Merdeka!

 

There are several blessings as we count the days to Merdeka celebration. But we do have many areas that look like gaps between reality and vision; promise and performance; and politicians and ordinary folks! 

There are several “drags” and “accelerators” in a drive to unity. Many countries face similar issues, even the United States. The game is always to minimise the drags and enhance the accelerators. 

 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org

Unity is not something you can manufacture – it is a feeling; a commitment; a bond; and love for a place no matter what we face – economic, political or foreign interference. It has to be lead by the leadership in power; by the people who vote them in; and, the private/corporate sector operating in a country. 

I don’t have solution for all facets but in a small way, the private sector or corporates could do the following:

 

1.      Have Mesra sessions weekly in a corporate setting. Once a week at lunch time, the company organises a luncheon for its staff who will listen to a facilitator (or via video) on topics that relate to unity including:

a)                       Rukun Negara;

b)                       Cultures;

c)                       Festivals;

d)                       Affordability etc. 

The expositor uses 20-25 minutes to convey the message while the staff have a packaged lunch. Following that, the meeting breaks into groups of 8-10 persons per group to discuss the message and arrive at action steps, if feasible. These weekly meetings provide an avenue for bonding and harmony. Details could be discussed;

 

2.       2.  Have celebration awards for companies that encourage and promote unity in their places of work.   Individuals too could be given awards.

For corporates to subscribe to these ideas, incentives like partial reimbursement and/or tax relief will be helpful. 

I cannot say that the above will solve all our problems on unity but are small steps toward greater interaction and dialogue. Meanwhile, let us celebrate each other and enjoy the diversity of this land. Merdeka!

Currencies Performance (June 2026)

 

 

Currency markets have produced some striking winners and losers over the past year, with gains and declines approaching 20% against the U.S. dollar.

 

Highlighting sharp economic divides between regions, a new Deutsche Bank ranking tracks how 36 global currencies performed against the U.S. dollar over the year ending June 30, 2026. Colombia led the pack as the strongest performer, soaring 19.2%. Latin America captured both ends of the spectrum, with a massive 38.1 percentage-point performance gap separating Colombia from Argentina. On the flip side, Asian currencies suffered heavy losses due to escalating energy import expenses, filling six of the eight lowest spots. Malaysian ringgit, however, showed a positive 3.1% appreciation to the dollar.

Reference: Post by Stanley Epstein on LinkedIn

Too Many GLCs?

 

Malaysia has over 1800 GLCs, many of which are subsidiaries of statutory bodies and are not under the direct management of MOF, nor are their policy objectives well defined. It is this universe of GLCs which needs a review and stronger governance law, as their proliferation presents a significant fiscal risk, and takes up talent and resources which may be better utilised by SMEs that are seeking to grow in the private sector. This large network of government-linked companies (GLCs) is built on the premise that state ownership can accelerate development, protect strategic industries and generate returns for the public. 

There is merit to some of these arguments. Many GLCs are profitable, professionally managed and economically important. Investments in major companies have also generated significant dividends and capital gains for government institutions over the years. But the profitability of selected companies should not prevent Malaysia from confronting a more fundamental question.

 

Source: https://ms.wikipedia.org 

Why does the government need to own so many businesses in the first place? There is the crowding-out effect, government procurements go to GLCs, stunted growth of GLCs? How many are competitive in overseas markets? 

Several years ago, a-research led by Prof Edmund Terence Gomez showed that just seven federal government-linked investment companies or GLICs controlled over 68,000 companies directly and indirectly through minority interests. Why should the government continue to wield substantial influence over mature commercial institutions such as Malayan Banking Bhd and CIMB Group Holdings Bhd when these companies can stand on their own with greater private ownership?

Meanwhile, repeated episodes of financial mismanagement involving government-owned entities have shown what can happen when political influence, commercial decision-making and public money become too closely connected. The ongoing controversy surrounding Tabung Haji is a perfect example. 

Political appointments can weaken boards. Commercial decisions can be influenced by objectives that have little to do with profitability. Acquisitions can proceed despite questionable economics, while companies may accumulate debt because creditors assume that the government will eventually intervene. When problems become serious, taxpayers frequently bear at least part of the financial consequences. That’s called moral hazard. 

