AN academician has called on corporate figure Victor Chin Boon Long to showcase transparency in his allegations of wrongdoing by providing the necessary evidence to back his claims of corrupt practises.
The former NexG Bhd chief operating officer must also come forward to provide an explanation to the firm's shareholders regarding the alleged RM303.7 million spent while he was in the company's leadership ranks.
A senior lecturer of the Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, UiTM Seremban campus, Dr Mazlan Che Soh, said that from a good governance perspective, it is appropriate for any party directly or indirectly involved in decision-making to provide a clear and factual explanation.
He said this is in line with the principle of disclosure, which is the basis for market confidence.
Transparency and accountability are part of good corporate governance.
"In the context of corporate governance of publicly listed companies, any large-scale spending decisions as reported must be viewed through the principles of accountability, transparency and fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
“This issue is not solely about specific individuals, nor politics, but is broader to how the company's strategic decisions are made, approved and shared with stakeholders."
The technocrat said that such clarification is particularly important to protect the interests of minority shareholders who rely on public information to assess the company’s performance and direction.
It was reported that the RM303.7 million expenditure by NexG Bhd between November 2024 and September 2025 has raised serious questions about the company’s corporate governance practices.
The reported expenditure involved the acquisition of a cybersecurity company worth RM40 million, the purchase of shares in MMAG Holdings Bhd and NexG Bina Bhd totalling approximately RM164.8 million, in addition to the provision of loans of RM98.9 million through the company’s lending arm.
According to Mazlan, any need to come forward to provide clarification also needs to be seen within the institutional framework, namely through the company’s official channels, such as the board of directors, audit committee, and reporting mechanisms to relevant authorities.
He said this is to ensure that the explanation provided is comprehensive, consistent and not speculative or defensive in an individual manner.
In this regard, he explained, the priority is to ensure that the internal review, audit and governance processes are functioning properly.
“If necessary, authorities such as capital market regulators can play a role in ensuring that all transactions and investment decisions comply with regulatory requirements and the interests of shareholders.
“More specifically, in the ecosystem of publicly listed companies, market trust cannot be built on assumptions, but must be based on transparent and accountable explanations,” he said.
He said that in situations where there are significant public questions, clarity of information is no longer an option, but an institutional requirement.
Furthermore, failure to adequately explain has the potential to undermine shareholder confidence, especially minority investors, as well as reflecting weaknesses in corporate governance practices themselves. - April 4, 2026.
