Latest news with #MCCG
The Star
4 days ago
- Business
- The Star
Updated MCCG to be issues in 2026, focusing on board quality and effectiveness
KUALA LUMPUR: An updated iteration of the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG) will be issued in 2026, revisiting matters that help with board quality and effectiveness as well as strengthening the board's role in long-term value creation. Securities Commission (SC) chairman Datuk Mohammad Faiz Azmi said the SC is undertaking a review of the MCCG as part of its Capital Market Masterplan review. "We will be engaging stakeholders later this year through targeted discussions and consultations on where we are and what we can do better. "This consultative approach ensures any revisions to the code remain relevant and impactful,' he said in his opening address at the ASEAN Corporate Governance Conference 2025 here today. According to him, the SC is prepared to make certain elements of the upcoming MCCG (MCCG 2026) mandatory if doing so would help corporates demonstrate stronger governance and deliver better results. He noted that MCCG has long served as a key tool to drive good corporate conduct but it must be continuously updated to ensure it fits current international standards and practices, as well as local needs. "The current iteration is MCCG21, which had for the first time included best practices for board diversity and environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG). The next one will be issued in 2026,' he said. Mohammad Faiz said ASEAN countries, including Singapore, are understood to be embarking on similar exercises this year, which highlights a shared recognition that regulatory frameworks must continue to evolve to meet new challenges. "While alignment with global standards and investor expectations remain important, each ASEAN jurisdiction is unique. "Therefore, codes must be tailored to reflect each jurisdiction's unique context, market maturity and strategic priorities,' he said, adding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach in governance. He noted that ASEAN is home to close to 4,500 public-listed companies, with a combined market capitalisation of around US$3 trillion (US$1=RM4.21). Mohammad Faiz also highlighted that the region has a significant opportunity to lead in sustainability, with the potential to generate up to US$1.5 trillion in new value by 2030 through green investments, regional power grid integration, carbon markets, and clean energy incentives. - Bernama
New Straits Times
5 days ago
- Business
- New Straits Times
SC to review corporate governance code under masterplan reassessment
KUALA LUMPUR: The Securities Commission (SC) will review the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG) this year as part of a broader reassessment under the capital market masterplan. Conducted approximately every five years, the review aims to enhance corporate governance practices and promote sustainable financing in the capital market. SC chairman Datuk Mohammad Faiz Azmi said the regulator will engage stakeholders through targeted consultations later this year to evaluate the current state of corporate governance and identify areas for improvement. "This consultative approach ensures any revisions to the code remain relevant and impactful," he said, signalling a stronger stance on compliance moving forward. "That said, I am prepared to make some of what matters in the upcoming MCCG mandatory, if we believe it will help corporates to demonstrate better governance and better results." He said MCCG 2026 would focus on improving board quality and effectiveness and strengthening the board's role in driving long-term value creation. Mohammad Faiz was speaking at the Asean Corporate Governance Conference 2025 here today. He added that Malaysia is not alone in this effort, with several Asean neighbours also undertaking similar reviews. "I understand that my peers from Asean countries, including Singapore, are embarking on similar exercises this year. This highlights a shared recognition that regulatory frameworks must continue to evolve to meet new challenges." While alignment with global standards remains important, Mohammad Faiz stressed that there is no one-size-fits-all model for governance. "Local relevance ensures the principles we adopt are effective, practical and transformative. Each Asean jurisdiction is unique, and codes must be tailored to reflect each country's context, market maturity and strategic priorities." The MCCG was first introduced in the year 2000 and has been a significant tool for corporate governance reform and has influenced corporate governance practices of companies positively. The current iteration is MCCG 2021 which had for the first time included best practices for board diversity and ESG. The next one will be issued in 2026.
The Star
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
Can a chairman limit your voice at an AGM?
