Featured in the Media – Page 2 – Asia School of Business

KUALA LUMPUR, March 10 (Bernama) — Investors should diversify their portfolios and consider shifting towards low-risk, higher-quality investments during periods of uncertainty caused by volatile oil prices, according to Asia School of Business chief executive officer and president Professor Joseph Cherian.

He said diversification remains key for investors during volatile periods, noting that gains in energy-related investments due to rising oil prices amid the war in West Asia might help offset losses in sectors such as consumer cyclicals.

“That is why people need to diversify because energy will compensate for the cyclicals. Instead of holding the pure equity fund, buy high-quality funds that pay high dividends,” he told Bernama after appearing on Bernama TV’s The Nation programme hosted by Jessy Chahal today.

He said such an approach represents a form of “smart investing”, where investors temporarily shift towards stronger, larger-cap companies with stable earnings and dividends during uncertain market conditions.

Volatility in global oil prices, which have recently fluctuated above the US$100-per-barrel level, could disrupt business planning, investment decisions and economic outlook across the region, according to Cherian.

He said sharp and unpredictable movements in oil prices create significant uncertainty because fossil fuels remain a critical input across almost every sector of the economy, from transportation and manufacturing to energy production and consumer goods.

Crude oil prices yesterday shot through the US$100 per barrel level amid a mounting supply crisis caused by the war in West Asia but West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude fell to US$81 per barrel after US President Donald Trump declared that the war will end soon.

“Any uncertainty in commodity prices, especially fossil fuels which are very important inputs in the production and consumption process, is not good,” he said.

He said swings in oil prices make it difficult for businesses and consumers to plan with confidence, as erratic price movements can cause companies to delay or reconsider major investment decisions due to rapidly changing cost structures.

“Oil prices could be below US$100 today and above US$100 tomorrow. That kind of uncertainty affects the planning process because if the cost is too high, a profitable operation becomes unprofitable, so businesses have to plan in the short term instead of the long term,” he added.

However, Cherian said the economic impact of rising oil prices differs significantly depending on whether a country is a net producer or a net importer of oil, with resource-rich economies potentially benefiting from higher crude prices.

Malaysia, as a net oil producer, stands to gain from higher oil prices through stronger export earnings and increased economic returns linked to the energy sector.

In contrast, he said, economies that rely heavily on imported oil are more vulnerable to price increases because higher energy costs raise production expenses and living costs, putting greater pressure on their economic growth.

Cherian noted that the impact of oil price volatility also varies across industries and financial markets, depending on whether companies benefit from higher energy prices or rely heavily on oil as a production input.

Companies in energy-related sectors could see improved performance during periods of rising oil prices, while industries such as manufacturing that depend on fuel for operations may face rising production costs.

Meanwhile, consumers may also feel the effects of higher oil prices through inflationary pressures and shifts in their spending patterns.

“When oil prices go up, inflation and the cost of living goes up and economic growth goes down,” he said, explaining that households may cut back on discretionary spending as living expenses rise.

He noted that sectors linked to consumer discretionary goods and services could be particularly affected during periods of rising energy prices as consumers postpone or avoid purchasing non-essential items such as luxury appliances and other discretionary goods.

Originally published by Bernama.
Also published in Bernama (BM), Astro AWANI and Media Batu.

Guest: Professor Shardul Phadnis (Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management), Asia School of Business

The paralysis of the Strait of Hormuz is a geopolitical iceberg threatening global manufacturing, with ripple effects crippling supply chains now and in the longer term. Prof. Shardul Phadnis, Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management at the Asia School of Business unpacks the implications, risks and why boards must treat supply chain resilience as a capital asset.

Learn More About:

The Hormuz Shockwave: How disruptions at this critical choke point severely affect non-energy manufacturing by restricting crude oil feedstocks used for plastics, coolants, and paints.
The Ripple Effect: Why missing a single weekly ocean port call can severely disrupt asset-heavy chemical plants that schedule their production campaigns months in advance.
Rapid Exposure Analysis: The critical steps mid-tier manufacturers must take to map tier-1 supplier manufacturing locations, identify shipping vulnerabilities, and navigate shifting trade policies.
The Death of Traditional Forecasting: Why major geopolitical disruptions violate the core assumptions of probabilistic forecasting, forcing supply chains to abandon historical data for safety stock planning.
AI-Powered Scenario Planning: How AI accelerates scenario creation from several months to just one or two weeks, shifting its application from long-term strategy to 6-month tactical planning.
Valuing Resilience as an Asset: Why treating adaptability as a capital asset, much like Toyota stockpiling a six-month supply of chips after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, is logically necessary despite the tension it creates with short-term quarterly profits.

Listen to the full interview below.

Originally published by BFM.

By Dr Shardul Phadnis, Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management at Asia School of Business

For many, the events of Feb 28, 2026, are emotional and political.

For senior leadership in the corporate world, they are infrastructural.

Feb 28 is not about geopolitics alone. It fundamentally alters the exposure companies face. Four questions matter.

What changes immediately?
What changes structurally?
Why does governance need to adapt?
What are the urgent leadership actions?

What Changes Immediately

The fighting in Iran and the Middle East is significant. What matters equally is what follows. About 20% of the global oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) traffic, representing about 7 8% of global energy supply, passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies to the south and west of Iran. That traffic has effectively stopped with Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes at the Emirati US allies across the Strait.

The immediate consequences are already visible. The stoppage of crude oil and LNG shipments is driving up energy prices, raising input costs for many companies. This will have secondary effects on demand from businesses and consumers.

Blockage and rerouting at Hormuz affect transit times and compress global shipping capacity. This disrupts operational and tactical plans, which, in asset-heavy industries like chemicals or industrial goods, can extend 12-24 months with production committed several months in advance. When a chokepoint destabilizes, disruptions propagate forward through those commitments. Shipping insurance rates are likely to rise amid higher uncertainty and risk of cargo/vessel loss, propagating cost hikes forward through the supply chain.

How this all plays out for each company depends on its own supply network design and business model. Exposure analysis cannot wait.

What Changes Structurally

The more consequential shift is structural.

Iran has been a consistent US rival throughout the 21st century. President George W. Bush named it as part of the Axis of Evil (with Iraq and North Korea). Iran has continued to engage against the US ally Israel through its support of Hezbollah and Hamas; it has supplied the Russians with drones against Ukraine. The targeted killing of a sitting head of state inside his capital represents a significant escalation in sovereign norms. Whether this triggers wider conflict or not, it alters assumptions about escalation boundaries.

Even if this does not escalate into a broader war, it alters the geopolitical calculus and the perceived boundaries of sovereign escalation. This could reshape the geopolitical dynamics. To avoid a similar fate befalling them, states could rush to form new formal alliances to find safety in numbers. Could China fill an anchor role?