This creates a governance problem that cannot be solved merely by replacing directors after losses have occurred. Have you noticed no one is charged for misdemeanours? We have an Institute of Directors and courses for directors, but no one is culpable for mistakes. 

Divestments should therefore become a central part of GLC reform, not simply an occasional exercise conducted when the government needs revenue. There are companies where government ownership remains commercially lucrative or strategically justified. Certain infrastructure, utilities and businesses involving national security or essential public services may require substantial government participation. But substantial government ownership should become the exception rather than the default. A useful starting point would be to establish an ownership ceiling for government stakes in companies operating in competitive industries. 

Instead of allowing ministries, agencies or state governments to retain controlling interests indefinitely, Malaysia could consider limiting government ownership to perhaps 20% in companies where there is no compelling strategic reason for control. The government could continue benefitting from dividends and capital appreciation without necessarily controlling appointments, procurement, management strategy and corporate expenditure. 

The same reforms must apply to state governments. Discussion about GLC reforms in Malaysia tends to focus heavily on federal institutions, yet states have created extensive networks of corporations, subsidiaries, investment arms and development companies of their own. Some perform legitimate economic functions. Others operate in sectors where private companies are already capable of competing. Every additional state-owned company introduces another layer of directors, senior management, subsidiaries, procurement processes, related-party transactions and financial exposure requiring effective oversight. The issue becomes particularly important when political appointments extend into these companies. A board seat in a government company should never be treated as compensation for political service. Directors should be appointed because they possess the financial, industry, legal or operational expertise required to supervise a commercial organisation. 

Management should similarly be evaluated against measurable financial and operational targets. Malaysia cannot promote a culture of excellence while maintaining a system in which political access can influence appointments. Reforming GLCs therefore requires more than divestment. A proper monitoring framework should first identify every significant company owned directly or indirectly by federal and state governments. Their purpose should then be reviewed. Companies performing functions that can be carried out competitively by the private sector should face a clear presumption towards divestment. 

Companies serving genuine public policy objectives should have those objectives explicitly stated and their costs transparently accounted for. Commercial and social objectives should not be mixed without proper disclosure. If it is not commercially viable, then its social objectives is going to “drain” resources and its imminent closure. 

If a company is required to provide a public service below commercial returns, the cost should be clearly recognised rather than concealed within its corporate accounts. When state-controlled companies compete extensively across property, construction, financial services, plantations, infrastructure, hospitality and other sectors, private businesses may find themselves competing against shareholders with regulatory influence, cheaper access to financing or an implicit perception of government support. Reducing unnecessary state ownership can strengthen competition and expand opportunities for private capital. 

Malaysia does not need to abandon GLCs, but it needs to define their limits. But ownership should not automatically mean control, and control should not become permanent simply because it has existed for decades. The next stage of GLC reform should therefore ask a more difficult question than how these companies can be managed better: how many of them do the government really need to own at all? In addition, there are GLCs who refuse to divest small profitable subsidiaries to a primary bumiputra intrapreneur. Rationale is we need these subsidiaries for our overall profit! This is why bumiputra entrepreneurs are not emerging when GLCs shelter them with wrong motives. It is time to let go and move on! 

It needs a Commission to review every one of them and Prof. Terrence Gomez should chair such a commission which not only reviews but recommends next steps. Is Madani open to that? 

References:

Malaysia must shrink its GLCs, Ganeshwaran Kana, The Star, 15 August 2026 

Post by Alissa Rode on LinkedIn

 

 

Has the PM’s Job Changed?

 

Some people may keep asking why PMX looks strong on the world stage but weak at home. Some blame his personality. Some blame his choices. But if we zoom out, is there something bigger? 

