Proud of dubious titles: Datukship award ...

  
Abdul Latif presenting an award to Koh at an investiture ceremony at the ‘balai rasmi’ in Simpang Ampat, Malacca, on Feb 16, 2013

PETALING JAYA: Scores of recipients of questionable awards from territorial chieftains are shamelessly displaying their dubious titles of “Datuk”, “Datuk Paduka” and “Datuk Seri” online.

A website lists a number of people with Datukships conferred by Malacca’s Undang Luak of Naning, Dato’ Seri Raja Merah Dato’ Abdul Latif Hashim.

The website also contains a full list of awards conferred by the chieftain, compri­sing 60 awards under 11 categories.

Awards in the first 10 categories come with different titles while the last category – with three awards – does not come with a title.

The categories range from Anugerah Darjat Kerabat Gelaran, which lists the highest award as the Darjah Kerabat Undang Naning, to the Anugerah Kehormat Gelaran, which carries the title Datuk.

The Star reported recently that Abdul Latif handed out scores of unrecognised Datuk­ships and other titles to those who had “contributed” to the Naning Territory.

Another self-claimed “Malacca-Perak Sul­tan” Ahmad Shah Raja Noor Jan Shah had also awarded titles to over 90 people.

Awards conferred by territorial heads and self-styled traditional leaders are not recognised anywhere in the country, unlike those conferred by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and heads of state.

As of yesterday, two people had been identified on the website as recipients of the highest award, the Darjah Kerabat Undang Naning, which carries the title Datuk Seri Diraja.

Twenty-three others carry the title “Datuk”, of whom 17 were awarded the Darjah Kehormat Undang Naning while the rest were conferred the Darjah Kehormat Wilayah Naning.

Other titled recipients are Datuk Paduka Seri and Datuk Jaksa (six recipients each), Datuk Seri (one recipient), Datuk Paduka (nine recipients) and Datuk Panglima (five recipients).

The website also contains background information on Naning Territory, photographs of the Naning flag and those of its divisions, the current chieftain of Naning and pictures of his birthday in 2010.

‘I was told to pay RM90,000 for award’

By LOSHANA K. SHAGAR  loshana@thestar.com.my

 

KUALA LUMPUR: A week after his face appeared in the newspaper, a recipient of the unrecognised Dato Kehormat Undang Naning award has claimed that he was led to believe the award was genuine and he almost paid RM90,000 for it.

Sebestian Koh, 49, said there were over 100 recipients that day receiving one of three titles – Datuk Seri, Datuk Paduka and Datuk.

Koh also refuted a statement by Malacca’s Undang Luak of Naning, Dato’ Seri Raja Merah Dato’ Abdul Latif Hashim, that he did not confer the title.

Showing photographs of him receiving the award at the “balai rasmi” in Simpang Ampat, Malacca, on Feb 16, Koh said: “I think the confusion must have arisen because there were so many people being awarded titles that day, so he (Abdul Latif) might not have remembered me.

“I was told by a friend, who also received the award, that it was recognised by the Government. He said I could even include the title in my MyKad and passport.

“Although I had never heard of the award, I decided to accept it since they were conferring it on me anyway.”

Koh was speaking to reporters at the MCA Public Service and Com­plaints Department yesterday.

The Star had front-paged the issue of questionable titles conferred by Naning chieftains and interviewed Abdul Latif and Ahmad Shah Raja Noor Jan Shah, who claimed to be the “Malacca-Perak Sultan”.

Abdul Latif had said that the investiture ceremony to confer titles was purely customary and the awards were merely customary titles with no connection to those bestowed by the Malacca Government.

In November last year, Koh said his friend, a certain “Datuk” Teoh, had called to inform him about the Datukship and handed over a “surat watikah”.

He said he was also informed about the RM90,000 “standard donation” for the title, which would be “contributed” to the Naning territory.

Before the investiture ceremony, Koh said he paid RM6,000 for a yellow sash with red stripes, a medal with the words “Dato Kehormat” and a card identifying him as a title holder.

When asked if he knew that the award was dubious, Koh admitted that he did know that the historical state had no sultan.

“The one conferring the title claimed to be a descendant of the Malacca sultanate and I asked around to check if this was true,” he said, confessing however that this was not done thoroughly as whatever information he had, coupled with Teoh’s persuasion, made everything “look very real”.

A few months after he accepted the award, Koh said his friends asked if they could advertise their congratulatory messages, to which he agreed.

“Only after The Star article on the Datuks of Naning was published did I realise that I had received an unrecognised award. My friends are laughing at me for being a recipient of a fake award. It is very embarrassing.”

