Why should MCA interfere with Utar?


by NH Chan
Centre for Policy Initiatives
06 October 2010

Human nature is such that there are two kinds of human behaviour when it comes to charity – the pretentious and the altruistic donor. I have always doubted the sincerity of those who give to charity by proclaiming it under the flashbulbs of press photographers. In these amusing photo ops, you see the donors posing with an enormous mock cheque to emphasize the size of the donation. If you’re truly charitable, why not dispense with the fanfare and write the amount on a normal cheque?

Having said this, I can now tell you about the truly altruistic gesture of philanthropist Koon Yew Yin. He made an offer of RM30 million, quite gratuitously, for the building of hostels for University Tunku Abdul Raman (Utar) students in Kampar.

Ever since the university was founded, its students have had to find their own accommodation outside campus. In many cases, they have to pay exorbitant rents far beyond the means of poor or even middle- class students.

The generosity of Koon was brought to my attention by the unflattering headline ‘Tycoon wanted seat on council’ in theSun (Sept 3, 2010). The article’s sub-headline was ‘Koon also wanted Utar residential village named after him, says MCA division chief’.

The MCA division chief in question, Ipoh Timur’s Thong Fah Chong, had said Koon’s requests were not acceptable as they had “exceeded the university’s jurisdiction and [could be] deemed an interference in the management of the university”. Thong added that hostels could not be named at one’s whim and fancy.

In his immediate response, Koon countered that although it was correct that while the facility was to be named after him, what he had specified was that the hostel blocks should be named after the fundamental rights such as Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Freedom, or the qualities of integrity such as honesty, justice, etc.

Koon also categorically denied he had ever requested a seat on the Utar council, clarifying instead that he had agreed to Utar’s counter-proposal for a task force to oversee the construction of the hostels.

He said his requests, including for a seven-man task force (four from Utar and three to be nominated by him) to oversee the construction of the hostels, and for all construction contracts exceeding RM10,000 to be open to competitive tenders, were to ensure everything was done in the interest of the students. He said it was not meant to interfere with the management of the university.

It’s common practice

One may ask, why should the Ipoh Timur MCA division chief Thong Fah Chong (left) criticize the well-meaning and generous offer of RM30 million by a good Samaritan?

Thong even questioned the motive of Koon for his offer of substantial financial assistance to Utar. He accused Koon of wanting to sit on the council of the university. This is a false accusation. It is not true because Thong has admitted that “late last year he had … arranged for the philanthropist to meet the then president of the MCA … but he was not aware of what transpired at the meeting apart from the request”.

If he was unaware of what took place at the meeting, then how could he say that Koon wanted to sit on the university council?

Furthermore, why should a member of the MCA interfere with an offer of a donation to the university?

Should it not be left to the university to accept or not accept the offer without having to cast aspersions on the motive of the donor? If you must refuse the offer, surely it is polite to refuse it graciously? But the way it has been handled by Thong as the representative of the MCA has reflected badly on the upbringing of the man as well as on the sincerity of the association.

Not surprisingly, Koon has now withdrawn his offer? Can you blame him? Anyone in Koon’s shoes would have done the same thing.

A celebrated English lawyer of the 18th century, William Blackstone, was the first Vinerian Professor of Law in Oxford University, as was the renowned Geoffrey Cheshire later. The law professorship was named after a certain Mr Viner who had endowed on Oxford a large sum of money.

For his offered RM30 million, Koon did not even ask for a professorship to be named after him. All he asked was for any eventual profits from the hostel rental in future to be overseen by a foundation in his name, and for this foundation to disburse scholarships and other forms of assistance to Utar students.

And what is so wrong for the donor to establish a foundation in his name to oversee the utilization of his donation? Alfred Bernhard Nobel, 1833-96, Swedish chemist, engineer, and philanthropist – noted for his invention of dynamite (1866) – is a household name today for his bequest to the foundation awarding the Nobel prizes.

But in Malaysia, Utar and MCA vilified Koon for demanding accountability and transparency in how the university and its authorities from the political party would manage his RM30 million. Their action sinks my opinion of the MCA to an even lower level.