This could also make the US’s own allies wonder if they are completely immune to unprecedented actions that, until now, may not have been written in the rule books. With the Trump administration eyeing Greenland for months now, could the European allies really feel at ease that the US won’t pursue actions that are not in their rule book? And what may they do to create a deterrence against such an action?

Feb 28 marks a turning point in the assumptions underpinning the current global order. It is not immediate fragmentation, but the hardening of geopolitical and economic boundaries.

Senior leadership must now reassess the viability of their business and supply chain infrastructure – and adapt it accordingly.

Why Governance Needs to Adapt

The era of pursuing microscopic accuracy gains through better forecasting models and fine-tuned safety stocks is over. Now is the time to prepare for structural shifts. Companies need to build the capability to (a) systematically and rigorously ask the right and relevant “what-if” questions and (b) create and implement solutions to address them.

Today, an AI model can predict the generic impacts of this event. But it won’t articulate impacts specific to your business or your ideal strategic choices easily (unless you have trained an AI model for your business). And certainly, AI will not get an organization to move in the right direction to enact those choices. To enact, the governance structure needs to change.

The changes are needed in both long-term strategic investments in the organizational and supply chain infrastructure and its short-term operational and tactical orchestration. Building structurally adaptable infrastructure requires governance mechanisms that explicitly value flexibility. Simple payback analyses or probabilistic risk assessments are not enough. The governance mechanisms need to be geared towards clear identification of robust initiatives from contingent ones, based on rigorous assessment of underlying uncertainty.

Short-term operational and tactical planning also needs such flexibility. This typically involves creating multiple pathways to deliver value (in terms of sourcing, inventory, distribution, and routing options) ahead of time. Traditional inventory planning methods, built on probabilistic demand distributions, are not designed to handle structural disruptions. Governance models need to enable preparedness based on robust/contingent analyses of strategic choices with strong qualitative evaluations of vulnerabilities and constraints. A governance mechanism that relies solely on probabilistic analysis is likely to be inadequate.

Urgent Leadership Actions

Urgent Leadership Actions The most important leadership action for a CEO or a COO is to start building an organization that is operationally agile and infrastructurally adaptable. This requires changing mindsets and governance mechanisms. Foresight practices such as scenario planning greatly help achieve both. If this capability does not exist within your organization, it must be developed.

A disciplined scenario planning initiative is one mechanism for building that capability. Using systematic interviews, analysis, and visualization to reveal the team members’ mental models to themselves has tremendous learning benefits for the participants themselves (Research on strategic cognition of executives).

Comparing the insights from firsthand experience against those from the current decision making models can be insightful. Does scenario use reveal new developments or present known ones in a new light? Does it change your executives’ judgment about important long-term decisions? Do they see the benefits of flexibility more clearly? (Research insights from quasi-field experiments)

Go through the scenario process to see what strategic choices it recommends. Then see how your governance mechanisms handle the recommendations. Do they enable flexible investments?

In Closing

My team has been working on a scenario planning project with a large multinational company’s global supply chain team for the past 18 months. With a budget of over $1b, this team handles the company’s logistics, customs and regulations, shipper management, etc., for global transport. This organization’s visionary leader wants to bring scenario planning to the operational and tactical planning levels. The scenarios we delivered were differentiated along geopolitical fragmentation as the key defining axis, with an explicit mention of the Strait of Hormuz.

Our scenario process helped us see the criticality of this chokepoint for the company’s operations last summer. Its operations team is now exploring operational resilience strategies by considering that set of scenarios. The question is not whether such a capability is necessary, but how long you can afford to delay building it.

Dr Shardul Phadnis is a Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management at the Asia School of Business. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the official positions of Asia School of Business or any affiliated institutions.

Originally published by Malaysiakini.

By: Gabe Shawn Varges, Adjunct Faculty, Asia School of Business (a longer version of this article was originally published in July 2025 in the Journal of the NICG at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland).

Five Step-Ups for Boosting Board Performance Self-Awareness

When making investment decisions, investors tend to give primacy to who the CEO is and who may be the successor, not to who sits on the company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). Typically, the CEO is perceived as more determinative for company success than the Board or any of its members.¹

At the same time, who serves on the Board is far from inconsequential. First, in many jurisdictions the Board plays a final or at least a critical role in selecting and dismissing the CEO. Wrong decisions here could lead to a low-achieving or even value-destroying CEO being chosen or tolerated.

Second, with the duty to provide oversight, the Board has to perform a daunting ongoing balancing act, often under shifting business conditions. It has to monitor the CEO closely enough to detect early any signs of underperformance or mismanagement. But it has to do this in a way that does not unduly curtail the CEO’s operational latitude or stifle entrepreneurial initiative.

Third, in the task of looking after the company’s long-term interests, Board members enjoy a privileged vantagepoint. This derives not simply from their independence, experience, or healthy distance from the company’s daily ups-and-downs. It also relates to the often-longer office tenure of Board members compared to CEOs.²

Fourth, as the company’s highest organ, the Board has ultimate accountability for company strategy and performance. When a company fails – even when the failure may be more attributable to actions by executives – investors and regulators are prone to ask, “Where was the Board?”³ Paradoxically, when a company succeeds, few are those who applaud the Board’s contributions.

Own-Work Cognition

Given these formidable Board accountabilities, investors and other stakeholders have an interest not only in how a company chooses its Board members. They also care about how well these Board members deliver once in office.

In light of this, it should also matter to stakeholders how self-aware a Board is of how good a job it is doing and how it evaluates its progress. Shortcomings in this regard could result in the Board recognizing too late a particular weakness or misjudging the overall quality of its work.

Yet this angle of corporate governance continues to be insufficiently explored. Post-mortems of company failures typically point to Board deficits such as inadequate oversight of management, misguided decisions, or poor Board composition. But the analyses rarely probe deeply enough into the degree of self-cognition by the Board of the caliber of its work or the robustness of the methodology it employs to monitor and appraise its actions and accomplishments.⁴

For example, following the 2019 WeWork scandal commentators criticized the Board for having failed to challenge the CEO sufficiently on his financial assumptions, to recognize his conflicts of interest, and to bring members with more diverse experiences onto its ranks.⁵ But the analyses did not explore the extent of Board performance self-awareness or the nature and quality of the Board assessment process. Might WeWork Board members have thought they were doing a good job?

More rigorous approaches in this area can also aid a Board to deal timelier with internal differences. This can prevent disruptive outcomes such as in a real scenario playing out at the time of the writing of this article.⁶ In this case, a Board member of a major company carried out in effect a “noisy withdrawal”⁷, accusing fellow Board members of ignoring serious problems at the enterprise. Some reports suggest that personal interests may also be involved.⁸ But once the dust settles, it will be revealing to see what the Board had been doing to identify and address any own-performance weakness areas.

