By Khairie Hisyam
On Nov 17 the prime minister told Parliament that donations to political parties from government-linked companies can be treated as part of corporate social responsibility. Should it?
In the November sitting of Parliament, Bandar Tun Razak MP Abdul Khalid Ibrahim asked in Parliament how much in annual funding has been channelled towards politicians between 1981 and 2014 from government-linked companies (GLCs) and whether there are any plans to stop the practice.
On Nov 17, 2015, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak stated that there are no specific annual allocations by GLCs on the matter and fund requests from political parties are treated the same way as those submitted by non-government organisations (NGOs).
“For your information, government-owned companies through the Finance Ministry Inc and GLCs do not have a specific annual allocation to be channelled to politicians or political parties,” said the prime minister in a written reply.
“However, when there is a request for contribution from the said parties, it will then be managed similar to how financial contributions are channelled by NGOs, that is based on the need of the organisation and the available balance in the budget for corporate social responsibility at the time the request is made,” he added.
The answer does not reveal anything new to those who have been tracking GLC doings for some time. However, it raises again a long-burning question: should GLCs be allowed to make political donations?
In simple terms, the answer should be no. By virtue of their direct link to the government, GLCs should be as far removed from politics as possible to reduce grey areas in which corruption risks are greater.
On one hand, it may be possible to argue that promoting greater political activity on both sides of the divide would serve the interests of Malaysians – a robust democracy is the ideal outcome that comes to mind.
However, reality quickly ensues if we stroll down that lane further. Consider that most GLC appointments are decided at the cabinet level. In other words, CEOs and managing directors are put in their positions by politicians holding ministerial posts.
That politicians on one side only hold the power of appointment presents a problem. Without a legislation to ensure equal access to funding to both sides vis-a-vis contributions from GLCs, what we would end up with is a lopsided situation where one political side gets all the funding while the other side gets nothing.
And that in turn harms democracy as a concept given the uneven playing ground that results.
Already you have repeated instances where even federal ministers seem to be in confusion of whether something belongs to the public or their political entity.
Ahmad Maslan
Take, for instance, minister Ahmad Maslan’s reported remarks in Teluk Intan in May 2014 on why Barisan Nasional can use government schools for election campaigns: “I am a BN deputy minister. So I do not see why I cannot hold a ceramah here. This is a government school.”
Or consider Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin’s comments in August last year, reported by Bernama, suggesting that Umno youth leaders are appointed to GLC posts as a way to groom them into leadership roles.
These are symptomatic of the alarming de-separation of political and public assets in the nation. To put it in simple terms, government assets and GLCs are ultimately owned by the public and these resources should only be used to further the nation’s well-being and that of her people as a whole.
Certainly these public resources should not be selectively used to benefit only one side of the political divide, especially as political leanings of voters would vary from one individual to another. Such a situation is unfair to Malaysians whose political entity of choice do not benefit.
In this case specifically, tapping into public resources for the benefit of politicians of a specific allegiance only would amount to the misuse of public property as there is no equal access to all politicians – it is not hard to imagine politicians on the wrong side of the fence being shut out.
The same logic applies to GLCs and political contributions. Theoretically they may choose to donate to both sides equally but in reality that may be hard to do without repercussions.
In the end only one side benefits while the other does not, which is unfair to the Malaysians who support the so-called “other side” as they are also ultimate owners of the resources involved.
And that means we should either legislate fair, equal access or, to make things much easier for everyone, deny access equally.
GRRRRR!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.