GLC posts: Does it matter if they are politicians or non-politicians?

Good governance is probably a confluence of many factors — strong leadership, systems and methods, uncompromising attitude towards corruption, constant monitoring, freedom of information and putting the right people in place.

To me, the argument of whether active politicians should be appointed to statutory bodies and government-linked companies (GLCs) is really a non-starter, to begin with.

If politicians are good enough to be the prime minister and ministers, I am sure some of them are good enough to head statutory bodies and GLCs. Why exclude them simply because they are politicians?

Some politicians were professionals before they entered politics and have integrity. The issue really is whether these politicians are suitable — and not because of who they are.

If we are concerned about politicians abusing power when given positions in statutory bodies and GLCs, I am quite sure non-politicians and professionals too can similarly be involved in such activities.

If accountability and controlling systems are weak, everyone is capable of indulging in corruption and abuse of power.

It is a myth that professionals and non-politicians will be more assertive and independent when given positions in statutory bodies and GLCs.

In fact, some may even be more ready to “appease” their political masters. Instead of jealously guarding public interests, they may even compromise to gain favour from politicians who put them there.

The same goes for political appointees. Through their political linkages, they may collude and protect each other when indulging in malfeasance.

So here is my take: when professionals and non-politicians appease their political masters and when political appointees collude and conspire with fellow politicians, the fault really is not due to “politicians” or “non-politicians” per se.

The challenges, as I see, really are:

1. whether or not we have selected men and women with the right competency, character and integrity;
2. whether or not our enforcement agencies, such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Attorney-General’s Chambers, Bank Negara Malaysia and the police are given a free rein to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers without fear and favour; and,
3. whether or not the people enjoy the freedom of information on all the wheeling and dealing in statutory bodies and GLCs. Opaqueness is often the main culprit of corruption and abuse of power.

It is time to separate the wheat from the chaff when discussing public issues. Sometimes, I can’t help but feel that many of the issues discussed are dictated by vested interests and personal agenda.

Don’t sideline politicians just simply because they are politicians and don’t appoint professionals just simply because they are professionals.

Strict criteria and standard operating procedures do not work under all situations.

Sometimes, discretion and exceptions are needed, so long as these are exercised transparently and properly.

TK Chua is an FMT reader.