The Five Step-Ups

The author’s work with Boards around the world suggests five essential “step-ups” when the Board is looking to elevate its performance self-awareness and earnestly answer the question, “How do we know how well we are doing?”

1. Make the Sporadic Regular

Boards of regulated or quoted companies in many jurisdictions are required to conduct periodic own assessments. How often and in what depth can differ. Even where no such rule exists, a Board eager to enhance its own-work cognition recognizes the value of regular assessments.

In some instances, carrying out the exercise every two years suffices,⁹ while in others a yearly process is de rigueur. Factors that support higher frequency include:

A higher company risk profile
Material new business challenges
Changes in the company’s strategic direction
Frictions in the Board-Management relationship
Significant alteration in Board composition such as a new Board Chair or investor representative
Evidence of unresolved Board internal tensions
Evidence of any Board members not carrying their own weight
Company or market changes requiring new skills or experience on the Board
Need to increase Management or Board succession readiness

One effective practice for bringing discipline to the self-assessment cycle is to define it in the Board’s operational rules, multi-year plan, or similar Board document. This has the advantage of securing a place for assessments on the Board’s calendar.

To bring more value, the timing of assessments is aligned with other major Board activities. For example, if the tenure of one or more Board members is expiring, it is sensible to hold the assessment well in advance of such expiration. The findings can help inform what qualities and expertise to look for in the search for a new Board member.

Another benefit of regularity in Board assessments is that it permits multi-year tracking of Board progress. In this regard, it is important for the Board to establish the means to preserve each year’s findings, learnings, and methodology employed. This will ensure that the company’s future Boards will also benefit from the insights.

2. Pivot to Active Performance Management

Board assessments traditionally have been positioned as an assurance check that the Board is meeting its legal and other prescribed obligations. Some call this a hygiene or boundary condition test. But this approach detracts from the equally important question, “How much added value is the Board’s work generating?”.

Thus, a fundamental mindset shift is needed, from mere duty fulfillment to performance mindfulness. This requires a will by the Board to probe into the extent and quality of its work. But this shift is incomplete if limited to the formal Board assessments carried out annually or with other frequency.

Here the Board can learn from the discipline of performance management long established in human resources practice. This discipline itself is undergoing considerable change. Whereas earlier it was acceptable practice to assess an employee yearly or semi-annually, today it is generally recognized that better results can be achieved with more active performance management.

Among other things, this involves pursuing more conscious engagement with the employee and not postponing comments or suggestions for improvement to some future point. Ideally, such input is delivered in real time, such as immediately after a presentation, project delivery, or other event displaying the employee’s prowess and performance. Such early steering helps the employee know where to course correct in his or her way of working.

Board members, of course, are not employees. Care has to be exercised to make the process in content and tone appropriate for a Board context. Yet the insight that assessing performance is not an event but an active, ongoing process, transfers well to Boards.

Practically, this has two implications. First, it means that the Board needs to reserve time at the end of or immediately following each Board meeting to reflect on how well it did at such meeting. This is different from recapping the agenda items or action steps from the meeting. Instead, it is a session focused on the Board’s own performance.

To promote more candid exchange, the above is done at a Board-only session, without Management presence. It is helpful to pose each time a few standard questions to guide discussion, such as “How did we do compared to our last Board meeting?”, “Where were we insufficiently critical?”, “In which way were we helpful/not helpful to Management?”.

Second, active performance management at the Board level also means recognizing the special role of Board leaders and of all Board members, as described in points 4 and 5 below.

3. Look Beyond Collective Board Performance

Of all the appellations one may attach to a Board, there is probably none more fitting than “team”. The Board is a team and, to be effective, it has to work collaboratively as such. Thus, there is considerable value in probing the collective Board awareness of its performance and evaluating the Board’s work as a whole.

But a Board also consists of single members. Each has a duty to think and carry out his or her responsibilities independently. Each has also to contribute singularly. In addition, a Board has sub-teams in the form of committees. If performance is to be thoroughly evaluated, it has to be measured also at each of these levels.

With regard to committees, Boards today are increasingly including questions in the periodic Board assessments exploring the dynamics and quality of work in committees. Here a fitting methodology is also essential. For example, it is helpful to distinguish between how the members of a committee view the committee’s performance and how those outside that committee perceive it.

It is also of value to assess a committee’s interaction with the full Board and with other committees. For example, there are topics—such as data protection and privacy—that may cut across the work of the Audit, Risk, and Compensation & Human Resources committees. How well these committees share information and collaborate can impact overall Board effectiveness and merits appraisal.

Far more challenging for many Boards, however, is addressing the topic of individual Board member performance. The hesitancy is understandable. Given the senior composition of a Board and the collegial relationship among its members, there can be a tendency to simply count on each member’s sense of duty to deliver. From this angle, any evaluation of individual performance may be thought of as superfluous or even inappropriate. It may also be believed that the contributions of individual Board members will anyway tend to equalize in the long run.

But similar to employees, the performance of individual Board members in reality can vary considerably. For one, there are often notable differences in the degree of energy and time members devote to the task.

One factor that can affect the time spent by a Board member is the number of additional mandates he or she exercises, whether on another Board or as an executive at another enterprise. In the market there is growing appreciation that an otherwise brilliant prospective addition to a Board may make less sense if the Board will not be able to reliably count on such person’s full participation and contribution.

Competing external time demands can also adversely affect a Board member’s willingness to volunteer for tasks, to engage in “in-between-meetings work”, and to contribute to the work of committees. The latter has been on the rise in recent years.¹⁰

The above also includes the quality of preparation for Board meetings. For example, it is not infrequent that Board evaluations reveal one or more members perceived by peers as skimping in the advance study of Board meeting materials.

Of course, there can also be wide variance in the quality of individual Board member performance in the boardroom itself. Some members shine more than others in asking the right questions of Management, in distilling insights, in generating ideas, and in contributing to fashioning solutions for the company’s central challenges.

The above-mentioned differences make a compelling case for assessing individual Board member performance.¹¹ After all, the contributions of each individual member can substantially enhance or detract from the overall Board performance.

Practically, this means incorporating in Board evaluations a safe means for members to provide their frank views on the individual contributions of their peers. Another technique is a self-assessment by each Board member. The latter encourages personal reflection and a sense of ownership for one’s work, but it comes up short on objectivity. More importantly – different from peer input – self-assessments do not help a Board member identify any personal performance blind spots.

4. Recognize the Special Duty of Board Leaders

In promoting Board self-awareness and on-going appraisal of its work, Board leaders play a special role.

First, the Board Chair bears the main responsibility for setting the right tone. This may include persuading unconvinced Board members of the utility of Board feedback sessions and periodic formal assessments.

Second, as head of the Board, the Chair works to gain and maintain an overview of the Board’s performance. He or she remains vigilant of any tensions or deficits—whether at the Board, committee, or individual performance level—and acts to timely address them. This may include holding targeted performance discussions with individual Board members. These are most productive when they are constructive in tone but do not shy from pointing to areas where the individual can be more effective.

