The independent directors of Malaysian listed firms and their busyness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to examine the extent to which the independent directors are independent of management and to what extent they are busy. From a sample of 200 non-finance Malaysian listed firms for the 2009 and 2010 financial years, it is observed that the almost 60% of the independent directors have professional backgrounds and another 20% are either serving or retired government servants. Hence, by virtue of their training, a majority of them are independent and objective. Findings also show that the largest shareholders of the sample firms are as follow: families (66%), government (4%); institutions (8%). On average, there are 1.5 family members or 21% of the board size. While the role of senior independent directors is very important in a concentrated ownership environment, only one quarter of the sample firms appoint senior independent directors. Out of 135 family owned firms, only one fifth appoint senior independent directors. As for board chairman, only 30% of sample firms and family owned firms appoint independent directors as the board chairman. In terms of independent directors’ busyness, on average, each independent director holds one directorship in other listed firms. All independent directors seem to attend all board meetings. Hence, the independent directors appear to be not so busy and are able to discharge their duties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".