Beleaguered Perak hopeful of finding white knight
PETALING JAYA: It may not be the end of the road yet for Perak in their bid to remain in the Super League next season.
Perak FC chairman Datuk Seri Azim Zabidi revealed that three parties have expressed interest in taking over the beleaguered club.
However, he declined to disclose further details as discussions are still ongoing.
Azim said he was encouraged by the willingness of potential investors to step in and rescue the team, given Perak's proud history in Malaysian football.
He also expressed hope that the club would be able to continue competing in the Super League next season, should the takeover materialise.
'If possible, we don't want to shut down the team, but we're unable to compete next season due to financial constraints. So when investors show interest in the club, of course I'm not going to shut the door on them,' he said.
'I can't share any details of the negotiations, but I can confirm that around three parties have come forward with the intention of buying the team.'
Currently, Perak are owned by XOX Pro Sport Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of XOX Berhad, which took over the club in 2022 from Impact Media and Communication (IMC) Sdn Bhd.
Ironically, IMC were also grappling with financial woes at the time, especially over unpaid player salaries.
Two weeks ago, Perak — eight-time Malaysia Cup champions — officially announced their withdrawal from next season's Super League due to worsening financial troubles.
They had also announced earlier that they would not take part in the President's Cup and Youth Cup competitions in 2025.
The situation deteriorated further when several players raised complaints over unpaid wages, including team captain Luciano Guaycochea, who voiced his frustration with the club's management.
Despite not being paid, Perak's players continued to give their all and managed to finish seventh in the league with 30 points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rakyat Post
3 hours ago
- Rakyat Post
When Car Servicing Goes Wrong: One Malaysian's Electric Vehicle Experience
Subscribe to our FREE Buying a car is exciting, but what happens when the after-sales experience doesn't live up to the sales pitch? One Malaysian electric vehicle owner recently shared his story online, highlighting the challenges some consumers face with automotive servicing. The story begins with what should have been routine maintenance. After sending his newly purchased electric vehicle to an authorised service centre, the owner drove home, thinking everything was fine. The Display Screen Discovery A few days later, he noticed something alarming – a crack had appeared on the upper left corner of his car's display screen. Naturally, he returned to the service centre, expecting them to take responsibility. However, the response wasn't what he hoped for. The service centre staff insisted they don't touch internal components during routine maintenance and suggested the damage was the owner's fault. Their advice? Contact the head office directly. A Call That Made Things Worse When he reached out to the company's headquarters to explain the situation, things took an unexpected turn. Instead of corporate support, he received a call from the original service centre manager: if he wasn't satisfied with their service, he could try another authorised centre instead. Adding insult to injury, they sent him a repair quotation for the cracked screen at his own expense. But the screen wasn't his only problem-the owner discovered that during his visit, the service centre had updated his car's system without asking for permission. While system updates might seem routine, this one had consequences. Upon closer inspection, he realised his car's memory seat function, which previously offered three different settings, had disappeared entirely. This feature was one of the main reasons he'd chosen this particular vehicle model in the first place. Round Two: More Problems Hoping for better service elsewhere, he took his car to a different authorised service centre for his next maintenance appointment. Unfortunately, his troubles weren't over. About a week after the service, he noticed strange friction sounds whenever he opened or closed his car doors. When he returned to report this issue, the service centre's response was puzzling: they claimed too much time had passed since the last service to be related. Apparently, one week was considered 'too long ago.' Different Perspectives Emerge The social media discussion around this experience has generated varied responses from other vehicle owners and observers, highlighting the complexity of consumer experiences in the automotive sector. Some observers have questioned whether specific reported issues might be attributed to factors beyond the service centre's control, including: The distinction between manufacturing defects and user-related issues The potential impact of aftermarket modifications on vehicle systems Whether some damage might have been pre-existing but unnoticed Other owners of similar vehicles have shared contrasting experiences. One long-term owner reported covering nearly 20,000 kilometers since November, primarily on highway routes between major Malaysian cities. The owner acknowledged minor issues but praised their local service centre's responsiveness and quality of care. These mixed experiences reflect a typical pattern in automotive discussions – service quality can vary significantly between different locations and individual cases, even within the same brand network. The Bigger Picture This owner's experience raises important questions about consumer rights and after-sales service standards in Malaysia's growing electric vehicle market. While this represents one individual's experience, it underscores the importance of conducting thorough research and having a clear understanding of warranty terms before making a major automotive purchase. For consumers facing similar situations, automotive experts generally recommend: Documenting all service visits with photos and receipts Understanding warranty coverage before servicing Knowing your consumer rights under Malaysian law Considering multiple service centres if available DISCLAIMER: This account represents one individual's reported experience and claims. Service experiences can vary significantly between customers, locations, and circumstances. Readers are encouraged to conduct thorough research and make their own informed decisions. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
PTPTN allocates RM47.8mil in advance loans for July 2025 intake