When asked about his next move, Koh said he would not lodge a police report but had set aside the award and moved on.

On whether the award might be revoked if he did not settle the “standard donation”, Koh waved it off as a non-issue, adding that “it was not recognised anyway”.

Related post/articles:

Exposing dubious qualifications – you decide?  

Ong reveals more 'dubious degrees', Kohilan shows proof

Beware of Malaysian Chinese school leavers being lured into dubious degree and diploma programs !

Social climbers pay big sums for dubious titles

Sulu 'Datuship' going for RM300,000 

PTPTN student loan, Bersih 3.0, 'Occupy Dataran' ...

The case for PTPTN to stay....

Higher education is not a right but a privilege and the Government cannot provide subsidies for everything. And European countries famous for fully subsidising tertiary education are moving away from that system. 

A PROPOSED overhaul in the way tertiary education is funded in our country has added to the number of causes being combined with Bersih 3.0 due tomorrow.

The suggestion is that the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN), which provides loans to students pursuing their higher education, should be replaced by a fully subsidised system in which (most/all) students receive fully government-funded tertiary education.

PTPTN abolitionists charge that it is administratively inefficient and unfair to leave graduates with a mountain of debt, costly to the taxpayer because of low repayment rates (and subsequent costs of having to forcibly recover dues), and un-Islamic due to the charging of interest.

Though I was not a beneficiary of PTPTN, I routinely meet young people who are, through the education sub-committee of Yayasan Munarah, the royal foundation funded solely by private and corporate donations.

Since the start of our education fund last year, we have screened over a thousand applications for financial aid and I have personally interviewed hundreds of them at our office in Seremban.

Of the nearly RM500,000 disbursed so far, most cases involve the “topping up” of the amount students had already received from PTPTN, Mara and private sources.

In these 15-minute interviews, no student has ever complained about PTPTN; rather, the hardworking students often show gratitude to the fund, providing a contrast to the attitude of the Dataran Merdeka protesters.

What has impressed me in the denunciation of replacing a voluntary loan system with a compulsory subsidised system is that many commentators in the mainstream and alternative media object to the loss of individual responsibility that this will entail; young citizens will no longer feel that they owe anyone anything in exchange for the tuition, and this does not encourage responsible citizenship.

Higher education is not a right but a privilege, they say, and the Government cannot provide subsidies for everything.

Articles also point out that European countries famous for fully subsidising tertiary education are moving away from that system, though even so, those countries embedded competition between universities enabled by sponsoring students directly, rather than fully funding universities, so that a market mechanism is at work to reward the cleverest students and the best universities.

Indeed the potential impact of this proposal on our universities needs to be highlighted.

European universities possess much more autonomy than ours do – even if they are state-funded – allowing for areas of specialisation and different preferences to be accommodated.

Our public universities are not used to such competition, and may end up decomposing into a stultifying heap of monotonous, mediocre institutions unless autonomy is granted first.

The opposite approach is taken in the US, where universities are very independent and often expensive; but a deep tradition of alumni endowments for scholarships and bursaries enable academic merit to remain the main criteria of admission.

At the same time, one of the assumptions in effect in this whole debate is the idea that the primary purpose of tertiary education is to prepare one for a job that can pay back the cost of that education while contributing to national economic growth.

This offends the very principle of education for its own sake as well as the idea that the arts have merely an economic value.

I have long objected to Government attempts to engineer society by providing scholarships or loans for some subjects and not others.

If public money is being used to subsidise education, then it must grant every young Malaysian access to that money without discrimination.

I have met dozens of young Malaysians whose dreams of becoming historians or performers have been scuppered because they are discriminated against in favour of those who want to become doctors or engineers (tellingly, Aswara comes under the Culture Ministry, not the Higher Education Ministry).

The academic profile of the next generation of Malaysians should be shaped by their own preferences and perceptions of their futures, not by the dictate of someone with a crystal ball in Putrajaya.

If you agree that tertiary education funding should be designed to allow maximum freedom for students on the one hand to pursue the disciplines of their choosing without guilt, and institutions of higher learning on the other to compete amongst themselves – then it is more likely that this will be achieved by reviewing the current loan system (including repayment mechanisms), developing vocational options and granting much more autonomy to universities, including on financial matters.

> Tunku ’Abidin Muhriz is President of IDEAS.

Related posts:
PTPTN l student loans: stick to its guns, written off, learn ...
Half a million Malaysians banned from leaving country, PTPTN loan an 
Angry with the Malaysian education system in a mess 
Angers to the deception of Malaysian Chinese education 
To teach or to manage?
Education Doesn't Increase Support for Affirmative ... 
Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality ...