The Fallacies of and Reassessing GLCs
M. Bakri Musa
Commercial activity on the part of the
ruler is harmful to his subjects and ruinous to the tax revenue.
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
The government’s preferred route for
spearheading Malay participation in commerce is through establishing
Government-Linked Companies (GLCs). The fundamental question is whether this is
the most efficient route or are there better alternatives that could supplement
or even supplant these GLCs.
As discussed earlier, it takes more
than just money to start an enterprise. Equally if not more important is the
human, as well as social capital. Enhancing human capital requires improving
our education as well as healthcare systems. As for social capital, the World
Bank defines it best: “...[T]he institutions, relationships, and norms that
shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions. ...[S]ocial
cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development
to be sustainable. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which
underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together.”
GLCs consume inordinate amounts of our
leaders’ attention, gobble up huge sums of public funds, and employ the bulk of
our premium Malay talent. GLCs are also major players in the economy and
marketplace. And as demonstrated by the 1MDB fiasco, also a major source of
corruption.
There has been an accelerating
proliferation of GLCs in recent years, together with a very noticeable “mission
creep.” At the June 2011 “Open House” for GLCs, Prime Minister Najib bragged
that some of them have become multinational corporations. This is the sort of
“mission creep” typical of many government initiatives. Najib did not mention
which of the GLCs that had attained multinational status. Nonetheless the 20
largest GLCs collectively had nearly a third of their revenues from foreign
operations. However, there was no mention what portion of the profits came
from their overseas units.
What Najib refers to as “multinational”
is no more than GLCs with overseas presence, nothing fancy. It is a far cry
from multinational corporations like Nestlé, General Electric (GE), or IBM.
Those are more correctly called “transnational” corporations. They may be
headquartered in one country but their operations are global and have senior
executives from different nationalities. It would be hard to say that GE is an American
company when substantial numbers of its shareholders and employees are
non-Americans. Malaysian “multinational” GLCs are far from that.
Petronas, Sime Darby, and Malaysia
Airlines are three large GLCs with significant revenues from abroad or denominated
in other than ringgit. Except for Petronas, the other two have had their shares
of near-catastrophic financial debacles. Sime Darby is currently involved in a
messy lawsuit over an engineering fiasco in Abu Dhabi that saw its CEO being
ousted. Then there was its domestic debacle with Sarawak’s Bakun Dam.
Malaysia Airlines too has also had its
share of financial fiascos and bailouts, except that they labeled as otherwise.
Instead the government concocted a “Special Purpose Vehicle” to take over the
airline’s debts. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all could have our own SPVs and make
our debts disappear just like that!
Petronas, at least until recently, is
the praiseworthy exception. It is professionally run and exemplary not only for
a Malaysian GLC but also any national oil company. Its track record in terms of
both upstream and downstream activities easily exceeds that of Petro-Canada,
another successful oil-related GLC. Petronas’ success is due to it being
relatively free from government interference in its day-to-day operations,
although there have been major “inputs” with important policy decisions, like
the building of the Petronas Towers and the new national capital, Putrajaya. In
the aftermath of the economic crisis of 1997, Petronas was “persuaded” to “buy”
(bail out) a shipping company owned by one of the sons of then Prime Minister
Mahathir.
Petronas is remarkable for a Malaysian
entity, private or public, in being free of corruption. Although its management
and employees are predominantly Malays, nonetheless it has sought out only the
competent ones, and not those more known for their political pedigrees. The
company is an antidote to the prevailing stereotype that anything run by Malays
is doomed to failure or mediocrity. I do not blame those who harbor such prejudices;
there are just too many ready examples.
The other remarkable feature of
Petronas is that it seeks to exploit opportunities in areas ignored by the
major oil companies, as in Africa and such pariah states as Myanmar. That
reflects the genius of its management. That company used to be a major contributor
to the government’s coffer. With the declining price of petroleum, and with the
company blighted by the usual disease afflicting all GLCS–political interference
with its management–its future is less rosy.
Next:
Rationale for GLCs
Adapted from the author’s book, Liberating
The Malay Mind, published by ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya, 2013.
The second edition was released in January 2016.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home