Students become innocent victims

After I retired from the bench in the year 2000, I returned to Ipoh. Here I met Thong who became a friend. Later I befriended Koon during the height of the Perak constitutional crisis of 2009.

Today I have lost respect for my erstwhile friend Thong because he tried to gain political mileage by vilifying poor Koon, an unpretentious retired engineer whose only sin – if you can call that a sin – is to offer RM30 million to build hostels for students.

Koon earned my respect and admiration because he was concerned with the plight of the thousands of students who face the uncertainty of not being able to find decent lodgings and having to pay extortionate rents to unscrupulous landlords besides. Since Utar students must seek accommodation outside campus, the private house owners in the vicinity have taken advantage of the situation.

If you’ve been reading the Ipoh Echo – a fortnightly free newspaper – you will have noticed that for several months now the paper carries an advertisement of Koon Yew Yin’s offer of scholarships to poor students.

Koon has given scholarships to about 70 deserving students for the last three-and-a-half years and most of them are studying in Utar. The only repayment required of the recipients is their word — a promise that when they’re financially secure after graduation, they will in turn help other poor students.

Just for this year alone, the Koon Yew Yin scholarships are worth a total RM1 million, of which some three-quarters of the sum has been approved to those applicants who passed their interviews. This itself is a large amount of money to be coming from a single Malaysian individual, and furthermore one who does not bond the students to work for him.

Yet there are some people in politics – in the MCA for instance – who are wary or envious of the unpretentious and well-meaning millionaire.
There is really more to why Utar and its political masters did not accept the donation of RM30 million from Koon, but I won’t dwell on the matter here.

But perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from the withdrawal of Koon’s offer more than one year after it was made.

With these dubious episodes occurring, you can understand why I choose to be apolitical. But for the young students who have nothing to do with politics and the parents who have to worry about their children’s living environment the first time away from home, it is a disappointing lesson learned with some sad poignancy.

  1. #1 by isahbiazhar on Thursday, 7 October 2010 - 8:25 pm

    Not all good deeds are recognized or accepted. This is one such example.To those who want to be philanthropist beware before making any move!

  2. #2 by Taxidriver on Thursday, 7 October 2010 - 8:32 pm

    Any Tan Sri, Dato Seri, Dato or Tun in UMNOB who is as Patriotic as minster Koon Yew Yin?
    Koon is giving away his hard-earned money to help the needy students so that they in turn can help other poor students so that Malaysia will become a better place to live in.

    How about you, Tun MM. Are you helping anyone of your supporters’ children in their pursuit of higher education?

    Actions speak louder than words! Juara Bangsa dan Agama you are calling yourselves? SHAME ON YOU. Ptui! ptui! ptui!

  3. #3 by Ethan1874 on Thursday, 7 October 2010 - 9:16 pm

    Well, since the donation was not appreciated, Mr Koon can consider of purchasing land nearby UTAR and build student hostels by himself instead, 30M should be enough to do so, right?

  4. #4 by David69 on Thursday, 7 October 2010 - 10:36 pm

    I feel that having someone donating something to Utar is a good thing.

  5. #5 by Cinapek on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 12:07 am

    If this UTAR council are at the beck and call of MCA, they are no better than the other public universities who are under the thumb of the BN Govt. UTAR will be setting itself on the path of destruction. I had so much admiration for them when they started and the international reputation of those who sat on their Advisory Council. People such as Prof Wang Gang Wu needs no introduction. It is sad that such a good headstart will now be sullied by those politicians who, true to form, will mess up UTAR just as they have messed up everything else in this country.

    One do not need to be a genius to figure out why there is resistance to this donation. The reasons given are just excuses. Anybody who rejects a RM30m donation either has shit in his brain or he has ulterior motives. And sadly at the end of the day, it is the poor students who suffer. While universities the world over encourages their students to stay on campus to foster closer intellectual exchanges for a more dynamic and vibrant learning environment, in UTAR, we have a council that has compromised its professionalism by bowing to their political masters.

  6. #6 by dawsheng on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 3:57 am

    “why should a member of the MCA interfere with an offer of a donation to the university?” NH Chan

    Thong Fah Chong and MCA must answer this question!

  7. #7 by k1980 on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 7:25 am

    Ah Koon, donate lah your RM30million to the DAP! Stupid old fella….

