LETTER | I refer to the spate of resignations being announced from company boards by those who are no longer in the government.

That itself is a normal occurrence.

What I find pretty amazing is the number of board positions one seems to have been holding.

In the case of the previous Treasury secretary-general, so far the list is Bank Negara, 1MDB, the Inland Revenue Board, Tabung Haji, Permodalan Nasional Berhad and Khazanah Nasional. That’s what has been published; I am not sure how many more there are that we don’t know.

My point is: On top of the normal duties as a civil servant, how is it physically possible for anyone to contribute meaningfully to all these organisations by holding so many board directorships?

In my experience, even holding a board directorship for a small unlisted entity is onerous, let alone one for a key national organisation of Malaysia.

No wonder many of these organisation boards do not function adequately and properly.

While I am no way casting aspersions on anyone’s ability, the amount of work that one needs to put in before and during board meetings is taxing. One cannot just attend, eat curry puffs and collect the meeting appearance fee. There is more to a board of directors’ or trustees’ duties and responsibilities.

Is this why so many of our companies are experiencing a “wonky” state of affairs?

Surely we have tons of qualified personnel in Malaysia who can be appointed to the boards of government companies or agencies. There is no need for one person to “bolot”(monopolise) the whole lot.

I would suggest that the government, in its current review of board salaries and compensation, also looks at the number of directorships one is holding.

I would add that maybe it should be limited to two or three posts per person, unless of course it is a group company where it is customary for holding company directors and key staff to flood the board of subsidiaries.

The board should not have retirement benefits, neither should it be an avenue for additional income.

The primary function of the board is to supervise and keep an eagle eye on management activities. They should inquire, harass, ponder and dig until they are satisfied.

There is a saying that auditors are not bloodhounds but watchdogs. I would add that board members should be bloodhounds. Their noses must be very close to the action of the company. One cannot do this if one is sitting on 20 boards at the same time. It’s ridiculous.

It is best to review and stop this practice. If a government agency or company requires certain key government personnel to be automatically appointed, this should be reviewed too.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.