I refer to the letter Parliament should be Petronas’ boss, not PM .

In these heated times, it is all too common to hear calls for Malaysia’s national oil company, Petronas, to report directly to parliament rather than to the prime minister.

The writer claims that it is ‘absolutely absurd to learn that Petronas is directly responsible to the prime minister under the Petroleum Development Act 1974. Petronas does not belong to the PM but to the nation. Petronas is not a part of the civil service like the various ministries’.

He goes on to call for all national corporations such as Proton to be answerable to parliament.

However, one need only look at the structure and functions of the various branches of government to understand why this is a highly inappropriate suggestion.

Our government is separated into three branches: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Generally, the legislature is responsible for approving the laws of the nation. The executive – which includes the prime minister and the cabinet - is responsible for the day-to-day management of the country.

The judiciary is meant to ensure that the laws enacted by the legislature are properly implemented. Each branch of government is meant to act as a check and balance to the other two branches. (Whether this has been the case historically is the subject for another letter!)

Under the existing framework of the Petroleum Development Act 1974, Petronas reports directly to the prime minister. In practice, the prime minister has regulated Petronas with a fairly light hand, allowing the company the autonomy to make its decisions on a commercial basis.

This relative lack of political interference has helped Petronas grow into one of the largest and most successful oil companies in the world, despite Malaysia having very little oil and gas reserves of its own.

Parliament, in its role as a check and balance against the executive, is empowered to ask the government about any of its activities. Through the prime minister, Petronas is obliged to answer any and all parliamentary questions.

While previous parliaments may have been less-than-rigorous in their exercise of these parliamentary privileges (does any one else remember the debate on the leaky roof in parliament?), the current parliament with a stronger opposition presence has been more assertive.

This is a good and proper thing. By all means, let our elected MPs ask the government about Petronas to their hearts’ content. It will help to keep the government honest and is a far more productive use of taxpayers’ money than calling each other ‘monkeys’.

What would be the implication of Petronas reporting directly to parliament on day-to-day matters instead?

Imagine a company with 222 directors on its board of directors. The phrase ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ comes to mind. By the time the management is finished presenting to the directors, it would have no time to make any money!

That’s why, instead of giving each shareholder a seat at the board, public-listed companies have annual general meetings (AGMs) where the management has to justify the performance to the ordinary shareholders.

Similarly, under the existing legislative framework, the management of Petronas represented by the prime minister, is answerable to MPs for the performance of the company.

The problem is therefore not in the legislative framework but in the content and quality of discourse by our elected representatives.

Instead of proposing unworkable and frankly disastrous changes, let’s focus on elevating the quality of the national debate.