Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Indeed, the laid-back attitude of government departments on this issue underscores their lack of awareness that making timely information publicly available is the life-blood of good decision-making, particularly among top policymakers and entrepreneurs.

Two examples will serve to illustrate this country’s information anorexic environment.

First, two public-listed companies – Tanah Emas Corp and Chin Well Holdings – released their results and declared their dividends in August last year. When their annual general meetings were held four months later, the majority shareholders of both companies vetoed the resolution regarding the payment of dividends – even though this resolution had been endorsed by both companies’ directors at their board meetings.

Two issues are involved. First, public-listed companies are legally required to inform Bursa Malaysia immediately of any circumstances likely to materially affect their results, prospects, revenue or profit estimate previously announced. By extension, this suggests directors also share a similar legal requirement.

In times of share price volatility, non-payment of dividends could affect significantly a company’s prospects. If so, aren’t directors who are or represent major shareholders obliged to disclose immediately to Bursa Malaysia their change of stance regarding the payment of dividends?

The flip-flop by directors who are or represent major shareholders over the payment of dividends highlights one fact – the extraordinary long time lag of six months between the close of the financial year and the holding of a public listed company’s AGM. By any yardstick, this time frame is excessive.

Assuming a company’s financial year-end is December, it is legally required to announce its financial results within two months – that is, before end-February. The company is given another two months to publish its annual report (before end-April) and yet another two months to hold its AGM (before end-June).

Nothing, however, prevents a company from initiating photography, compiling corporate data and drafting write-ups on items unrelated to the financial results even before the latter is released.

Why isn’t it possible for annual reports of public-listed companies to be published within 10 weeks– instead of the current 16 weeks – from the end of the financial year? This will enable an AGM to be held much earlier – for example, within 12 weeks instead of the current half-year grace period.

Second, much of Malaysia’s economic data is released far too late. October’s trade numbers, for example, were released only last month. Although this is a significant improvement over the previous four-month delay, it is one or two months later than that for several major Asian economies.

Last Friday, South Korea released its trade statistics for the full year. Even Thailand and India are far quicker than Malaysia. Trade data for November was available on Dec 30 for Thailand and on Jan 1 this year for India.

If Thailand and India, whose bureaucracy is often perceived as less efficient than their Malaysian counterparts, can publish trade data with just a one-month time lag, why isn’t it possible for this country to do likewise?

As for information on gross domestic product (GDP), Malaysia is even more of a laggard. Last Friday, Singapore became the first Asian economy to publish its estimate of 2008 GDP growth. However, its estimate is based mostly on October and November data; the island will issue a more comprehensive report in February.

Thailand will announce its fourth quarter 2008 GDP on Feb 23, less than two months after end-December. In contrast, Malaysia will publish its 2008 GDP figure in late March, more than one month after Thailand but in line with the IMF standard of releasing quarterly data within three months after the end of the quarter.

Even more praiseworthy, Thailand’s quarterly GDP report contains a one-year schedule indicating the date and time for the release of future economic data. Published in Thai and English by the National Economic and Social Development Board, the quarterly report also includes the names of officials responsible for compiling specific tables, their email addresses and extension numbers.

Lack of timely information could increase entrepreneurs’ uncertainty about the business environment. In such a situation, they are more likely to adopt a wait-and-see attitude, a stance that could stymie policymakers’ hopes of making private investment the catalyst for economic growth.

To paraphrase a judicial maxim, information delayed may well be a business opportunity denied.

The writer is a director of a public listed company. Opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the writer and should not be attributed to any organisation she is connected with. She can be contacted at schoo@noordinsopiee.com.