  8. #8 by Godfather on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 7:44 am

    Koon knows the modus operandi of BN parties. You donate RM30 million, the money goes into a black hole. RM 15 million is actually spent for the benefit as the donor intended. The remainder is split between the individuals controlling the funds and the party itself, to be used as follows:

    1. Buy property in London, Perth, Melbourne or Sydney (individual).

    2. Buy votes in by-elections (party).

    3. Pay for general election campaigns (party).

    The deal killer has to be the demand for transparency and open tenders. You think they would really bother if they can’t get their dirty hands on some of the money ? I mean, if the rakyat still cannot understand what’s happening, then I say that we are not ready for 1st world status.

  9. #9 by Godfather on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 8:08 am

    Comparatively, the MCA has been pretty good at giving roughly 50 pct of donors’ funds back to the community. The situation is rather bleak with UMNO and MIC. In these parties, the great helmsmen pocket 90 pct of donors’ funds, and leave 10 pct for their cronies, and the respective communities gets zilch.

  10. #10 by k1980 on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 9:04 am

    Anwar, don’t allow this thief to join PKR or else you will get a Saifool Part 2.

    http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/chong-meng-quits-mca

  11. #11 by Bigjoe on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 10:18 am

    One of the things I have learned about MCA leaders is that no matter how nice they can be on occassions and there are still times like that, inevitably there is an obligation for them to be ugly politically which happens to ALL of them and quite frequently. In fact, as years go by, it happens more and more frequently to all of them. Its basically a bankruptcy of ideology.

    Lets all admit that we Chinese, throughout history, there are those shameless kinsmen we have failed to control and in fact controlled us. In the past, they destroyed dynasties over ambitions, pride and even more foolish things. LKY once described the Chinese as ‘hardworking but can be very indiscipline’ which is another way of saying can be very corruptible.

    In the end i think the difference between LKY and Tan Siew Sin was not so much upstart vs gentry but rather about the need for discipline and anti-corruption of the masses. LKY believing that the price of liberty for most was worth it to tame the indiscipline and corruptibility of significant minority. I think we Malaysian Chinese are ready to admit there is truth to his views even if we think his medicine is overkill.

    We have been over-generous with our prodigal kinsmens and its time we remind them who they really should be.

  12. #12 by DAP man on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 10:26 am

    There is an unwritten policy in MCA that part of any funds – be it donation or remuneration – must end up in MCA leader’s pockets.
    When Koon asked for transparency, MCA became nervous because they had no chance to put their fingers in the kitty.
    “Since we cannot have access to the funds, we may as well say no.”
    And that’s what they did.

  13. #13 by artemisios on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 10:27 am

    SUMMARY:

    MCA wants Koon to donate RM30 million

    BUT

    MCA doesn’t want Koon to know how they utilize the RM30 million

    If MCA is honestly “serving the people” as they claim, why be so afraid of transparency?

    Planning to purchase raw materials from crony companies instead of a competitive supplier?

  14. #14 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 1:05 pm

    Thank you to Koon Yew Yin for being kind and generous.

    Some folks like yourself, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett work hard and then after enjoying a good game in making money decide that money is only a means to an end – and the end, the greater good of man.

    So thank you once again. Let not MCA’s buffoonery derail or dampen yr enthusiasm. The tracks of goodness do get slippery but goodness must prevail; otherwise, this will be a sad, selfish and evil world inhabited by the likes of UMNO-ites ( like termites) and MCA-suckers (as in suckers).

  15. #15 by Jeffrey on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 1:24 pm

    Why should MCA interfere with UTAR? MCA has every right to interfere. It is the promoter of UTARs progenitor TARC. MCA is therefore the patron of UTAR. And rightly so because it was MCA concession to UMNO’s NEP on quid pro quo bargain that Chinese educational opportunities should be made available by TARC and now UTAR as balance against the marginalizing effects of the NEP’s Malay Quota. Therefore, as patron (meaning sponsor and benefactor), it is MCA’s fiduciary duty to interfere correctly in the manner protective and enhancing of the interests of UTAR and the welfare of its students and not act against these interests!