Third, the Board Chair ensures that suitable formal Board performance assessments are held in accordance with the agreed cycle. He or she also helps shape decisions on the methodology to use and on the potential use of an independent party to facilitate or carry out the assessment¹².

Fourth, the Board Chair guides the Board discussion on drawing lessons from the assessments and ensures they lead to action. Without visible follow-through, the process can quickly lose credibility. In the case of an individual Board member who continues to underperform despite being granted multiple opportunities to improve, the Chair may face the arduous task of recommending a resignation.

Where a Board has a Vice-Chair or a Lead Independent Director such person may share some of the responsibilities outlined above. At minimum, those in these roles step up when the Chair is not carrying out the performance management responsibilities satisfactorily. The Vice-Chair or Lead Independent Director offers an alternative voice, one that is also useful for ensuring that the Board Chair’s own performance is also subjected to assessment. In some Boards, the lead for Board assessments may lie with the Chair of the Nominations Committee.

Committee chairs similarly have special responsibilities. Their focus is committee-level performance. They work closely with the Board Chair to align assessment approaches and serve as conduits between committee-level and full Board improvement actions.

5. Bake into the Board Culture

The efforts of Board leaders to elevate Board performance cognition and active performance management constitute a necessary but, alone, an insufficient condition. Ultimately, staying focused on continuous improvement requires contributions from each Board member.

The contributions by each Board member break down into four main action areas:

Accepting accountability for one’s own performance and improvement
Supporting fellow Board members with their own development, such as by providing timely constructive bilateral feedback
Vigilance that Board appraisals also include confidential means to provide input on the leadership of the Board Chair and the chairs of each committee
Supporting an ethos of open dialogue within the Board where members feel supported when pointing to where the Board could do better

Together, the above demonstrate why active performance management can best be achieved when it is viewed as a shared responsibility to be built into the Board culture.

Practically, the embedding process begins with an explicit articulation of continuous self-improvement as a Board value. Some Boards now include such commitment in their charters or other internal Board principles.

Promoting a Board learning culture also requires transparency. While individual feedback is confidential, the assessment process and cumulative outcomes are shared within and owned by the entire Board.

Cultural embedding takes time and consistency. It requires regular reinforcement through Board discussions, development opportunities, and leadership messaging. But when successfully established, a culture of self-examination creates a foundation for the Board’s continuous growth.

Conclusion: From Self-Awareness to Sustained Board Excellence

By implementing the five “Step-Ups” suggested above, a Board can stimulate a mindset shift in support of Board excellence. This includes moving from the notion of Board “duty fulfillment”, to “performance self-awareness”, and ultimately to “performance optimization”.

Board leaders, particularly the Chair, play a central role in this effort. They view assessment as an ongoing responsibility, not a periodic event. This means continually monitoring Board progress, providing real-time feedback, and addressing issues as they arise rather than waiting for formal assessment cycles.

In managing Board performance, multi-layer assessments bring the most value. They provide a richer picture of how the Board is doing and help with the early identification of improvement opportunities. This approach recognizes that different issues may require different interventions – some at the individual level, others at the committee level, and yet others at the full Board level.

With respect to individual Board member performance, better results are generated when multiple methods are used, including self-evaluation and peer input. This allows insights from different angles. Whatever the method, the assessment of the individual Board member encompasses his/her performance on the Board both in substantive areas (e.g., financial analysis, strategy development, risk assessment, etc.) and in behavioral areas (e.g., constructive challenging, collaborating, managing conflict, etc. ) .

The journey to higher performance self-awareness – a kind of metacognitive understanding of how the Board learns and improves – is not instant. It moves from sporadic to regular assessments, from passive to active performance management, from a collective to a multi-tiered focus, and from a leaders-only to a shared- accountability mindset.

The influence of the CEO on corporate outcomes has long interested scholars and investors. A CEO’s vision, convictions, leadership strength, and track record are often seen as indicators for the chances of a company accomplishing growth, profitability, or other goals. For example, in the area of sustainability one study suggests that some 30% of variances in company performance in this area can be attributed to the CEO. Academy of Management Discoveries (AOM Journals, 2022, “How Much Influence Do CEOs Have on Company Actions and Outcomes? The Example of Corporate Social Responsibility”).
It is possible that the difference between these tenures may be growing in some countries as the average number of years a CEO remains in office shortens. One global study suggests that 70% of CEOs do not plan to remain in their roles for more than 5 years. PWC “28th Annual Global CEO Survey”. Among the world’s largest public companies, a 2018 study found an average of just under 5 years. See “CEO Success Study”, Strategy&, 2018. Last year, 43 CEOs of quoted companies across the globe lasted less than three years, a new record. See, Russell Reynolds, “2024 Global CEO Turnover Report”. In Switzerland, the median tenure of Board members in SMI companies having served between 2022-2024 was 10 years, while for CEOs it was 7 years. Of the 20 SMI companies, 11 CEOs left their post in 2023-2024 (including 2 ad interim CEOs), compared to an annual average of 2.5 CEOs in the prior 9 years. Source: HCM International Data. The author would like to thank Kateryna Bulda of HCM for her contribution in providing the above Swiss data and the data on number of Board member mandates shown on footnote 10 below.
This has been evident in various cases of corporate wrongdoing or financial failure across the world, such as in the Wells Fargo cross-selling scandal in 2016. See, e.g., L. Zingales, “Where was the Wells Fargo Board?”, Bloomberg Online 20.11.2016. A recent example in Switzerland is the collapse of Credit Suisse in 2022. The regulator’s report attributed the collapse to multiple factors, including instability brought about by frequent changes at the Board level. In the public, however, some observers were more critical of the Board and its Chair. See, e.g., «Die Crédit Suisse hätte nicht untergehen müssen», Tagesanzeiger, 16.3.2025. See also H. Hau et al., “Insufficient Supervisory Board Competence as a Risk Factor for Banks”, Center for Economic Policy Research, 10.6.2024, available at https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/insufficient-supervisory-board-competence-risk-factor-banks.
There is a considerable volume of writings on the importance of Board self-assessments and how to conduct them. But there is a dearth of empirical studies on the quality and outcome of such assessments in practice, both in the context of corporate mishaps and success stories. Furthermore, there is less emphasis on the notion of stimulating the Board’s cognitive awareness, such as by parsing and deconstructing the multiple strands of performance within the Board and embracing active performance management.
See e.g., D. Byrne, “What Exactly Happened at WeWork”, Corporate Governance Institute, available at https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/case-studies/what-exactly-happened-to-wework/?srsltid=AfmBOoqc4StxVPqz4SXMGIGCgVmqlusB9K0QAjygR3as24W4YhV67abT, Y. Cheng and S. Maiden, “WeWork: But Does the Corporate Governance Work?”, Darden School Case Study, University of Virginia, 30.4.2021.
The case involves the U.S. motorcycle maker, Harley-Davidson. See, “The Boardroom Eruption Over the Future of Harley-Davidson”, Wall Street Journal, 18.4.2025. The matter coincides with the company announcing search for a new CEO. See “CEO Process Confirmed”, PRNewswire 8.4.2025.
The term is being used in extrapolated form. It derives from the option a lawyer has under the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act to withdraw from representing a client when he or she believes the client is committing or is about to commit wrongdoing.
The Board member represents an investor wishing a different CEO than the other Board members. See, “Harley-Davidson board member resigns, cites ‘grave concerns’ about company”, Reuters 10.4.2025.
Some Boards hold a more rigorous assessment every two years and a light version yearly.
See, G.S. Varges, “The Adaptive Borders of the Compensation Committee” in NICG Journal 23/2 at p.30.
One financial regulator specifically requires assessment also of individual Board member performance. Australian Prudential Authority SPS 510, Standard 21 (2024).
Multiple options exist for the design and execution of the Board assessment. This includes making use of an external independent expert for the development of the methodology, for carrying out and moderating the process, and/or for independently assessing. Whatever the approach, it is critical to provide anonymous, confidential means for Board members to provide their input and to dedicate enough time for Board self-reflection on the results. This should be done before moving to agreeing on improvement measures where needed. See e.g., G. S. Varges, «Board Assessments: Von «Compliance-Übung» zu Leistungsbeurteilung» in Schulthess, Recht Relevant für Verwaltungsräte», 3.2020. One financial regulator is considering requiring that at least every three years the assessment be carried out by an independent third-party assessor. Australian Prudential Authority, Corporate Review (proposal), March 2025.

