会计论文怎么写 The Development Of Corporate Governance In Malaysia

会计论文怎么写 The Development Of Corporate Governance In Malaysia

The bodies are includes Companies Commission of Malaysia, Bursa Malaysia Berhad, Bank Negara Malaysia, the Bar Council, the Federation of Public Listed Companies, the Malaysian Institute of Corporate Governance, the Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group, the Malaysian Accounting Standards Board, the Malaysian Institute of Accountants, the Malaysian Institute of Certified Public Accountants, The Institute of Internal Auditors Malaysia, the Malaysian Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Accountants and the Malaysian Investment Banking Association.

b. Factors instigating good corporate practices and stricter corporate governance

Failure in corporate governance does not only occur in Malaysia, such a classical example like Malaysian Airlines System (Gan, 2003), but also globally such as the failure of Enron and WorldCom. The collapse of well-established and high profile companies like Enron and WorldCom is one fine example how weak is the corporate governance practices. (Wan Izyani, 2008) Most of these corporate failures were arisen due to washy corporate financial structures, over-leveraging, poor disclosure and accountability. (apo-tokyo, 2007)

In addition, Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998 has showed the inefficiency of corporate governance and transparency (Ho and Wong, 2001). The problems that we had encountered during that time Asian have weakened the quality and integrity of financial reporting. Therefore, the main reason of introduction of MCCG in 2000 by FCCG is to observe and establish a sound corporate governance framework. The recommendations in the Code have become mandatory for all public listed companies to comply. (Wan Izyani, 2008)

Besides the Asian financial crisis, let us take a look in some of the examples of unethical corporate practices happened around us. For examples, in year 2008, the board of Englotechs Holding Bhd believes that the investing public and shareholders should be kept informed of all material business matters, which may influence and affect the group. Timely release of information on the group’s performance and major developments via appropriate channels of communication provides the shareholders and investors with an overview of the group’s operation. (Annual Report 2008). But, what has happened in reality? Although it had been delisted in February 2010, Englotechs was publicly reprimanded last month by Bursa Malaysia for several breaches of the exchange’s listing requirements, one of which was its failure to make an immediate announcement of the defaults in payment of credit facilities by the two subsidiaries. Due to this, three of the company’s directors were fined RM113,050. (Errol Oh, 2010)

Another example is in year 2007, Golden Plus Holdings Bhd which said that they will release financial results quarterly in order to provide shareholders with regular overview of the group’s performances and operations. The announcements, quarterly and annual reports made could be obtained by shareholders and members of the public by accessing the Bursa Malaysia’s website. (Annual Report 2007) But, in October 2009, Bursa Malaysia publicly reprimanded Golden Plus and slapped six directors with fines totalling RM120,400 for a list of breaches of the listing requirements. Among the infringements were late submission of accounts and quarterly reports, its failure to “ensure accurate disclosure on the status of the preparation and finalisation of the accounts.” The company also did not comply fully with the stock exchange’s requests and directives through letters issued between June and August 2008. (Errol Oh, 2010)

Besides that, in 2003, Polymate Holdings Bhd which recognises the importance of transparency and accountability to its shareholders and investors. The company reaches out to its shareholders and investors through its annual reports, which are not only informative but are also reader-friendly.( Annual Report 2003). However, Ng Kim Weng, Polymate’s former group managing director, was charged in February 2007 for knowingly authorising the furnishing of false statements to Bursa. According to the SC, this refers to the inflated revenue and trade receivables for the year September 2003, which were reflected in the company’s annual report 2003. Ng Kim Weng pleaded guilty last October and was fined RM300,000, or a year in prison, in default. Polymate was delisted in October 2006 because it did not have “an adequate level of financial condition to warrant continued listing.” (Errol Oh, 2010)

After reviewed several examples of breach of corporate governance that stated above, it highlights the insurgence of the need of corporate governance in Malaysia. Good corporate practices and stricter corporate governance are needed to prevent the expropriation of shareholders by managers and to ensure the efficient management of companies. They are necessary too in order to attract the capital for large and worthwhile projects. Malaysia was among those countries that succeeded in building up many large firms that their countries needed for economic development funded by many economic agents. However, in the years leading to the Asian crisis, it failed to put in place a sound governance mechanism that could effectively solve the problems that were associated with ownership and control and led to many unethical corporate practices happened in the organizations. Therefore, a critical area for improvement in strengthening the effectiveness of corporate practices enforcement should be actioned by the regulators.

C. Exploring the application of MCCG (Revised 2007)

There are 3 parts in MCCG (Revised 2007). Only Part 1 and Part 2 are relevant to listed companies. Part 3 is not addressed to listed companies but to investors and auditors to enhance their role in corporate governance. Part 1 sets out broad principles of good corporate governance for the listed companies in Malaysia. Companies are required by the listing requirements of the KLSE to include in their annual report a narrative statement of how they apply the relevant principles to their particular circumstances. However, Part 2 identifies a set of guidelines or practices intended to assist companies in designing their approach to corporate governance. While compliance with best practices is voluntary, companies will be required as a provision of the listing requirements of the KLSE to state in their annual reports. (Securities Commission, 2007)

Whilst a large portion of the MCCG 2007 is micro corporate governance (internal governance of directors). Para 2.17 states that besides historical and financial oriented information, the board should access the quantitative performance of company by looking at the performance factors, such as customer satisfaction, product and service quality, market share, market reaction, and environmental performance which is stated in company annual report. (Securities Commission, 2007) Para 2.17 of the MCCG and Para. 15.26 of the LRBM require BOD to have new tasks of taking into account corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their business strategies. CSR starkly opposes these traditional business precepts. CSR points out that a corporation owes obligations and duty to the society at large and means that a BOD owes a duty not only to shareholders but also towards the stakeholders from a wider perspective.

Traditional BOD duties which use application of strategic management is inward looking and performance of the corporation is benchmarked against internally forecasted sales and annual profits, imply that the corporation should gain and leverage profit from the markets. Conventional strategic concepts such as marketing and strategic management are designed to maximise profits and shareholders’ interests. Figure 1 shows the Inward looking strategic concepts.

会计论文怎么写 The Development Of Corporate Governance In Malaysia