I refer to the latest ‘hot topic’ to have emerged as reported here. However this is quite a normal practice in corporate Malaysia especially in government-controlled entities.

The pattern is always the same, whenever the chairperson or key decision-maker controls or leads two or three different entities, this sort of sponsorship where the value is not so apparent to a layperson is normal.

It’s difficult to decide one way or another if this sort of sponsorship is good or not as there are so many variables and points of view.

I, however, am of the opinion that all government-controlled entities that are set up for a particular reason, may it be promoting education (like a university) or uplifting the quality of life of a certain group (such as Felda or Mara) should not be involved in any sort of sponsoring as these then brings its own set of headaches and accusation of coercion and underhand tactics.

PR practitioners however would argue what is wrong for a university to sponsor any events, which will raise the profile of a university and maybe (not definitely) increase revenue in the long run by increased enrolment in the said university.

See the conundrum one faces if one were to advocate a total ban. Mara is not the first one and will not be the last one. Let me list down all the other examples for comparisons.

When the chairperson of Sime Darby and the World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF) were the same, Sime Darby was the main sponsor of WIEF, whether this was beneficial or not to Sime Darby will be a question to be raised.

Many many years ago the Kuala Lumpur Football Association (KLFA) for whom Fandi Ahmad was playing for but was under the payroll of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL). But DBKL funds are from the rate/fees it collects, so was it justifiable for it to be paying the cost of football clubs. The mayor of DBKL and the president of KLFA was the same at some point.

Even now, many government controlled entities such as Felda, Tenaga Nasional Bhd, Telekom Malaysia and even the police has their own sports teams, be it football or hockey. Is it right for taxpayer-funded salaried personnel to be spending time in sports rather than undertake their day jobs? Again a conundrum.

‘Phone call’ management

Do note that many of corporate entities in Malaysia are not truly corporate entities as they are controlled by the government and subject to the widespread and famed ‘phone call‘ management, ie the practice of senior company officials receiving a phone call from ‘upstairs’ directing them to do or not to do something is prevalent so any company decision should be judged based on this.

CIMB sponsors many arty programmes because the chairprson has a liking for that sort of activities, but who is to say this sponsorship does not benefit CIMB in the long run?

Many have wondered why Petronas sponsors Formula 1 (F1) racing when it does not have products to sell overseas, but I have been ‘corrected’ by media specialists that there are such thing as corporate profile raising which is not so obvious to a layman. However, would Petronas ever get involved in F1 if not the motor racing proponent then, Dr Mahathir Mohamad? That’s a question to be raised, too.

Many government-linked entities sponsors the Lima defence exhibition although the benefit to the entity is not readily apparent.

Some years ago there was clamour for government-linked companies (GLCs) to advertise more in Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian to assist these papers? Is this acceptable then?

This sort of sponsorship also happens in private companies which have no taxpayer link whatsoever.

HSBC Malaysia use to sponsor a lot of golf games when its CEO was a golf enthusiasts. Later when its CEO changed to a person who loved arts, HSBC was a big sponsor for arts events.

AirAsia sponsors Queens Park Rangers which is held privately by one of AirAsia’s controlling shareholders, is this okay? Another question to be raised.

Looking for sponsorship is a very difficult process , more often than not one has to rely on the personal sentiment of the decision-maker although the company’s interest many not be congruent with the decision-maker’s interests.

Maybe corporate Malaysia and all government-controlled entities should not sponsor any clubs/forums or activities if the same person makes the decision at both parties, but these won’t work either as people will get around this by sponsoring each other’s activity or event.

A total ban of sponsorship may be the only solution but will that be fair? Telekom, Tenaga Nasional Berhad and all other profit-seeking entities, although government-controlled, need to sponsor and advertise to further the company interest and business model.