Also published by The Exchange Asia.

YBhg. Dato’ Seri Wan Suraya Wan Mohd Radzi, Ketua Audit Negara, telah diwakili oleh Encik Azunan Daud, Timbalan Ketua Audit Negara (Syarikat Kerajaan) selaku Ketua Pegawai Digital ke “AI-Powered Leadership Conference” yang berlangsung pada 2 Disember 2025 di Kampus Asia School of Business (ASB), Kuala Lumpur.

Persidangan berimpak tinggi anjuran ASB–Iclif Executive Education Center ini menghimpunkan tokoh perintis kecerdasan buatan (AI) antarabangsa, pemimpin korporat serta penggerak perubahan serantau bagi membincangkan landskap kepimpinan masa hadapan dalam era digital yang semakin kompleks dan berteknologi.

Majlis perasmian Persidangan telah disempurnakan oleh YB Gobind Singh Deo, Menteri Digital Malaysia.

Turut hadir Dr. Alifah Aida binti Lope Abd Rahman, Pengarah Bahagian Audit ICT, Jabatan Audit Negara.

Originally published by National Audit Department.

International financial centres (IFCs) serve as beacons for countries on the global finance stage. An IFC is like the nucleus of a nation’s financial activities, helping to connect financial zones in the country to international trade.

Growing and emerging markets have become more attractive to large global financial institutions as they provide a perfect combination of good talent, connected infrastructure, and world-class living at relatively affordable costs.

As global cities seek to ride this momentum and bolster their reputations as IFCs to attract capital, strategic insights to stand out in an increasingly competitive space become pertinent.

Metrics like the Z/Yen’s Global Financial Centres Index provide industry-trusted rankings of IFCs. But they are built on vast amounts of data and black box models that are less immediately actionable for financial centres.

IFCs should instead draw on competitive strategy theory and seek to identify and occupy what a US academic once described as “a lonely place on the frontier”.

By identifying multiple aspects that a host city or country excels in, an IFC can identify its comparative advantage, especially when combined to form a more unique proposition, and then building upon them to establish a core strategic position.

This can help the IFC to differentiate itself from competitors. Investors can then make more informed decisions about where to focus their activities based on specific value propositions and which IFC best fits their own mandates.

Case study

Malaysia illustrates how an IFC can identify comparative advantages and then exploit them.

In February 2024, the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital, was designated as the Southeast Asian country’s IFC.

Malaysia’s advantage comes from balancing conventional and Islamic practices while staying relatively neutral geopolitically and maintaining strong ties to key global regions. This can be seen from its history.

During the 1998 Asian financial crisis, Malaysia charted its own path instead of accepting aid from the International Monetary Fund. The government imposed selective capital and currency controls on outflows and established dedicated institutions to restructure distressed banks and corporations.

The unconventional approach drew scepticism from international financial institutions, which later came to see it as a pragmatic and effective policy response. It has since been widely cited as an instructive example of how developing economies can preserve financial stability, regain monetary policy autonomy, and accelerate economic recovery during periods of severe external and financial stress.

More broadly, Malaysia’s decisive response during the crisis helped cement its reputation for institutional pragmatism and financial innovation within the conventional financial system.

Malaysia has also led the way in the development of modern sukuk or Islamic bonds. Shell Malaysia, a non-Islamic corporation, issued the world’s first corporate sukuk in 1990.

The country’s Islamic financial market is not only well-developed and innovative but is also capable of attracting conventional investors who are not strictly looking for shariah-compliant financial products.

Other IFCs are more prominent in conventional finance. And some Middle Eastern cities are making increasingly ambitious moves in sukuk markets. But Kuala Lumpur is uniquely positioned to promote itself as a financial hub at the nexus of Islamic and conventional finance and attract a broader investor base seeking enhanced credit, liquidity and product diversification.

Indeed, Malaysia’s conventional and sukuk bond market is widely regarded as one of the most developed and active in Asia, estimated at US$557 billion as of November 2025.

Academic theory suggests that diversification across financial instruments with differing risk/return, structural, legal, and investor-base characteristics can provide a hedge against market volatility and systemic shocks.

Consistent with this view, during the 2008 global financial crisis, Malaysian conventional bonds experienced the widespread flight to quality effect with widening yield and repo spreads. But sukuk demonstrated relative resilience, with both yield and repo spreads reversing in its favour, reflecting differences in investor composition, risk-sharing structures and market dynamics.[1]

Malaysia’s competitive advantage is further bolstered by its ties to the rest of the world. Geopolitically, the country has remained relatively neutral, maintaining strong ties to the US, Europe, China and the rest of the Asia Pacific region, as well as the Middle East. This means it can connect multiple disparate regions and attract international capital flows, tapping into the demand for diversification.

One strategy to achieve this is to expand sukuk issuance in major global currencies such as the US dollar and the Chinese renminbi. This would reduce transaction frictions for international investors in dollar-denominated markets while positioning Malaysia to capture growing demand from renminbi-based investors and capital pools.

Kuala Lumpur can also pursue unique financial innovations that other IFCs cannot potentially offer, such as sustainable finance.

