Mr Hon Mun Wah's letter about the MCA Youth 38th AGM is misleading and biased ('Face lost in face-saving exercise', Aug 4). I was also an MCA youth delegate present and I witnessed the event from the beginning till the end.

The writer has failed to report some of the very important incidents which caused the outburst of chairs being thrown about. His insinuation that Ong Tee Keat is responsible for the ugly scenario is unfair and unjustified.

The organisers wisely did not allow any display of banners or distribution of bills and pamphlets in the vicinity to prevent squabbles. The organisers therefore had tried their very best from the beginning to make this AGM as orderly as possible.

From the very beginning and in front of so many guests including Dato' Hishammudin Hussein, youth leaders of various associations and MCA leaders, a group of delegates from Yew's Batu Division and Perak state, started disturbing the proceedings of the AGM by interrupting Ong's speech.

While delegates may disagree with the contents of Ong's speech, they should table their disagreement at the debate session which is the proper platform.

The bomb scare was a dirty tactic used to intimidate the delegates. When we resumed the meeting, it was the same group of troublemakers who kept disturbing the meeting.

When Yew Teong Look was asked by the Speaker to present the secretary's report, he moved a motion to impeach the speaker instead. That is the main cause of the whole problem. Yew may have his own reasons for disagreeing with the EGM held on the June 23, but instead of using the opportunity to convince all the delegates, he resorted to impeaching the Speaker instead.

When the Speaker allowed him to table his motion, he could secure only about 300 delegates' support. By then he knew a great majority of the delegates disagreed with him. Therefore Yew's group staged a walkout, followed by less than 300 delegates, not as many as as 400-odd as claimed by the writer.

More than 700 delegates (not 600 as claimed by the writer) stayed back. They re-arranged the chairs and continued with the meeting. The motion to sack Yew and Loh Seng Kok was carried in a very orderly manner. Seventy hundred and thirty delegates agreed to the sacking, 19 disagreed and 11 abstained.

The EGM held on June 23 was indeed constitutional. When Yew was asked by chairperson Ong to organise the EGM, it was his duty as secretary to do so even if he might disagree with it. It is certainly unwise of Yew to campaign for a boycott. The EGM was to discuss a very serious issue of the party pertaining to the purchase of Nanyang Siang Pau by MCA. Even though the Youth might not have the decisive power, we undoubtedly have the right of putting forward our own view points.

By blocking the Youth EGM, Yew was giving delegates the impression that he did not want it to be held before the MCA's EGM which was to be held on June 24. What was his motive?

Despite the ugly scene at the Youth AGM, it served as a wake-up call to all the MCA leaders: Do not take the grassroots members for granted even if you are under the umbrella of the most powerful man in the party.