that govern statutory bodies and government-linked companies explicitly place power in the hands of individual ministers. This, combined with lack of transparency and public accountability put these bodies – and with it the people’s money – at risk of abuse by political actors, which was not uncommon in the past. The previous government was in the process of amending related laws.
Today many politicians have been appointed as chairpersons of various government-linked companies. Not only are they earning fat salaries, people are also wondering what contributions they make that will help the companies they are heading function more effectively? Will the boards be brave enough to stand up to their chairpersons if they feel that political interests are interfering in the running of the companies?
The way government-linked companies should be remodeled moving forward is by putting in place safeguarding measures which ensure that political appointees have limited say over major decisions. Further by reassessing the salaries of chairpersons and board members and even CEOs so that these companies are not seen as “personal enrichment” bodies, as they are now.
I had mentioned the need for government-linked companies to relook at their salary structures earlier. More so today, when people are losing jobs, when private companies are slashing salaries and are laying off staff. Government-linked companies should have been leading the way by announcing salary and allowances cuts. Instead they sat silent and are still refusing to take any steps to reduce their operational costs. It seems they would rather post lower profits and even losses than sacrifice any of their fat salaries.
What should the role of government be in this case?
I mentioned above the institutionalisation of robust governance and oversight frameworks with appropriate disclosure mechanisms to keep government-linked companies in check and ensure they continue to perform their respective mandates in a responsible and sustainable manner. In order to prevent corruption, it is not just a matter of addressing different individuals and their specific wrongdoings, but rather also fixing the system that allows for the plundering to happen in the first place.
“The government must take active steps to reduce opportunities for potential abuse by political actors over investments made by government-linked companies and statutory bodies”
First of all, there should not be any politicians nor political appointees in the position of chairman or CEO of any of these entities. The government must take active steps to reduce opportunities for potential abuse by political actors over investments made by government-linked companies and statutory bodies.
Secondly, aside from reporting to the relevant ministries, there should also be a parliamentary oversight committee that monitors and has oversight of all those various institutions.
Thirdly, all audited financial reports should be made public and accessible.
These are only a few safeguards to protect the people’s money, regardless of individual ministers that are in charge.
How can appointments be made transparent and how must the government take senior management and board members into account?
Vacancies must be advertised and appointing qualified professionals must become the norm, rather than appointing politicians or their proxies. There should be clear and standardised administrative control measures that prevent the potential for abuse by political actors. The experience and qualifications of professionals appointed to each role should be published openly to allow public scrutiny and accountability.
There should be a standard guideline for frequent reviews of executive salaries and directors’ benefits, to ensure that these are not excessive packages being dished out as a form of political reward. Incentives and bonuses have to be based on performance.
Which government-linked companies in your view are no longer serving their purpose and need to be made defunct or revamped?
Rather than them no longer serving their purpose, there are a few government-linked companies with overlapping mandates, which I believe could be merged in order to improve efficiency and save costs. There are also others which have expanded their scope of business so far and wide that their intention of acting as umbrella bodies to small and medium companies has been totally swallowed up in the maze of subsidiaries that have been set up. In the past, many of such subsidiaries were set up to reward politicians.
Regulatory bodies in Malaysia have come under fire with the many financial scandals during the time of the previous government. How should regulatory and oversight bodies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission reorganise themselves and how should regulators themselves be monitored?
Unfortunately, for a long time these agencies were used as political tools against opposition politicians and those who have expressed contrary views. The Pakatan Harapan government did start a move towards making these agencies more independent and answerable to parliament instead of being answerable to the government. Unfortunately, before it could achieve this, the takeover occurred. And one of the first things that happened – and people found it difficult to accept – was the clear reversion back to using these regulatory agencies as weapons against opposition politicians. We see them making decisions and statements which are really troubling. The manner in which Riza Aziz [stepson of former prime minister Najib Razak who was embroiled in the 1NDB scandal] was let off from his charges caused a lot of anger. More importantly, it caused a lot of fear. And now we read of all sorts of investigations into alleged sedition by members of parliament, non-governmental organisations, activists, individuals and even the media.
That culture of fear that was so evident just prior to the 2018 general election, seems to have returned with a vengeance. The placement of numerous politicians in positions within the GLCs and GLICs has gone uncensored even though it is obvious that their appointments are nothing less than buying their political support.
“That culture of fear that was so evident just prior to the 2018 general election, seems to have returned with a vengeance”
What the Pakatan Harapan tried to do in placing these regulatory bodies under the oversight of parliament should and must be continued irrespective of which government is in power. The public, non-governmental organisations and other parties must continuously push the government of the day to implement these changes. If we slip back into complacency and allow the government to just do as it pleases, we will see a comeback of all these financial and other scandals, perhaps on an even bigger scale.
Structures, legislation and policies, as well as code of conducts have been put in place by the authorities to ensure accountability, honesty, effectiveness and efficiency in the running of the regulatory and oversight bodies. Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement regarding their implementation and monitoring, as well as in the development and revision of policies in order to more systematically draw on lessons learned and to enhance information exchange among the various bodies.
With regards to the capital market, there are already mechanisms for internal reporting of corruption, whistle-blower protection and so on under the purview of Securities Commission Malaysia, namely the Capital Markets and Services Act¹ of 2007. There is also the Corporate Integrity System Malaysia, a framework initiated by the Malaysian Institute of Integrity that aims at enhancing corporate governance, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. The Corporate Integrity Pledge² is a tool used by the Corporate Integrity System Malaysia that allows a company to make a commitment to uphold the Anti-Corruption Principles for Corporations in Malaysia.