Unlike most other major Islamic hubs, Malaysia has abundant nature-based capital, including extensive rainforests, peatlands, mangrove ecosystems, and rich biodiversity assets.

Islamic finance principles have a strong conceptual alignment with environmental, social and governance, and climate finance objectives, particularly through an emphasis on asset-backing, risk-sharing, stewardship, and socially responsible investment.

This means Kuala Lumpur is uniquely positioned to develop and scale Islamic nature-based financial instruments anchored in natural capital. These may include sukuk and other shariah-compliant structures linked to conservation finance, carbon markets, biodiversity preservation, and sustainable land use.

This strategic positioning will further reinforce Kuala Lumpur’s role as a leading hub of financial innovation at the intersection of Islamic finance and sustainable finance.

Hub-and-spoke model

A country may have several financial zones with their own specialisations, functions and priorities. A financial centre differs from a financial zone in that it underpins and enables the other zones in their activities and specialisations. So IFCs and their respective zones can be treated as financial hub-and-spoke systems.

A successful financial hub must possess deep and liquid markets, supported by a well-established ecosystem of financial institutions, regulatory authorities, and complementary professional services. International investors must be able to transact efficiently within a transparent and predictable regulatory environment, complemented by strong legal infrastructure and seamless connectivity through world-class transportation and logistics networks.

These factors will allow the hub to integrate effectively with global capital markets and attract sustained international participation.

Kuala Lumpur benefits from having deep capital markets and multiple regulatory bodies such as Bank Negara Malaysia and Securities Commission Malaysia. It is also well-connected globally through international flights.

Kuala Lumpur serves as a strong hub that can be supported by other zones across the country ( Figure 1) that can act as the spokes.

Labuan, an offshore financial centre in East Malaysia that also specialises in Islamic financial technology, can lend its expertise in asset tokenisation to Kuala Lumpur while benefitting from trade through investors in the IFC.

The southern state of Johor provides wealth management and family office services, which can be further differentiated by leaning into the overall Islamic finance IFC strategy from Kuala Lumpur.

Meanwhile, the northern Penang state’s reputation in semiconductors, manufacturing and technology allows for firms in that zone and beyond that are expanding their operations to tap into Kuala Lumpur’s deeper financial market.

Figure 1. The hub-and-spoke model applied to Kuala Lumpur as a hub (red) and Labuan, Johor, and Penang and spokes (blue).

Talent strategies

An IFC’s competitive strategy should be supported by strong talent policies, including talent mobility. Relying on external talent may seem contradictory to a country’s national agenda, but it will increase the size of the talent pool so that employers can make hiring decisions that best suit their needs.

A simple financial economic model can be used to illustrate this point. We can extract talent mobility by considering the endowment distributions of fixed, mobile and external talent. Even if we assume that all three groups share the same mean endowment, each group has a different variance.

By virtue of increasing diversity and exposure, the fixed talent pool has the narrowest distribution, while the mobile and external talent pools have wider distributions, meaning that the latter pools have increased odds of finding better-performing outliers.

Employers in this model seek to make optimal hiring decisions and maximise productivity from endowment. Therefore, they hire mobile and external talent only if the talent has sufficiently high endowment such that their productivity outweighs the costs of relocating them for a new job.

Allowing employers to tap into talent pools with wider endowment distributions allows them to reach talent whose productivities outweigh their associated friction costs (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Illustrative distributions of the fixed (blue), mobile (orange), and external (purple) talent pools. Broken lines and shaded regions indicate mobile and external talent for which employers are willing to justify friction costs.

Different IFCs may adopt different strategies to facilitate talent mobility for both returning and international talent. For example, they can leverage their mandates to reduce costs for employers seeking the most appropriate talent for their needs, making it easier for employees to pursue work opportunities that are in a country’s national interest.

IFCs can also partner with the companies they host to accumulate data on hiring needs and make decisions and design policies accordingly.

The workforce at an IFC can also benefit from upskilling initiatives. As the financial and artificial intelligence sectors shift and evolve rapidly, continuous education becomes even more vital for professionals to react quickly and strategically to new trends.

To facilitate this process, an IFC can form strategic partnerships with leading academic institutions to connect companies to tailored education opportunities that can keep their talent competitive, upskilled and productive.

TRX partners Asia School of Business

In Malaysia’s case, the TRX emphasises service excellence as a core component of its talent attraction and mobility strategy. As part of this efforts, it has established a strategic partnership with the Asia School of Business to provide thought leadership, executive education, and microcredential programmes in both core and frontier areas of finance and management.

These programmes enable professionals to remain current with evolving developments in finance, leadership, supply chains and sustainability, while also strengthening capabilities in rapidly emerging technological domains such as AI and blockchain.

These initiatives enhance the broader IFC ecosystem by equipping professionals from high-value and high-growth industries with the advanced skills necessary to support innovation, competitiveness, and long-term economic growth.

Established international financial centres like London, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore have long been integral to the global financial landscape. But their comparative strengths lie primarily in conventional finance.

Emerging IFCs that are able to identify their comparative advantages and act on them will be able to effectively create and capture value, helping them to stand out globally while drawing more trade to their countries.

An IFC can extend its comparative advantage by publicising how it excels in a particular area of finance, such as through thought leadership efforts.

To be sure, not everything an IFC does needs to be completely unique. There will always be core services and transactions that investors expect from any IFC. But offering specialised, differentiated services can help investors decide whether to do business at a particular IFC.

* Lim Wei Han is an alumnus of Asia School of Business (ASB) and MIT’s School of Engineering. He is currently a research associate at Asia School of Business.

**This article draws on extensive research conducted for the TRX/Asia School of Business International Financial Centre Project and builds upon the analytical framework and findings developed in that context.

I would like to thank colleagues from Asia School of Business and MIT for their extremely helpful conversations, which shaped and strengthened this article. In particular, I am grateful to Professors Adrien Verdelhan, Asad Ata, Donald Lessard, Melati Nungsari, Pieter Stek, Renato Lima de Oliveira, Samuel Flanders, and Shardul Phadnis, whose insights helped to inform, clarify, and inspire key aspects of this research.

Originally published by Asia Asset Management.

Malaysia’s national AI agenda is moving from aspiration to execution. The National AI Roadmap and the forthcoming AI Technology Action Plan 2026-2030 signal intent to position Malaysia as a regional AI hub by 2030. The upside is significant; AI is expected to generate US$115 billion in productive capacity for Malaysia, supported by productivity gains across multiple sectors.

But policy ambition alone will not secure this value. Al impact will be captured by ecosystems that can translate strategy into capability, talent pipelines, leadership readiness, governance discipline and adoption at scale. International Financial Centres therefore become economic enablers, not just financial intermediaries. Their relevance is now defined as much by industry formation deployment as by capital flows.

Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) is emerging in this role. TRX’s collaboration with Asia School of Business to host the AI-Powered Leadership Conference brought together global academics, industry leaders and policymakers to examine leadership readiness, workforce shifts, ethics and what intelligent economies demand from executives. The core message was clear: AI competitiveness will be determined by leadership readiness, not only technical depth. As AI shifts from pilots into core business processes, leadership capability, strategic clarity and governance discipline will determine whether AI delivers sustainable returns or introduces systemic risk.

The talent constraint makes this urgent. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 projects 170 million new roles will be created and 92 million displaced by 2030, resulting in a net gain of 78 million jobs, intensifying competition for digital and AI-ready talent. In parallel, 94% of leaders report AI-critical skills shortages today, with around one-third reporting gaps of 40-60% in AI-critical roles, and many still anticipating material gaps by 2028.

“As the financial, supply chains and AI landscapes rapidly shift and evolve, companies will need to ensure their existing employees, senior management and boards remain abreast of new trends and possess the skills, both core and frontier, to navigate these landscapes,” said Professor Joseph Cherian, CEO, President and Dean of Asia School of Business. Through its collaboration with leading global academic institutions like Asia School of Business, TRX connects companies with executive education, degreed and microcredential learning opportunities designed to meet the needs of modern professionals, keeping them competitive, upkilled and productive.

Against this backdrop, Monash University Malaysia’s new Kuala Lumpur campus at TRX reinforces TRX’s role as a talent and capability anchor within Malaysia’s International Financial Centre. While Monash expands AI and data science, education and research, TRX provides the surrounding ecosystem of enterprises and institutions where this talent can transition into enterprise deployment and economic impact.

But talent alone is not sufficient. As AI moves into core business operations, value will be determined by how effectively leaders deploy, govern and scale these capabilities. For C-suite leaders, AI leadership does not mean writing algorithms. It means understanding how AI works, where its limits sit, and how it reshapes decision-making, risk and accountability.

“TRX’s strategic value lies in institutionalising AI readiness by bringing regulators, academia, enterprises and talent institutions into one connected ecosystem,” said Dato’ Sr Azmar Talib. “Anchored by Monash’s RM2.8 billion TRX campus opening in 2032 and reinforced by ASB’s AI leadership platforms, TRX is building a robust AI talent pipeline for finance and technology. By anchoring executive learning, governance forums and leadership pipelines within an International Financial Centre environment, TRX is not just a financial address, it is where AI leadership capability, regulatory confidence and enterprise deployment converge.”

Originally published by The Edge.

Kuala Lumpur strengthened its global standing in 2025, driven by regulatory reforms, investor-friendly policies, and resilient macroeconomic fundamentals. Malaysia saw a resurgence in foreign direct investment, while the city climbed from 51st to 45th in the Global Financial Centres Index, signalling renewed investor confidence and competitiveness.

At the heart of this momentum is Tun Razak Exchange (TRX), Malaysia’s International Financial Centre. TRX leverages Malaysia’s #1 ranking under the “Prices” factor in the IMD World Competitiveness Ranking 2025, reflecting a structurally efficient and stable cost environment. This operating efficiency and predictability underpin Kuala Lumpur’s appeal as a long-term business and financial destination, enabling global firms to allocate capital with confidence. Purpose-built to anchor high-value economic activity, TRX offers IFC-grade infrastructure and a high service-level ecosystem, positioning Kuala Lumpur as a competitive player in the region.

Spanning 70 acres with a gross development value of RM40 billion, TRX hosts over 120 international and local firms, employing more than 20,000 professionals, a number set to grow as new developments come online. Guided by five core pillars-World-class City, Infrastructure, Talent, Catalytic Environment, and Hub of Convergence-the district integrates urban design, transport connectivity, talent pipelines, and policy facilitation, creating a robust foundation for Kuala Lumpur’s regional financial ambitions.

TRX’s landmark assets, including The Exchange 106, Menara Prudential, Menara IQ, Menara Affin, and the 10-acre City Park, collectively drive strong occupancy and tenant diversity. The district has reached 80% occupancy by net lettable area, with Exchange 106 housing 90% international firms, while the district overall has attracted over RM8 billion in private investment. Strategic developments such as Monash University Malaysia’s Global City Campus and PwC Malaysia’s headquarters further reinforce TRX’s role as a talent and knowledge hub, supporting both innovation and workforce development.

Connectivity and ecosystem collaboration underpin TRX’s success. As a key interchange for MRT Putrajaya and Kajang lines, the district serves 50,000 weekday passengers and links seamlessly to highways and pedestrian networks. Partnerships with Bank Negara, Labuan IBFC, Securities Commission, MIDA, and Asia School of Business enhance the city’s influence across ASEAN, while policy dialogues, academic institutions, and international delegations strengthen its global connectivity.

ESG principles are embedded at the core of TRX’s development, aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goals and international green finance standards. Achievements include LEED and GBI certifications, rooftop solar generating 190 MWh annually, low-carbon mobility, smart energy systems, and WELL Certification focusing on occupant health and well-being. TRX’s people-centric approach ensures sustainability extends beyond buildings to create a healthy, productive, and resilient urban environment.

Looking ahead, TRX is shaping a comprehensive financial ecosystem anchored on talent, business growth, innovation, and ESG. By 2035, the district is projected to attract RM12 billion in additional private investment, cementing Kuala Lumpur’s position as a leading financial and business hub in Asia while setting a benchmark for sustainable and forward-looking urban development.

Originally published by The Edge.

KUALA LUMPUR, 13 January 2026 – Goodday KidSTART 3.0, Malaysia’s biggest children’s entrepreneurship programme, has officially crowned 12-year-old Pearl Liang Yee Herr as its new champion following the highly anticipated series finale on Astro. Now in its third consecutive year, the programme has evolved into a compelling reality-style TV series, marking a significant milestone in its mission to nurture confidence, creativity and real-world problem-solving skills among young Malaysians.

Pearl Liang, from SJK(C) Serdang Baru 1, Selangor, walked away with the RM20,000 grand prize with her innovative idea, “AI Unicorn,” a customised, AI-powered solution designed to help students find the right school uniform size. The idea was inspired by her own experience of struggling to find off-the shelf uniforms that fit properly and her desire to help other children with similar challenges feel confident at school. She impressed industry judges from Cradle Fund Sdn. Bhd. and the Asia School of Business (ASB), earning praise for her confidence, clarity and real-world potential.

Second place went to 12-year-old Mohammad Nukman from SK Sungai Ara, Pulau Pinang, who won RM10,000 for his eco-focused idea, “Food Rescue Hub,” a concept that uses AI and drones to collect surplus food and turn it into organic fertiliser. He said the programme opened doors to new experiences and friendships outside of school. Third place was awarded to 9-year-old Teo Kevan from SJK(C) Kuen Cheng 2 for “Furever,” a short-term pet experience that allows children to enjoy guided play and pick up basic pet-care skills without long-term commitments.