    This is where MCA is totally wrong in relation to Koon’s charitable donation of RM30 million and why I share NH Chan’s disappointment with MCA in the way it handles this issue.
    It is a simple donation to TARC’s students benefit. Thank the benefactor Koon and take it rather than come out with lame excuses that Koon’s gift is a conditional one. Of course it’s a conditional one. One can’t compare it with the government’s appropriation from the public purse.
    This is a substantial donation from an individual to alleviate the obvious plight of tarc’s students. It is a plight because the campus is situate outskirts of Kampar. The rental of rooms there is RM400 per room per month that can be twinned shared. Its exorbitant compared to Ipoh and Kampar where for RM250 to RM300 one can rent a whole house. The students are a captive market. You have no choice to pay. Koon made his money as contractor. He knows his numbers. His RM 30 million can build (based on todays construction costs) 500 units, with each unit having 3 bed-rooms that can accommodate 6-9 students. There is no land cost. 130 acres of land was alienated by Perak State Govt to UTAR in 2003 of which only I think 20 acres have been presently used for the campus. If Koon’s donation were accepted and implemented something like 4000 – 5000 students can afford cheaper hostel accommodation instead of being captive market for the landlords in Kampar outskirts charging RM400 per room way above rental for a house of the bigger towns of Kampar and Ipoh! We are talking of something like an aggregate of 4000 –5000 students of majority Chinese descent forming the core of MCA’s constituency whose parents’ (10,000 of them) financial interest is at stake.
    MCA division chief Thong’s allegation that Koon wanted to be on UTAR’s council is unsubstantiated and publicly denied. The correspondence showed that Koon only wanted to be in the Task Force as advisor with 3 out 7 of his representatives. I would do the same if I were the philanthropist precisely because I want to make sure that my condition of competitive bidding is adhered and that my RM30 million is not frittered and detoured to another contractor or subcontractor raising costs by variation orders and giving kick backs back to the awarding party. What’s wrong with that condition? The rest of conditions – that UTAR uses a portion of the net income to create a Koon Yew Yin Charity Foundation to help poor students by offering scholarships or loans to UTAR and other needy students – is reasonable and fair especially having regard that the donation is from an individual’s own money. I would say its fair even if these conditions were imposed by MCA’s affiliated corporates like The Star or Huaran Holdings – but I don’t hear them that generous of welfare of Chinese students as Mr Koon even though MCA promotes Chinese interest especially educational interests!

  16. #16 by aeras on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 1:35 pm

    Why MCA spurned away YYK’s intent to donate?

    I believe that those shophouses/residential houses surrounding UTAR are being owned by a few high ranking MCA members who are having hell of a lifetime collecting rents at exorbitant rate from the poor students.

    Who in the sane mind would not buy land and properties in that area when construction of UTAR, which MCA has a hand in it, is confirmed to go on without the construction of hostels? And think about it, who else would have the fastest information about this if not MCA members (selective few).

    RM30m is not a small amount and YYK’s conditions for this donation perfectly alright. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Try getting RM30m from the MCA.

    No point crying over spilt milk now. The donation offer has been withdrawn and all I can say is best wishes to the students, who are all victimised by politics. Thanks to Mr. Thong Fah Chong, the Ipoh Timur MCA division chief. May you succumbed to embarrassing defeat in the next GE.

  17. #17 by Jeffrey on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 2:00 pm

    Typo omission above – 130 acres should read 1,300 acres of land.

    MCA’s president CSL’s exuse that he didn’t know about the matter sounds like pushing the buck to cover a fiasco. How is it you don’t know? You were elected president of MCA in March this tear around the time Koon made his last and final offer. Before that you were top honcho who commanded singly the greater support than rival contenders Ong Tee Keat and Liow Tiong Lai severally. When an individual like Koon made such a substantial offer for the MCA’s cause of UTAR how come you didn’t know? Everyone who mattered in MCA hierarchy would have known! It is unbelievable, really! CSL should have the grace to now apologize to Mr Koon on behalf of MCA for its past mishandling and accept his Offer and Conditions if Mr Koon would now re-activate it! With the next GE in mind, better still, get The Star or Huaran to contribute for furnishings or landscaping if not build, as inspired by example of Mr Koon, another hostel or sports complex/gym next/contiguous to and as supplement of Koon’s proposed residential village.