There are those who say Malaysia’s political system has quietly transformed. This isn’t about PMX but the office itself. The old PM was a commander. The new PM is a coordinator.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

For decades, Malaysian prime ministers ruled with supermajorities. They could fire ministers, push reforms, and make decisions without worrying about their government collapsing before lunchtime. They had authority because the numbers were stable. Some say that era ended in 2018. The moment voters broke the old one-party dominance; the country entered a new phase. A coalition-heavy era where every government is stitched together like a patchwork quilt, full of different colours, textures, and agendas. And the PM became not a leader who commands, but a negotiator who survives. Is it impossible to be a strong PM in Malaysia today? 

The reality now may be: 

-One partner controls Borneo support

-Another controls Malay grassroots

-Another controls urban voters

-Another controls the budget levers

-Another holds the keys to legal outcomes 

Every block has leverage. Every block has demands. Every block can threaten to walk. 

In this environment, even a brilliant leader would struggle. Not because he is weak, but because the structure forces weakness. It’s like asking someone to drive a car with four different steering wheels. You can’t move forward without someone pulling left or right. 

When PMX talks in overseas forums, he sounds clear and decisive. Why? Because no coalition partner can interrupt him at the UN and say, “don’t say that”. No one can veto his message on Palestine, Islam, or ASEAN strategy. 

At home, every sentence has a political price. Every policy has a vote-buying cost. Every reform must pass through a dozen filters. The contrast isn’t about courage. It’s about freedom. 

The apologists will say what used to be a leadership role has now become a balancing act: 

-Keep Borneo happy

-Keep UMNO calm

-Keep DAP loyal

-Keep PKR stable

-Keep the opposition from poaching MPs

-Keep the economy moving

-Keep public trust alive 

People want bold reforms, tough decisions, and long-term plans. But the system rewards caution, compromise, and survival mode. 

So, what does this mean for the future? If Malaysians want decisive leadership again, then we must choose one of two paths: 

-Give a single coalition a clear majority; or

-accept that negotiation is now the default style of governance. 

If Malaysia remains fragmented, the PM will never be the main driver. He will be the one holding the steering wheel gently while every partner tugs from the side. And as some say, unless the political structure changes with it, no leader can escape the tightrope. 

Having said all that, it is better I think for a “weak” PM to challenge the “deep state”, the elites and the entrenched political warlords. Why? It is better to be a lion for a day than a lamb for a thousand years (an Italian proverb). Then again, what’s the point of an Election Manifesto if you can’t fulfil it? People are not stupid. They can see if “kata dikotakan”. And it is for the incumbent to show courage in this political malaise! 

(Adapted from a blog by an unknown author)

Sovereign Wealth Funds Manage USD 15.8 Trillion in Assets

 

The World’s Largest Sovereign Wealth Funds now manage $15.8 Trillion in assets. The latest ranking of the Top 50 Sovereign Wealth Funds highlights where some of the world’s largest pools of capital are managed. From Norway’s Norges Bank Investment Management ($2.06T) and China’s SAFE IC ($2.05T) to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) ($1.21T) and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ($1.19T), these institutions continue to play a major role in shaping global investments. For founders and investment professionals, understanding these organizations is valuable—not because they invest directly in every startup, but because they influence venture capital, private equity, infrastructure, healthcare, AI, energy, and emerging technologies through their investment strategies. If you’re raising capital, researching institutional investors, or building strategic fundraising campaigns, knowing the right capital sources is just as important as having a great pitch. 

 

 

Reference

Sovereign Wealth Funds Manage $15.8 Trillion, Investor Lead Hub on LinkedIn

Ageing: Alone and Silent!

 

After retiring, Joseph’s 85-year-old father settled into a routine of morning swims and hours spent watching television. His father later died by suicide, becoming part of a group that experts say needs greater attention: older men. 

Singapore’s latest suicide statistics showed that men accounted for three in four suicides among people aged 60 and above in 2024. Of the 120 people in that age group who died by suicide, 90 were men and 30 were women. Across all age groups, men accounted for nearly two-thirds of the 441 suicide deaths recorded that year. Experts said older men may become vulnerable through a combination of retirement, declining health, shrinking social circles and a reluctance to seek help.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

For many men, work is closely tied to identity, routine and their role as family providers. Retirement can therefore mean more than losing a job, as some men may also lose their sense of purpose and value within the family. 