You have mentioned in other interviews the importance of Malaysia seeking out and working with foreign investors. In a post-Covid 19 economy, are there any specific countries that are most promising to become investors in Malaysia? And in what sectors?
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US are presently moving their productions out of mainland China. Our neighbours have been working hard to entice these investors to set up shop in their home countries. China has shown a preference for Vietnam, the US has chosen Indonesia.
I believe we still stand a chance of obtaining investments from China, Japan and South Korea. However, we need to act quickly and decisively. We have to ask ourselves: what are the incentives that Malaysia has to offer? What are our comparative and competitive advantages? How can we differentiate ourselves from our neighbours?
For one, the tech industry’s supply chain is highly concentrated, with most hardware being produced in five main countries, namely, China, South Korea, the US, Japan and Taiwan. These main producers will be looking to decentralise their supply chains to build resilience against future disruptions. Are we ready to take on the challenge?
Our local agriculture industry also has plenty of room for growth. We have an abundance of underutilised fertile land and are still a net importer of agricultural food produce. By securing the right investors from nations that are experienced in modern agriculture, such as the Netherlands or China, we can turn the tide.
“What are the incentives that Malaysia has to offer? What are our comparative and competitive advantages? How can we differentiate ourselves from our neighbours?”
Malaysia is well-positioned, with many comparative advantages, to seize new opportunities arising from the impending economic transformations and to compete effectively for foreign investments. For example, our electronics and electrical industry forms part of the global technology value chain and is poised to benefit from emerging opportunities from a low-touch economy.
With some businesses looking for alternative production sites after the Covid-19 pandemic and after the US-China trade war exposed their heavy dependence on China, Southeast Asian economies including Malaysia also stand to benefit from such relocations and reorientation in global supply chains.
Recently, when the federal government issued support measures for the economy, nine state governments chose not to implement the government’s orders. How will the federal and state government relations shape itself in this new landscape in the future?
I would say that maybe apart from Penang, Sabah and Sarawak, none of the other state governments are very secure. Now there is even talk of destabilising the government in Sabah even though it is a government with a big majority. Sarawak goes into state elections next year, and it is difficult to predict whether the outcome could lead to another fragile state government. This means that the state governments will begin thinking about what to do to secure their own positions. And knowing that the federal government is also very fragile, state governments will have no qualms making demands to the federal government with threats of changing allegiance.
Take the state of Johor, for instance. There are so many UMNO [United Malays National Organisation, Malaysia’s biggest and main national political party] factions there and each and every one of them has to be taken care of. So those UMNO leaders from Johor, who are not in the state leadership, will demand positions at the federal level. Recently one was appointed chairman of a government-linked company after making a lot of statements because he controls a portion of the UMNO pie in Johor. The prime minister knows he has to keep giving in, otherwise those who are state assemblymen or members of parliament will threaten to cross over to the other side.
So there will be a lot of bartering and trading of positions, and the ones who will be the victims will be the people while the politicians are sweeping up everything in their path.
Given the current turbulent and divisive political state, what would your advice be to those tasked with lifting the country from the ravages of the coronavirus? They might find themselves working closely with people they have difficulty trusting, and/or with people having diverging ideologies, for example in different state governments?
Across many countries, a centralised versus decentralised response in managing the Covid-19 pandemic has been a subject of much discussion. While some countries have centralised decision-making about when to impose and lift lockdown measures at the federal government level, many others have left these choices to state governments.
“At a time like this, everyone needs to step up, put aside their own personal interests and think of the greater good of the nation and the people”
For example, India implemented a nationwide lockdown while Pakistan adopted a decentralised approach. Although India said it has contained Covid-19 rather quickly, it is paying a high economic price. On the other hand, Pakistan’s economy was spared the worst, but the country has the highest infection rate in South Asia.
Both centralised and decentralised crisis responses have their strengths and shortcomings. An ideal model is likely to be one that reflects a smart mix of both, supported by inclusive and well-coordinated dialogue across all levels of the government. This is important to ensure clear and coherent design and delivery of crisis responses to battle the Covid-19 crisis and look beyond, hence setting the stage for sustainable economic recovery, as well as safeguarding investors’ confidence in Malaysia’s economy and capital market.
To me, it is important to think of the people. At a time like this, everyone needs to step up, put aside their own personal interests and think of the greater good of the nation and the people, sacrifice for the nation. The nation comes first. We need serve the nation and the people.
Part two of the interview ends here. Read part three.
¹ The CMSA provides protection for certain parties as under Section 321 (protection for persons against retaliation for reporting to authorities in specific circumstances), where the provision provides protection for chief executives, any officers responsible for preparing or approving financial statements or financial information, internal auditors or secretaries of a listed corporation for disclosing vital information of breach or non-performance of any requirement or provision of the securities laws or a breach of any of the rules of a stock exchange or any matter which may adversely affect to a material extent the financial position of the listed corporation.
² The CIP was launched on March 31, 2011 as a result of collaboration between Bursa Malaysia Berhad, the Companies Commission of Malaysia, the Malaysian Institute of Integrity, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and teh National Key Result Area of the Corruption Monitoring and Coordination Division, the Securities Commission Malaysia, Transparency International Malaysia and the Performance Management and Delivery Unit in the Prime Minister’s Office.