THIS AGM season, a troubling trend has emerged. At a number of meetings, shareholders were greeted with a caveat before the question and answer session even began – each shareholder would be allowed to ask no more than two questions. Some chairmen cited the need to manage time. Others framed it as an attempt to give everyone a fair chance to speak. However, to many shareholders, these restrictions felt arbitrary, and worse, contrary to the very purpose of the AGM. Points of order were raised. Frustrations boiled over. Shareholders reminded the meeting that the right to ask questions is fundamental and should not be reduced to a quota. A general meeting is not a stage-managed broadcast, it is the formal forum where directors must listen and respond to those entrusted to serve. In one particularly concerning case, minority shareholders who attended an AGM were not allowed to ask questions from the floor. Shareholders were instructed to submit their queries in advance. When they attempted to ask questions on the financial statements during the meeting, the chairman declined, saying answers would only be provided privately after the meeting. This left shareholders disillusioned. Their questions were ignored, and the chairman failed to announce the voting results and ended the meeting abruptly. Shareholders who had made the effort to attend left feeling dismissed and unheard. In that instance, the AGM did not function as a platform for accountability; it felt more like a rubber-stamp exercise. This raises a critical question: Can a chairman limit questions from the floor? And if so, to what extent? The right to speak The Companies Act 2016 gives shareholders the right to attend general meetings, speak on any matter relevant to the agenda, and vote on the resolutions tabled. These are not courtesies extended at the discretion of the chair, but rather legal entitlements. A general meeting is the only formal platform where shareholders, particularly minority shareholders, can hold the board accountable face-to-face, ask questions, request clarification, and provide feedback. The Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG) further reinforces this by encouraging companies to engage shareholders actively and fairly during general meetings. Good governance includes listening as much as disclosing. It is not just about producing glossy annual reports or delivering polished speeches, but about responding to concerns, addressing weaknesses, and showing that the board is genuinely accountable. Restricting shareholders from speaking defeats the purpose of the meeting. After all, this is a once-a-year forum where key matters, financial performance, board composition, sustainability efforts, related party transactions, and the company's strategic direction are brought to the floor. If shareholders are asked to vote on these issues but are denied the chance to ask questions, what does that say about the integrity of the process? Engagement should not be procedural. It must be meaningful. Managing time To be fair, we must acknowledge that chairmen face practical challenges. AGMs need to be run efficiently, and time must be managed. Not every question will be relevant or helpful. Some shareholders may speak at length, revisit past issues, or repeat points already addressed. There are also situations where vocal participants dominate the floor, limiting opportunities for others. In light of this, it is understandable that chairmen seek ways to manage the flow of discussion. But that responsibility must be exercised with discretion and fairness, not blanket rules. Arbitrarily limiting each shareholder to two questions or requiring all questions to be submitted in writing before the meeting sends the wrong message. It risks turning the AGM into a choreographed event, rather than a meaningful exchange of views. There is a clear distinction between managing a meeting and suppressing scrutiny. Chairmen can, and should, set boundaries to ensure relevance and avoid disorder. However, they must not shut the door entirely on shareholders' voices, especially when they seek answers on core matters such as audited accounts, business strategy, major transactions, executive remuneration, or related-party dealings. If questions are irrelevant, they can be redirected. If they are lengthy, they can be summarised. If time is running short, the board can respond in writing post-meeting or publish answers on the company's website. These are fair and reasonable tools. But refusing to entertain questions or apply rigid caps without context is neither fair nor reasonable. A better way forward Chairmen must resist the temptation to control the meeting so tightly that they lose sight of its purpose. While limiting each shareholder to 'two questions' may seem efficient, it can also appear dismissive. The better approach is to manage the session with structure, not restriction. This includes grouping similar questions, prioritising those that relate directly to the resolutions, and encouraging written submissions without eliminating live engagement from the floor. It also means responding in good faith, even when the questions are uncomfortable. Respecting shareholders does not mean agreeing with every question; it means acknowledging that shareholders have a right to be heard. Company secretaries also play a vital role. They are the governance advisors to the board and should help ensure that AGM procedures strike the right balance, are efficient but inclusive, structured but open. They can guide the Chair on handling sensitive or technical questions and ensure that the company adheres to good governance practices as expected of a listed entity. Let them ask The AGM is not just a compliance checkpoint. It is a moment of truth that tests the company's openness, the board's accountability, and shareholders' willingness to engage. The chairman is the steward of that moment. Let's be clear. Do not start the meeting by announcing restrictions. Do not restrict shareholders to a fixed number of questions, as shareholders should be free to raise relevant issues, including those on the resolutions, financials or the company's business. Do not dismiss questions on the grounds of inconvenience. Instead, welcome dialogue. Invite questions. Manage them with fairness, structure, and respect. Let shareholders ask. Then manage it well. Dr Ismet Yusoff is the Minority Shareholders Watch Group chief executive officer. The views expressed here are the writer's own.