    The onus is on MCA to explain with cogence (1) why it did not then accept Koon’s offer and (2) why it does not now correct its first mistake and make amends by doing the things I said above (eat humble pie, apologise and accept the offer if re-activated by Koon) – in the financial interest of 5000 students and 10 thousand of their parents forming the constituency of the MCA!

    Not doing so invites the unnecessary suspicions and allegations of other less meritorious motives that neither Koon nor NH Chan wants to mention for perhaps lack of specific evidence.

    But nonetheless the public being imaginative and tutored in the way of patronage politics will suspect and make allegations of all kinds – such as some politicians have vested interests, already bought their houses around in vicinity ripping off the students with high rentals, and future development of such hostels or even houses will be by favourite crony affiliated developers.

    So if you want to be fair to MCA – and protect it from such allegations which you ascribe as baseless, unsubstantiated and even malicious – if you want to rectify MCA’s past omission in and lache of not giving Mr Koon’s offer the grace of acceptance it deserves – if you want to “interfere” correctly as patron sponsor and benefactor of UTAR and its students interest, all in keeping with MCA’s manifesto taking care of educational interest of your Chinese constituents, I see you have no way out but to address the issues raised in (1) and (2) above to rectify and make amends to the mistake that so far MCA has not provided either evidence or a cogent argument that its position [vis-à-vis Koon’s public criticisms of MCA] is defensible!

  18. #18 by k1980 on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 2:06 pm

    Koon should had used his RM300 million to buy residential land in Kampar, build the houses/apartments and then rent them at a token rental of say RM100 a month to those UTAR students to cover yearly assessment and quit rent. His selfless service would then be praised throughout the land. Why did he offer the RM300 million to those mca thieves? Surely there are reputable contractors who can do the job without going through the den of thieves.

  19. #19 by k1980 on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 2:14 pm

    Continued from #15

    Koon can then name his UTAR housing estate “Taman Mata Sepet” to remind its inhabitants that they are despised and ridiculed thanks to the ineffective role of the mca in the govt

  20. #20 by Jeffrey on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 3:01 pm

    ///With these dubious episodes occurring, you can understand why I choose to be apolitical But for the young students who have nothing to do with politics and the parents who have to worry about their children’s living environment the first time away from home, it is a disappointing lesson learned with some sad poignancy./// – Ex Judge NH Chan.

    This is a lot of truth in NH’s Chan’s summation and compassion in Koon’s Offer.
    What I am interested in is NH Chan’s word “apolitical” in describing himself. It is resonant of what RPK once said: he’s also bipartisan but pro-the Malaysian Cause. He supports the Opposition because a change is better and no matter what people expect the Opposition no mater how far it falls from expectations when in power will still represents a notch better than incumbents drunk with 50 years of it! But it does not mean Opposition is above criticism (as what RPK did recently in London). OIr that they should not be kept on toes. That’s why RPK does not join a political party in the Opposition: he reserves the right to criticize – for the Malaysian Cause! maybe thats why NH Chan says he’s “apolitical” as well!

    People here can condemn politicians of the ruling parties of thinking of their own interest – not the rakyat’s. That’s true but it does not mean we should not be vigilant about Opposition politicians as well if they get to power. How do you know they would abuse? They’re not doing so only because now they are not in position to do so yet. Especially when MACC scrutinizes their every move. Wait till they come to power, and MACC is beholden to them.
    [But even now I know of some Opposition MPs fraternizing with local business men to secure deals including land deals in Perak and even in Kampar. I won’t mention names. But what’s the difference?]

    It is incumbent upon Malaysians to keep an eye and be vigilant on our politicians of all shares, affliations and colours – whether in power or in opposition because many are there for self aggrandizement under the cover of fighting for the rights of citizenry. How could anyone but the most naive believe the majority are truly there for altruistic cause of fighting for peoples’ right? It is the people themselves who got to “jaga” their own rights against the tendency of politicians to abuse power when they have it – that validates what Lord Acton said about “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. If a person is genuinely thinking about others interest and resists his own human impulse to be corrupt (ie take unfair advantage that power provides), politics will surely not be his first choice of profession. I am generalizing of course, and there are exceptions but very few. It is a valid generalization world wide.

    As a general reference to this phenomenon of corruption, what is poignant – and that which we should fight even more strenously against – is in a milieu where there is no racial EQUALITY to spoils of corruption, when some people have privilege to take the bread, and others entitled to crumbs, those others who have limited access to the crumbs choose to whet their appetite and pick on – indeed cannibalise – on their own helpless and poor.

    This is really too much. Like what one of our regular readers here (undertaker 888) once said, we don’t expect politicians to be all angels and won’t “makan” but there’s a question of proportion and threshold!

    There’s however a big difference between 10% to 30% mark up from that of 100% to 300% mark-up; there’s is a difference between getting one’s icing and depletinmg public coffers by RM12 million from that of RM12.5 billion – or getting the icing from the rich from that of taking advantage of and geting and squeezing the poor, who are already marginalised, and trying to get a better chance in life, in spite of odds stacked against them, from education!

  21. #21 by Loh on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 3:16 pm

    Koon’s 30 million donation actually presents a problem to MCA. Had Koon said that the money was to pay for rental on behalf of needy students, or all the students, MCA and UTAR would have gladly accepted, and be transparent in their accounting. But Koon’s donation now for an activity affects others’ vested interest. had the donation come about before UTAR began operation in Kampar, I would expect a different outcome.

    I would suggest that Koon uses his 30 million ringgit to build hostels independent of UTAR and let out the accommodation below current Kampar market price, to be say at Ipoh market price. That might help bring down rentals generally for the benefit of UTAR students.

    If those who own buildings around UTAR and benefit from letting them have a say to reject Koon’s donation, they would. It is only human to be selfish. That is why the few MCA ministers remain in the Cabinet selling off Chinese interest; and yet they have been voted in with contribution of Chinese votes even after May 13 and NEP.

  22. #22 by Jeffrey on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 4:09 pm

    As I mentioned RM30 million is construction costs for (say) 500 units of 2 or 3 bed rooms (depending on appointments/materials) assuming that land cost is UTAR’s land and land cost is zero : if it is going to be used for acquiring land for hostels as well, how many units can one build to be meaningful if you factor in costs of acquring land?

    Whether Koon buys the land and subsidizes the rental, its going to benefit the political cronies who already own the lands around UTAR with some parts built and some parts not.

    The modus operandi is simple. I know from inside information way ahead UTAR would be constructed in particular site. If I have money or loans I buy the surrounding land at cheap costs from unaware owners, or if I have not so much, then I would join venture with landowners after i have applied for and obtained developer’s licence. I go to the bank for financing of the bridging loan for construction of hostels and houses and also the end finance for my purchasers a part of the proceeds will be used to redem the bridging loan. The Bank would give me all these loans upon (say) confirmed 70% sales. Sales no problem : I send my agents not only to Kampar/Ipoh but KL, Penang and major cities too look for buyers. I promise the buyers a percentage of returns yearly from their investments which is better than their 2-3% FD interest rate. I tell them that could cover their end finance interest cost – so win win. The purchasers buy. Thats why I could convince banks on financing because I can deliver confirmed sales to them. The reason why I can do so is because I know with whom I could have an arangement for all the students to be directed to me for rental of their premises. Because of a captive source of renatl market I could promise in turn my purchasers the percentage of return on their investment which in turn facilitae their own raising of end finance loans from their banks – so everybody that makes money from business is happy except the poor students who have to pay more because its too far away to lodge cheaper in Kampar to come to campus.

    Besides for the higher rent they are offered shuttled service but the service is alway “stuttering” as is meant by spasmodic!

    So in spite of paying higher rental many dispense with that transportation, buy their own bicycles and bicycle to campus, in the hot sun or in the rain. Then another problem crops up UTAR hasn’t got enough places in campus to line up all the bicycles!

    All these inconveniences can be avoided if Mr Koon’s offer is taken up!

