Much has been discussed about the unsatisfactory conduct and insufficient transparency displayed by the managers of the various public funds in the country.

A study of these public fund managers would immediately reveal that the levels of investment knowledge and professionalism amongst them are very diverse indeed. The level of transparency and corporate governance as practiced by them are equally varied.

Unlike private fund managers who are regulated by authorities such as the Securities Commission and Bank Negara, public fund managers are governed by Acts of Parliament or their own set of special regulations.

Among public funds, the Employees Provident Fund (with at least 58 abandoned projects as highlighted by the Auditor-General recently), the Social Security Organisation (doubtful investment practices), and the Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji (with continuous scandals and ceaseless cheating cases by its business partners) have always been very controversial.

This is notwithstanding the fact that on the surface of it, the composition of the boards and investment committee members of these funds appears to be well represented by the relevant stakeholders.

They therefore are made to look proper but without being truly professional. They are seriously lacking in oversight by their management and their respective boards.

The main problem is that the board members are chosen only from among senior government officials and those who are familiar to the government. The same applies to the investment committee members.

A closer look will reveal that not many among them are familiar with the latest investment trends and risk management practices. To be fair, those who fit the bill are hard to come by as much as they are expensive.

There must also be clear distinctions between the role of market analysts, project managers, portfolio managers and the investment committee members. The committees must be manned by professionals from the relevant fields and not necessarily only by those with just financial or accounting backgrounds (an obsession in this country).

The world's leading investment houses have people from varied disciplines such actuarial science, mathematics, engineering, and even quantum physics. All of them are given rigorous training and are assisted by the latest computer softwares.

As regards to transparency, all members of a public fund should be entitled to a simple report on the investment portfolio of their fund and a summary of any problematic investment that the fund has been exposed to.

It is only after our public fund managers have satisfied most of these requirements that they are ready to invest in foreign currency denominated trading and other oversees investments.

I appreciate that we need to allow our public fund managers to diversify their investment portfolios as the local market is too small and the funds managed by some of them are large.

But this represents an investment risk in itself. Before they are allowed to do this, they must upgrade their professionalism.