Launched in 2022 to build financial literacy, creativity, communication and entrepreneurial thinking among children aged 7 to 14, Goodday KidSTART has rapidly grown into one of Malaysia’s most influential platforms for young innovators. In just three years, it has evolved from a simple ideation challenge into a nationwide movement that empowers children to observe the world around them, identify everyday problems and propose meaningful solutions.

This year marked the programme’s strongest showing yet, with more than 8,000 submissions — double last year’s entries and the highest participation since the programme began, reaffirming Goodday KidSTART’s role as a catalyst for nurturing the next generation of confident, empathetic and socially conscious innovators.

For its third edition, Goodday KidSTART 3.0 made a significant leap by moving beyond a closed-door pitching format to debut as a nationwide TV series, , providing finalists with broader visibility and a platform to inspire peers nationwide. Key enhancements for this year included:

A 4 episodic TV series format will be aired on Astro Ceria & Ria
Immersive challenge rounds, including a business simulation at KidZania Kuala Lumpur
Guidance from industry mentors from Cradle, ASB and seasoned entrepreneurs
Real-world pitching and evaluations to strengthen confidence, communication and critical thinking skills

Amy Gan, Vice President of Marketing at Etika Sdn. Bhd. and spokesperson for Goodday Milk, shared that the programme reflects the brand’s long-term commitment to shaping confident, forward-thinking young Malaysians. “Nurturing children goes beyond providing nutritious products. It’s also about creating the right environments for them to explore ideas, push their creativity and discover what they’re capable of. Each year, the participants remind us just how bold and imaginative young minds can be, and that’s why we continue supporting a platform that helps them grow.”

Amy continued, “Evolving Goodday KidSTART into a national TV series with Astro was a deliberate step to broaden its reach and deepen its influence. Bringing the children’s journeys into Malaysian homes allows families to witness their growth from refining ideas to presenting with confidence and shows that innovation can come from any child, anywhere. This expanded format has allowed us to celebrate their stories on a larger stage, making the programme not just a competition, but a platform that inspires belief and possibility across the nation.”

The programme is backed by the Ministry of Education (MOE), and Puan Aniza binti Kamarulzaman, Director of the Educational Resources and Technology Division, shared her support during the taping of the final episode. “The Ministry of Education Malaysia is proud to support initiatives that cultivate creativity, problem-solving and communication skills among our students. Programmes like Goodday KidSTART offer invaluable hands-on experiences that complement classroom learning, and we want to thank Etika Sdn. Bhd. and Goodday Milk for championing such an initiative for the betterment of our future generation. It has been inspiring to see how much these children have grown, and we commend the organisers for their dedication and impact.”

Marking the first year of collaboration between Goodday KidSTART and Astro, Agnes Rozario, Chief Content Officer, Astro, shared, “Content has the power to shape curious minds. Being part of Goodday KidSTART’s journey to inspire learning, creativity and entrepreneurial thinking in children, and to help unlock their potential, is a privilege for us. Astro is proud to partner with Goodday KidSTART and to support the programme as it continues to scale new heights, reaching a wider and more diverse audience while creating greater impact for children across Malaysia.”

Closer Look at the Finalists: Grit, Guts & Growth

Grand Prize Winner, Pearl, dedicated her victory to her parents, sharing, “I never imagined I would become the Goodday KidSTART Champion. I learned to be brave, believe in my ideas and keep trying. I do want to take my business idea further, but first I want to surprise my parents by buying them a new air conditioner because ours isn’t working. This win is for you, Mommy and Papa.”

From the 20 finalists selected nationwide, eight advanced to compete for the top prizes this year. In addition to the traditional pitching rounds, finalists also took part in a special challenge at KidZania Kuala Lumpur, where they were tested on real-world problem-solving, teamwork and practical business decision-making. This immersive experience gave judges deeper insight into each child’s capabilities, helping them identify the most well-rounded young innovators.

Beyond the Top 3 winners, outstanding talents were recognised across multiple award categories:

Best Presenter (Above 10): Cinta Zandra Alayna Paul, 12 (Selangor)
Best Presenter (10 and Below): Chong Jo Ann, 9 (Kuala Lumpur)
Rising Star Award: Muhammad Arish Aidan Bin Mohd Hamzy, 12 (Selangor)
Best Social Impact Award: Solomon Lim Tee Guan, 9 (Sarawak)
Most Innovative Idea Award: Lau Wai Liang, 12 (Selangor)

Building on last year’s momentum, this year Goodday Milk honoured SJK (C) Yuk Chai with the Highest Participation Award, clinching first place and RM10,000 after recording over 600+ entries, the highest participation among all schools this year.

Judges’ Reflections

Judges from Cradle Fund Sdn. Bhd., the Asia School of Business (ASB) and Astro played a pivotal role throughout the programme — assessing ideas for innovation, feasibility, impact potential, commercial readiness, storytelling and personal growth. Beyond judging, they served as mentors and thought partners, pushing participants to refine their concepts, sharpen their pitches and think more strategically.

Norman Matthieu Vanhaecke, Group CEO of Cradle Fund Sdn. Bhd., shared that many of the ideas demonstrated genuine commercial potential beyond classroom creativity. He noted that what stood out most was how quickly the children absorbed feedback, sharpened their concepts and articulated real-world problems with clarity and confidence well beyond their age. Through Cradle’s continued guidance and ecosystem support, selected winners will be further nurtured to refine, validate and bring their ideas closer to real-world implementation.

From an academic lens, Dr Melati Nungsari, Deputy CEO and Associate Professor at Asia School of Business (ASB), commended the children’s polished, strategic presentations and their maturity in embracing feedback. Echoing this, Malaysian actor and TV host Datin Lisa Surihani Mohamed praised the finalists’ spirit and storytelling, noting that the television format brought to life the heart, grit and creativity behind each idea.

As the curtains close on this year’s competition, Goodday KidSTART continues to stand as a powerful reminder of what can happen when children are given the space to imagine, create and believe in themselves. The milk brand remain committed to nurturing the next generation of confident, future-ready Malaysians, ensuring that even more young innovators can step forward in the years to come.

Originally published by Astro.
Also published in BuzzKini and Free Malaysia Today.

Guest: Dr Elsa Satkunasingam (Director and Senior Lecturer, Iclif), Asia School of Business

Malaysia’s sovereign wealth landscape is shifting. Khazanah Nasional remains the federal anchor, Sarawak has legislated its own fund with approval to invest globally, and Sabah has renewed plans for a state sovereign fund after years of discussion. What are the gold standards for governance, accountability and the importance of clear mandates ? We speak to Dr Elsa Satkunasingam, Director and Senior Lecturer at Iclif, Asia School of Business.