A Malaysian lawmaker insists that it “isn’t straightforward to unwind” Digital Nasional Bhd’s (DNB) role in the 5G rollout in the country.
Certain quarters have labelled the special purpose vehicle, established in 2021 to drive the development of 5G infrastructure in Malaysia, as a “monopoly”. This comes after Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said on March 24, that monopolies in the country will be reviewed by the government.
“There’s the issue of how monopolies can disrupt the entire ecosystem in the country, but also, how some monopolies are beneficial to the rakyat at large,” said Titiwangsa MP Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani this morning.
“Let’s look at TNB (Tenaga Nasional Bhd). It’s a monopoly but TNB is able to consolidate the nation’s energy requirements, and the government can control that monopoly by not allowing the company to increase (electricity) tariffs. This part of the monopoly is beneficial. It’s well-controlled.
“Let’s now look at Telekom Malaysia (TM). In a way, TM has a monopoly in the supply of fibre backhaul … to a certain extent, TM is the largest, and anyone who wants to supply the last mile, must tap into their backhaul. So, that in a way, is also a monopoly.
“This part of it, I think, needs to be refined, so that we don’t create another monopoly situation like DNB.”
Johari added that in the case of DNB, he felt that the government must allow telecommunications companies to participate in the 5G rollout directly, “leveraging on their respective strengths”.
“The government can control the spectrum, and if the government wants to have a say, it can always use TM. But it must make sure that TM cannot participate in the retail part of it.”
He added that the government didn’t need to “start all over again”, as seen in the DNB experience.
“It’s an extension of activities by the telecommunications companies in this country. Now it’s 4G, moving to 5G. The future will be 6G and even 7G … as such, the government shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel.
“If the government reinvents the wheel, it will incur unnecessary overheads, and certain commitments.
“Unless no one out there can do it, and if the government thinks it needs to be in control, then it’s fine, but the government can use its own entity, like TM.
“TM is a listed company. It is subject to proper scrutiny, by the public and investors. That’s the reason why I’m not keen on DNB in its current form.”
Johari admitted that addressing the DNB debate wasn’t as straightforward for the government.
“The problem is, DNB has been set up. If DNB had not been set up, then we can deliberate on the matter. But it was not properly deliberated, and the company had been set up, people were employed, and the government had committed a certain amount of money, committed to the technology supply … all these things are not straightforward to unwind. That’s how I look at it.
“We should learn from this mistake. If the whole setup is taken over by TM or any other consortium, how are we going to dismantle this? It’s not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ situation. There are a lot of implications.
“How do you unwind when the commitment with other parties is already out there? This is a big issue,” he added.