Declining health can add to the strain as chronic illness, pain, disability and reduced mobility may lead to a loss of independence and a diminished sense of purpose. Chronic pain, disability, frailty, sensory impairment and progressive illnesses can lead to loss of independence, social isolation and a diminished sense of purpose. 

Experts also warned that living with family does not necessarily protect an older person from loneliness. Joseph’s father lived with him after retirement but rarely socialised outside his daily routine. He declined invitations to join activities at a community centre despite Joseph’s efforts to help him meet new people. 

Experts said older men may also be less likely to speak openly about emotional distress because many grew up with expectations that discouraged vulnerability. Depression may instead appear through poor sleep, loss of appetite, low energy, forgetfulness, physical complaints or a sudden change in behaviour. Families should take seriously comments such as “I’m a burden” or “There is no point anymore”, as well as signs including social withdrawal, neglect of personal care and losing interest in familiar activities. 

Experts said programmes built around practical activities, hobbies and shared skills may help older men connect more naturally than traditional support groups. Activities such as carpentry, bicycle repair, volunteering and mentoring can provide opportunities for older men to build friendships while retaining a sense of purpose. 

Singapore’s experience may also carry broader relevance as neighbouring Malaysia faces its own rapidly ageing population. The Department of Statistics Malaysia said the proportion of Malaysians aged 65 and above rose to 8.4 per cent this year from 8.0 per cent last year. Twelve Malaysian states have reached ageing status after the proportion of residents aged 65 and above exceeded seven per cent of their populations. Perak recorded the country’s highest proportion of older persons at 10.8 per cent, followed by Sarawak and Kedah at 9.7 per cent each, while Penang and Perlis both stood at 8.8 per cent. The government has designated ageing as a key pillar under the 13th Malaysia Plan and is identifying a pilot project to address the fiscal, care and wider challenges arising from an older population. 

Meanwhile, many old folks are left in care homes (or families) with little desire to find a new purpose in life. The ones that have planned retirement may have launched a second career or are learning a new language; or mastering a musical instrument; or volunteering in church or other para organisations. They live longer and are less likely to be despondent. Watching television and sleeping will lead to dementia and a loss of quality of life and a burden to caregivers. May we learn to be useful whatever our age. 

Reference:

Ageing, alone and silent: Why men 60 and above are Singapore's most at-risk group, Malay Mail, 2 August 2026

 

Understanding Malaysia's GLICs and GLCs

 

Switch on a light. Browse the internet. Fill up your car. Catch a train. Fly overseas. Save for retirement. Chances are you've interacted with Malaysia's Government-Linked Investment Companies (GLICs) and Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) several times before lunchtime. The terms GLIC and GLC are often used interchangeably but they are not the same. A GLIC is an investment institution that manages public, member or institutional funds. Malaysia's six major Federal GLICs are Khazanah Nasional, PNB, EPF (KWSP), LTAT, Tabung Haji and KWAP. A GLC is an operating company that delivers products and services across sectors such as energy, banking, telecommunications, transportation, aviation, infrastructure and agribusiness.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of Malaysia's corporate landscape is what actually qualifies as a GLC. There is no single official ownership percentage that automatically defines a company as a GLC. Some are directly owned by the Government of Malaysia while others are linked through one or more Federal GLICs with different levels of ownership, control and strategic influence. Whether through electricity, fuel, broadband, banking, public transport, airports or retirement savings, GLICs and GLCs play an important role in the daily lives of millions of Malaysians.

Beyond providing essential services, they support strategic industries, create employment, invest for long-term growth and contribute to Malaysia's economic development. As ownership structures and corporate relationships evolve over time, certain classifications may also change. For clarity and readability, the attached infographic (from an AI post) presents representative companies across key sectors within Malaysia's Federal GLIC ecosystem. It is intended as an educational overview and should not be interpreted as an exhaustive list of every government-linked company.

The key issue is accountability. There is no central agency to monitor their activities. In fact, the Government may not know the full number of GLCs in operation. And hopefully we don’t have scandals like 1 MDB in the near future.

 

Reference:

Understanding Malaysia's GLICs and GLCs on LinkedIn. This title was summarized by AI from the post.