Why Shouldn T Hrd Corp Be Allowed To Defend Its Reputation

---

 


From Ibrahim M Ahmad
On Wednesday, human resources minister Steven Sim revealed that he had instructed HRD Corporation Berhad (HRD Corp) to withdraw its threat of legal proceedings against a media outlet over two unflattering stories.
It later transpired that the corporation’s lawyers also withdrew letters of demand issued to two other news portals. 
I believe in press freedom in this country. This has always been my principle, Sim was reported as saying.

Sim’s revelation came after the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), led by chairman Mas Ermieyati Samsudin, held an astounding press conference in which the PAC demanded that HRD Corp withdraw its letters of demand, claiming that it amounted to intimidating the press.
From where does the PAC derive its authority to make such demands? Dewan Rakyat Speaker Johari Abdul should explain.
Meanwhile, media owners would no doubt have received those comments with relief, if not delight. It simply means they will not be held accountable for whatever they have, will, or may want to, put out.
In contrast, HRD Corp is now obliged to exercise restraint, despite having been taken to task publicly by the auditor-general (A-G), the PAC and the media. It cannot defend its honour and the propriety of its operations.
And that is not just through legal action in the courts of law. Thus far, HRD Corp has not even responded in the media to put right incorrect assertions and assumptions made about the corporation in the court of public opinion. Is HRD Corp also being prevented from speaking to the media, minister?
Contrast that with the position taken by MRT Corporation Sdn Bhd (MRT Corp) recently.
Subjected to much criticism by A-G Wan Suraya Wan Radzi in her recent report, MRT Corp, fronted by transport minister Loke Siew Fook, held a press conference to correct what were in its view incorrect assumptions and conclusions made about its financial affairs and operations.
To be fair, Sim did defend HRD Corp twice last week.
He told the Dewan Rakyat that most of HRD Corp’s funds had been invested in low-risk investments, correcting a claim that the corporation was dabbling excessively in high-risk investing.
He also defended the corporation against accusations in the A-G’s report that it had misused training grants worth RM51.7 million.
But those were just two of a whole host of seemingly damning revelations.
HRD Corp has had to remain silent about multiple other accusations of mishandling of substantial funds, paying out on fictitious claims, criminal and corrupt acts, irregular practices, engaging in dodgy property deals, poor governance, and failing to follow established procedures.
Yet, there is reason to suspect that the A-G’s and the PAC’s reports may not reveal the full picture. For instance, I recently asked if the A-G’s report reflected a true and fair view of the matters it had inquired into.
The same suggestion came from none less than a former Cabinet minister.
On his Keluar Sekejap podcast recently, Khairy Jamaluddin questioned the methodology adopted, saying the national audit department tends to take a 
myopic view of matters rather than focus on the big picture, giving rise to inaccurate findings and conclusions.
Then on Thursday, former president of the Institute Of Internal Auditors Malaysia, Walter Sandosam, questioned the credibility and competence of the A-G and the tone of her report.
He also asked whether the PAC 
should have acted more responsibly, and called for it to ensure that the A-G’s office is equipped with the relevant experience in the areas that they audit.
Perhaps Sim has taken the view that the matter is best left to be looked at by external parties.
He recently said he had directed that reports be lodged with the relevant authorities – presumably he means the police or MACC – and will call for an independent audit of the corporation.
But those probes may take time, and may not help the corporation much in terms of correcting the prevailing narrative. In the first place, HRD Corp has already passed an audit by a reputable audit firm. Secondly, the investigative bodies will only be interested in determining whether criminal acts have taken place.
Where does that leave the board and the investment panel, which both comprise members from other ministries, government-linked companies (GLCs) and entities? Will they agree to continue to serve? Will the board and panel be hindered in how they operate?
Where does it leave the officials and the staff of the corporation? Will they agree to continue performing their duties and responsibilities while working under a cloud? Will they be able to?
Will employers agree to continue remitting levies in the meantime?Left unremedied, will the present state of affairs instead trigger lawsuits by employers seeking to recover the substantial levies they have paid?
Other government-linked companies may also be quaking in their boots.
Is Sim’s position – that a GLC will not be allowed to defend its reputation in a court of law – going to be the position of the entire Cabinet?
Will other ministers similarly prevent GLCs within their purview from defending themselves in the face of a similar onslaught? - FMT
Ibrahim M Ahmad is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---