GLC CHIEFS’ HIGH PAY NOT THE ISSUE

IWRITE to put in context the coverage given to government-linked companies (GLCs) with regards to their top exe cutives earning fa t salaries, which therefore must be reduced.

This extends to top executives in government-linked investment companies (GLICs).

GLCs have succeeded in advancing the Bumiputera agenda better than any other government initiatives as they have created middle-class Bumiputeras leading top-listed companies.

One must not paint all GLCs with the same brush.

Consider Petronas and Khazanah.

Petronas is guaranteed to be profitable as long as oil keeps flowing, while Khazanah has to work hard to keep the money coming in.

You can shut down the Petronas Twin Towers for a month and the money from oil will still flow in.

This is a simplistic comparison but it is sufficient to make my point.

Petronas is in charge of monetising our oil reserves while Khazanah is a government investment arm, although it was originally meant to be a sovereign fund.

It cannot be termed a sovereign fund like Temasek and Government Pension Fund of Norway, which regularly get fund injections from government budget surplus.

Khazanah has to go to the market to develop the company.

So, if Khazanah’s personnel get paid more, do they deserve it? Yes, they do.

In any case, what is more? Who decides what is more?

There has been comparison with civil service personnel or even ministers.

Civil servants or ministers may get less basic pay but has anyone considered the tax-free perks they get, from drivers to gardeners?

Years ago, the Prime Minister’s Department published such a list. Even a one-term member of parliament (MP) gets pension and, apparently, if you have been an MP and a minister, you get two pensions.

GLC staff are mostly on the Employment Provident Fund, which is not anywhere as lucrative as pensions given to civil servants and ministers.

Many senior civil servants are even given land at nominal cost by the government.

Many civil servants are able to do their postgraduate degrees on taxpayers’ expense.

Do GLC staff enjoy all this? There has been a suggestion that GLCs be privatised and it will be better for the economy and consumers. Really?

Telecommunications is in private hands.

The cost to customers is one of the highest in the world with low broadband speed.

Toll collection, apart from PLUS, is in private hands, but the toll does not go down.

Long-haul buses are in private hands. Need I say more?

Instead of concentrating on salaries of GLC heads, which is not the main issue facing GLCs, I would suggest focusing on other issues as it will save a lot more money in the long term.

Stop having too many board members for GLCs.

Even 10 members is one too many.

Retired or serving civil servants should not be GLC board members if they don’t have adequate qualification to monitor business.

Board appointments should not be considered retirement benefits or pocket money.

Watch out for the hiring of consultants by GLCs, which can be a huge amount.

There’s no point paying high salaries for GLC officers when all they do is hire consultants to do their work.

The board should meet at least once a month, not just four times a year, which is inadequate to monitor GLC performance.

GLCs and agencies should not stray from their purpose.

Talent Corp, set up to bring overseas talent home, is a onestop centre for expatriate visa issuance and is also involved in placing local talent locally.

Seriously? Then, why do we have the Immigration Department and the Human Resource Ministry?