I refer to your report MCA open house not propaganda event . That may be so but the following are still unanswered:

1. What is the MCA's stand on the University and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA)? MCA International Affairs bureau chief Lee Hwa Beng said the UUCA cannot be applied on Malaysian students overseas.

So how about the many threatening letters sent to overseas students not to attend Anwar Ibrahim talks or others anti-establishment events?

I'm not suggesting that the UUCA be applied to Malaysian students in other countries. But the contradiction is that the Barisan Nasional government is executing the spirit and the letter of the Act on Malaysians in Malaysia, while planting Barisan Nasional student wings overseas, thus violating the UUCA themselves.

2. The misuse of Malaysian taxpayers' money by the MCA to fish for votes. Remember, one pound equals RM7. There were 500 people at the event. Consider that an average person's meal costs two pounds at the open house. One thousand pounds or RM7,000 ringgit.

RM7,000 ringgit being spent on Malaysians in London paid for by the Malaysian taxpayer while the MCA Club United Kingdom's (MCACUK) gets free publicity and ownership of the event.

3. "Students can also learn how to make use of Masduke and the Malaysian embassy's services and facilities," said Lee. You mean like depending on the government for free lunches and 'kenduri'?

Why should the Malaysian taxpayers pay for a free meal for Malaysian students here in the UK? (These students are more likely than not either from an affluent background, or are scholars who are already paid an allowance).

4. Malaysian students have on average 18 years of socialising and bonding before, during and after their schooling years back home. Why should the Malaysian taxpayers pay for more when they are overseas? Even so, there are so many other avenues for Malaysian Chinese students and Malaysians in general to socialise here in the UK.

5. Why does Lee have to come out to defend MCACUK when the president of MCACUK himself refuses to answer e-mails or write to the press to defend allegations of the event being used for vote fishing? Since he isn't bound by the UUCA (as claimed by Lee) he can surely write a intelligently worded reply.

Many, many other questions are left unanswered. Dear Mr Lee, why don't you put on record your stand on the UUCA?

We all are rational and educated people. No doubt, there are some prejudices in our beliefs, a natural thing. But sometimes, when there are two different beliefs that totally contradict each other (eg, point 1 above, the UUCA vis-a-vis the advancement of the party) it might become necessary to dump one set of beliefs.

Logically, only one (or none) but not both of these should be allowed to exist at any one time - The UUCA or MCACUK.