Rick Low Lup Fai studied part-time at Unitar for an I.T. degree. He paid his tuiton fees. The University acknowledged receipt of the fees.But PTPTN also disbursed a loan of $26,250 on Mr. Low's behalf to Unitar, purportedly on application by Mr. Low and 11 other students, totalling $214,000.
Unitar also acknowledged receipt and kept the money.
The Rick receipt a letter from PTPTN threatening to take legal actions against him to recover the loan sum. He was baffled. He had not sign any agreement with PTPTN for the loan; how could there be a contract? Rick seek the National Consumer Complaints Centre's help.
The matter is settled. What baffled me is the way it was settled:
Unitar returned back to PTPTN a sum of $26,123.31 after deducting $117.69 for stamp charges. PTPTN said they had "graciously" waived the outstanding sum of $117.69 owed by Rick for the reason that Rick did not sign the agreement. Funny? Fallacious and vexatious! Since PTPTN had acknowedged that there was no agreement, and a fortiori, no contract, how is it that they had waived their rights to a debt from Rick? They never had that right in the first place and could never demand that right; how could they be so gracious to waive such a right? Unitar has a few legal academicians who would have advised them on such contractual issues. What are they trying to prove; that they can have any form of legal rights over any individual because they are NEPed?
Secondly, how could PTPTN released a total sum of $214,000 purportedly on behalf of 11 students if they had not sign any agreement nor make any application for a loan. Even if they had make an application, unless there is a contract, no intelligible organization would have release the loan sum without finalising the contract agreement.
Thirdly, what is unexplainable is the fact that Unitar had received the monies since 2002 wrongfully as they had also received the fees from the students. That means they had collected twice the amount and if fairness and reasonableness, that is, honesty, is to prevail, they should have refunded the money back to PTPTN or to the students. They did not and withheld the money for nearly 5 years. Was there dishonesty? Unitar explained that it was the university's policy to keep the money for 8 years to allow students the flexibility to return and continue their studies after leaving. To me, that's excuses without fundamentals and an abuse. The Law of Limitation states that no one can take any legal proceedings to court to recover any property or debts on expiry of 6 years lapse. 8 years means, neither the students or PTPTN can seek legal redress to recover their property or monies.
More read: NST, Prime News, pg 14, April 28, 2007.
3 comments:
There should be a comprehensive audit on how PTPTN disbursed their loans. This may be tip of an iceberg of deviations in the activities of the institution.
Shocking to say the least when an institution of higher learning CANNOT even get such basic fundamentals right is a MAJOR worry !!
I wonder how did Unitar account for the surplus funds in their Balance sheet?
I think:
1. Rick Low Lup Fai should be getting an apology from both Unitar and PTPTN.
2. PTPTN should demand that Unitar refund the money with interest (after all, these are all tax payer's money and it is not something that PTPTN and Unitar can just "selesai").
For such mistake, some heads need to be rolled. Amazingly, it's the victim's fault, again!
Is there any full investigation on the PTPTN side to go to the bottom of the matter? Who knows this might be an attempt to steal that have gone wrong.
Post a Comment