Rules governing GLCs separate from those of govt depts – Idris
“I’m happy that I get to celebrate more with my immediate family but at the same time I miss meeting my friends for catch-up sessions over drinks and poco-poco,” she said.
Those not working in their home towns, such as Siradeka Nicre from Miri, were unable to celebrate with even immediate family.
“I am currently living with my little brother in Kuching, and both of us decided to order barbecue pork and have a good dinner on Gawai eve. While having dinner, we had a video call session with other family members on WhatsApp.
“During the video call, we chatted about our situation and what we are up to. Thankfully, everyone is healthy and eating well,” she said, adding that after the dinner she and her brother played games.
The 26-year-old wedding consultant, who is also a streamer, said she spent Gawai Day with her viewers on Facebook gaming and Twitch.
“They are lovely viewers, who are always giving me kind and supportive words during my streaming,” she added.
KUCHING: Government-linked companies (GLCs) are not bound by the rules and procedures meant for public service or government departments, said Muara Tuang assemblyman Dato Idris Buang.
He said GLCs are incorporated under the Companies Act with their own sets of constitution, rules of governance, policies and procedures, which are separate from that of government departments.
“There are other specific and general laws relevant to regulate conduct disposition and action of directors in companies even though these GLCs are whollyowned by the government to ensure integrity, accountability, transparency and propriety in their affairs.
“An easy example, apart from just the Companies Act, is the MACC ( Malaysian AntiCorruption Commission) Act, the Penal Code, Securities Industry Act and Capital Market Services Act for those dealing in securities and capital market,” he said in a statement on Monday.
Idris was responding to an article posted recently by a blogger titled ‘Malaysia’s new constitutional crisis – MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidable’.
The blogger had opined that
Malaysia may be on the brink of a constitutional crisis arising as a result of the appointment of a number of ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) MPs to the boards of GLCs, adding that the appointments have resulted in the MPs holding offices for profit, thus disqualifying them as MPs.
Idris, a lawyer by profession and Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) information chief, said the term ‘ office of profit’ mentioned in the blogger’s article in relation to the qualification of a representative of Parliament should not be confused with ‘profiteering’ in the ordinary sense of the word.
“The writer is attempting to sensationally project it to mean because that term (office of profit) relates to a different perspective or context altogether peculiar to the qualification of MPs ( including state assembly persons).
“A layman would wonder why judges, police officers and public servants are all considered as ‘offices of profit’. They are each considered holding an ‘ office of profit’ in the constitutional sense and therefore not eligible to qualify as an MP.
“This is simply because of these ‘whole-time’ or ‘full time’ positions fall within the said definition and possibly because of the degree of accountability these positions directly demand,” he pointed out.
He added that different countries might have different connotations of the term, and wondered if the blogger would consider the post of Mayor of London, which British Prime Minister Boris Johnson used to hold, as an ‘office of profit’.
“What about the Mayor of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the rest of the mayors in American cities? Are they to be disqualified to run for Congress or the Senate?
“Then we have governors running for the post of president. Yes, it will be interesting to get more views on this,” he said.
Idris believes that Malaysia does have adequate legislation to address such issues raised, within the context of the country’s constitution and basic principles in a democracy.
“I am quite certain our courts had in the past addressed and settled all legal issues surrounding the definition of this phrase from the constitutional law perspective.
“The opposition and their cohorts are trying to artificially create ‘ a storm in a teacup’ in order to arouse and ignite sentiments that could snowball into some degree of pressure, substantial enough to force His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to prorogue Parliament and decree a snap election,” he said.