Dispassionate reasoning rather than an incendiary outburst will serve Eileen Kong's articulation of MCA's position better in 'Paper takeover by MCA? Big deal!'(May 23).

I agree that the proposed deal has all the features of a normal business deal as stated by MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik.

MCA, through its official holding company, Huaren Holdings Sdn Bhd, has a 58 percent stake in Star Publications Bhd which publishes Star a popular mainstream English daily, and if it can afford it, why not Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press?

There is business synergy. There is also political synergy: if Star takes care of the English-educated Chinese, Nanyang and China Press can reach out for the Chinese-educated.

Meanwhile, the vendor, a well-known local entrepreneur, is satisfied with the price and can deploy the extra money for diversification of business portfolio. If I were the vendor I, too, would sell my stake. After all, MCA can negotiate the minefields of the Printing Presses and Publications Act with the government better.

If it is a good deal for both the vendor and buyer, it is a private contract, and I agree that nobody has the right or the clout to frustrate it. It is not arguably against public policy (in the strict sense of the word).

In fact, the public has more right to object to the government's acquisition of 29 percent equity stake in MAS at RM8 or EPF's bailout of Time dotCom's failed IPO because public funds were involved.

Yet the objections had not changed events - and with greater reason, they will not, in respect of the MCA's proposed deal.

This being the case, it does not however mean that malaysiakini or others cannot criticise a deal that, besides meeting business imperatives, has rampant political undertones concerning the right of Malaysian public to freedom of information in order to make informed choices.

It is fair to assume that when a political party owns a media, the latter will likely be skewered, to further the political objectives of that political party. Editors and reporters are more likely to get their cue from the powers that be that are majority owners.

These strangleholds on the press (besides the famous Printing Presses and Publications Act) are likely to prevent these newspapers from (now or in the future) playing their effective role in disseminating objective and unbiased information and ultimately being accountable to the Malaysian public.

This in turn makes it difficult for citizens to exercise their right to information and their right to make informed choices based on disinterested and objective information.

The fact that Umno controls more media like Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, New Straits Times and RTM is already a reflection of the depth of the aforesaid problem and from the detractors' standpoint, there is no need for MCA to aggravate it.

These are the perspectives and issues that detractors of the deal (amongst whom I would exclude myself though I respect their point of view) seek to address.

I exclude myself not because I care less for the freedom of information but that I care more for the freedom to contract, that is, the unfettered right of private parties, using their own funds, to enter into a mutually beneficial commercial transaction unimpeded by concerns for the Fourth Estate, that in any case is fledging and embryonic at this stage of the country's development.

I particularly do not see the connection between MCA's needing more resources by acquiring additional media to negotiate with Umno armed by its plethora of media to fight for Chinese rights and oppose the idea of an Islamic State.

Haven't the MCA towkays and patrons enough financial resources over the last three decades to fight for Chinese rights?

Besides, nowadays, the fad is for people to talk of fighting for Malaysian rather than just Chinese rights. And as far as opposing an Islamic State, I thought Umno and MCA are on the same side.

It also does not help the writer's case or the image of an MCA member, to argue for the deal by labeling detractors as dogs in the manger without resources or "communists" desirous of "nationalising private properties" to which the "application of the Internal Security Act (ISA)" would be appropriate.

State your argument with proper reasons, or you lose your readers and unnecessarily take up the space in malaysiakini.