  23. #23 by boh-liao on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 7:04 pm

    UmnoB, MCA, MIC, Gerakan all went into education as business 2 enrich their politicians n cronies by exploiting middle and lower income Malaysians who cannot afford 2 send their children overseas
    Koon YY is a nuisance who kacau MCA kakis’ steady income

  24. #24 by Jeffrey on Friday, 8 October 2010 - 7:25 pm

    I have since been informed (after my last posting) by reliable sources directly doing property development business in Kampar that:

    • my figure of RM400 rental per month of the captive student market in the vicinity of UTAR is inaccurate and that on the average its between RM180 – RM250 per room;

    • the property players are not just confined to older established developer(s) with political connections and friends within MCA but also other new players – some soliciting even PR’s MPs and friends to help to source for land for property development and opportunities there to make money;

    • to some, demand for places by student pop. still exceeds supply, and to others who are trying to bring in students from foreign places, they are impeded by the UTAR’s entry requirements in relation which these foreign students don’t qualify;

    • Kampar town being a ‘dead town” is now hyped up – due to UTAR – as the educational hub of Perak.

    The hullabaloo over Koon vs MCA arises basically as a result of what boh liao accurately said in his preceding comment.

  25. #25 by dawsheng on Saturday, 9 October 2010 - 12:36 am

    MCA has every right to interfere. It is the promoter of UTARs progenitor TARC. MCA is therefore the patron of UTAR. And rightly so because it was MCA concession to UMNO’s NEP on quid pro quo bargain that Chinese educational opportunities should be made available by TARC and now UTAR as balance against the marginalizing effects of the NEP’s Malay Quota. Therefore, as patron (meaning sponsor and benefactor), it is MCA’s fiduciary duty to interfere correctly in the manner protective and enhancing of the interests of UTAR and the welfare of its students and not act against these interests! – Jeffrey

    Let’s hear it from MCA if they agree with your perspective, surely CSL and TFC could use some of the reasons you mentioned. We only afraid that the matter will die a natural death and the students will continue to suffer if MCA chose to chicken out by keeping quiet.

  26. #26 by dagen on Saturday, 9 October 2010 - 12:36 pm

    Jeffrey,

    UTAR has a large campus ground. Only a small part of the ground is being used at the moment. As I understand it, the donation was meant for construction of in-campus halls of residence.

    It would be fantastic if UTAR is a full residential university. Students’ interaction amongst themselves (and with those from other faculties as well) and with lecturers and professors is invaluable. But this is not possible for UTAR because of the large student population – something like 20,000.

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 9 October 2010 - 1:06 pm

    Dagan,

    What you said is agreed. But I’m trying to figure out your point and get your insight.

    If Koon’s donation for construction of in-campus halls of residence ( I estimate about 500 units for about 4 -5,000 students’ needs) is insufficient to meet what you said about the needs of 20,000 students, what does this mean?

    • That Koon’s donation not helpful for MCA to accept upon its terms?

    • Or MCA to accept Koon’s offer, but raise monies from elsewhere including MCA affliliates to build some more hostels since UTAR still has lots of land, only 2-300 acres of 1300 acre of UTAR’s land being utilised so far?

    • Or the status quo is Ok – status quo meaning as what UTAR presently does, just help and refer the students to outside persons/groups organizing their accommodation in houses in vicinity and transportation to campus? So MCA need not respond to Koon’ charges to explain?

    • Or something else?

  28. #28 by Loh on Saturday, 9 October 2010 - 6:47 pm

    When there is UTAR hostel, then food has to be provided to students. Would that be halal or non-halal food? In the past, the hostels can provide separately halal, and non-halal food in the same dining room. But this practice is not allowed, since NEP. CSL may then be forced to use use good friendship with UMNO minister of higher education to try solve that problem; he would choose to keep their ‘friendship’ . How then would CSL tell UTAR students that to stay in the hostels they have to take only non-halal food when more than 70% of them have no food restrictions. So MCA would have to prove once again that they are not able to tell UMNO not to hurt others at no benefits to the Islamic religion. All these problems arise from a donation. Koon wanted to do good for tens of thousands of students but that eventually harms MCA which is said to represent millions of Chinese. MCA in making the cost benefit analysis had decided what is best for the few MCA ministers (since MCA only serves a few ministers and their cronies), but then they are not prepared to talk straight.

You must be logged in to post a comment.