*1.3. FinTech Regulation in Indonesia and Malaysia*

According to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF), Indonesia and Malaysia are among the leading ASEAN nations in terms of the number of FinTech enterprises [20]. Bank Indonesia (BI) is the Central Bank and is responsible for all aspects of financial stability and supervision. The Indonesian Financial Services Authority (OJK) regulates the financial services industry, which includes the registration, security, and licensing of FinTech companies [21].

In the case of Malaysia, there are two primary regulatory agencies. Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), the country's central bank, oversees the nation's financial establishments, credit system, and fiscal plan. Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) is a statutory agency charged with regulating and systematizing the development of Malaysia's capital markets [21]. Table 1 summarizes the FinTech regulations in both countries.


**Table 1.** FinTech Regulation in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Source: Authors' Compilation.

There is evidence from prior research that good corporate governance practices can promote company transparency by increasing voluntary disclosure levels [22]. Disclosure studies have been carried out extensively for big corporations and publicly traded firms, but studies using FinTech companies, which are often less regulated, are scarce [23]. FinTech companies are not often large publicly traded corporations; instead, they are mainly startups, which may explain why there is a limited study on their disclosure, which in turn, affect the achievement of SDG No. 16. FinTech clients are small enterprises and individuals who have little access to information other than what these companies supply on their websites. As a result, the website's information serves a vital purpose for stakeholders and society [23], which provides the motivation for this paper. Correspondingly, the research questions posited in this paper are:

RQ1—What is the extent of corporate governance disclosure in both Malaysian and Indonesian FinTech companies?

RQ2—Do the country and type of FinTech services affect the extent of corporate governance disclosure in both Malaysian and Indonesian FinTech companies?

In prior research, the industrial sector has been identified as a significant factor in determining whether a high or low level of information is disclosed [24]. Arguably, different practices exist in each country. The rationale for studying this variable is that organizations in the same industrial sector or service have similar information-disclosure policies. In this paper, each FinTech service represents a distinct FinTech Business sector.

This paper adds to the literature in several significant ways. First, the application of a Modified Corporate Governance Disclosure Index (MoCGOvDi) is expected to expand the corpus of research on corporate governance in FinTech companies. The research's novelty is demonstrated by the index derived from the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard and prior literature. Most studies examined corporate governance information disclosure using other guidelines such as AAOIFI and IFSB involving Islamic banks [25,26]; banks [27]; Guidance on Good Practices in Corporate Governance Disclosure' issue by the ISAR (International Standards of Accounting and Reporting) [28], companies and ASX corporate governance guidelines [1], banks using the Code of Corporate Governance for Public Companies in Nigeria, 2011 and the Code of Corporate Governance for Banks and Discount Houses 2014 [29]; Islamic financial institutions the corporate governance for licensed Islamic banks (GP1-i) issued by the Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) in 2007, guiding principles on corporate governance for institutions offering only Islamic services (excluding Islamic insurance [Takaful] institutions and Islamic mutual funds) introduced by IFSB [30]. Consequently, the results may serve as a point of reference for future studies tracing any changes to corporate governance regulations.

Second, from the perspective of coercive isomorphism under the institutional theory, this study contributes to the insight into the corporate governance disclosures practice of FinTech companies in Indonesia and Malaysia, in which there is a dearth of investigation in this field, which is also related to SDG No. 16. According to the authors' knowledge, the specific governance-related information is among the first research on corporate governance in FinTech companies. The remaining sections of the paper are organized as follows. Section 2 is a discussion of the literature review and the study's theoretical framework. Section 3 covers the methodology, while Section 4 covers the results and discussions. Lastly, Section 5 concludes the paper.

#### **2. Literature Review**