KUALA LUMPUR: The National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) has allocated RM47.8mil in Loan Advance Payment (WPP) to 31,850 students pursuing diploma studies at public universities and polytechnics for the July 2025 intake. In a statement on Wednesday (July 2), PTPTN said each eligible student will receive RM1,500 to assist with initial preparation costs, ensuring their welfare is safeguarded as they begin their higher education. WPP is offered to Malaysian students who consented to receive the advance loan during their application to public higher education institutions (IPTA) via UPUOnline or the official admission portals, and whose parents or guardians are recipients of the government's Sumbangan Tunai Rahmah (STR) aid, subject to eligibility criteria. Since its introduction in 1999, WPP has benefited 990,638 students with total disbursements amounting to RM1.46bil as of May 31 this year. As an agency under the Higher Education Ministry (MOHE), PTPTN said it remains committed to supporting students in gaining access to tertiary education. Students can check their WPP offer through the myPTPTN app and redeem the funds at any Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd (BIMB) branch nationwide from today until Sept 1, by presenting their WPP offer letter and MyKad, although representatives are not allowed. PTPTN chairperson Datuk Seri Norliza Abdul Rahim led a delegation to personally visit WPP recipients in Bukit Gelugor, Penang, where a total of 1,419 students were offered assistance mounting to RM2.13mil. Norliza advised students to use the funds responsibly and encouraged them to apply for full PTPTN loans according to their institution's application timeline to ensure timely processing and approval. Applicants are also required to open a National Education Savings Scheme (Simpan SSPN) account via the app before submitting their PTPTN loan applications. - Bernama
Focus Malaysia
6 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
Coherent SST reform requires zero exemptions for policymakers
THE Malaysian government's recent changes to the Sales and Service Tax (SST) are true to an at least decade-old tradition of self-defeating consumption tax policies. Raising taxes is a thankless but necessary task that requires astute policy design and nuanced messaging to manage both economic and political narratives. Both the 1 July changes and the case for them have left policymakers open to justifiable but needless criticism. Malaysian policymakers have long recognised the need to significantly increase revenue collections but have struggled to convince Malaysians. Tax reforms repeatedly adopt a narrow, small-target strategy that—by lacking both vision and tangible economic sustainability and equity objectives—instead become lightning rods for critics. Malaysians worried about their household budgets naturally fear higher taxes and do not count fiscal sustainability among their chief concerns. Making the case for consumption tax reform needs and deserves better than pointing to unsustainable budget deficits and delivering patronising rebukes of SST critics. It requires a consistent, coherent and non-condescending narrative that garners public support for changes that will improve not threaten their livelihoods. Policymakers should be explaining the importance of taxing consumption, how it supports a tax strategy that balances fairness, competitiveness and sustainably, and how the money raised will be used to benefit Malaysians. Consumption taxes have advantages that are especially relevant to Malaysia's circumstances. Malaysia has a large visiting and undocumented population whose income cannot be taxed but whose consumption can be. It has a sizeable informal sector contributing around a quarter of gross domestic product, whose income likewise escapes direct taxes but whose inputs may be partially captured by consumption levies. Shaping consumption choices through price signals will be essential to making Malaysia's future economic development less carbon intensive and more sustainable. Consumption taxes progressed alone cannot address Malaysia's revenue needs or be implemented equitably. Consumption taxes are regressive as low-income households consume more of their disposable incomes and therefore experience a greater relative impact. Attempts to neutralise these impacts by exempting or setting to zero the rate for basic goods introduces complexity for businesses and consumers, exempts rich and non-Malaysian consumers at the same time, and opens policymakers to arguments of inconsistency or bias. Accompanying changes to income taxes, transfers or welfare for low-income households would be a superior approach. Malaysians would be more receptive to tax hikes if their purpose were more tangibly linked to spending for their benefit. Public wariness remains high in the shadow of 1MDB and other newsworthy examples of funds being misused, with the government's fiscal challenges explicitly associated with corruption. At the same time Malaysians want better schools and hospitals, greater access to safe and efficient transport and technology, more generous social welfare and more. Transparent and well communicated spending intentions are an essential enabler of tax reform. The SST reforms have thus far been mapped poorly in these regards. Far from presenting a coherent vision for equitably, efficiently and sustainably raising revenue to spend in the interests of Malaysians, the reforms adopt a piecemeal and discriminatory approach to taxation. Two particularly concerning elements that have attracted fair criticism are the inclusion of basic goods and differential rates for local and imported goods. Malaysia is a net importer of food including many staple products, with openness to trade a critical contributor to food security both at the household and national levels. SST increases that represent an implicit import tariff, especially on basic and healthy goods like fruit, send precisely the wrong signal at a time when Malaysia is trying to counter global economic policy uncertainty. Malaysia must reinforce its openness to trade and investment by avoiding discriminatory taxes on overseas goods. Bowing to public backlash to provide post-announcement tax exemptions for imported apples and oranges (among other changes) further illustrates the policy development and communication shortcomings. Policymakers were either unaware of or misread public sensitivity on the price and availability of basic food imports, and in the absence of a compelling defence for the proposed SST increase were forced to make concessions. Evident is both a need for wider consultation and that complex and subjective tax design leaves policymakers exposed. Making the case for tax reform in Malaysia should also stick to message not mechanism. Long-running arguments comparing the SST with a restored GST are of greater distraction than consequence to the current debate. Either mechanism can be tailored to achieve comparable coverage and revenue outcomes, and tax incidence (who ultimately pays: consumers or producers) is determined by markets not tax design. Differences in administrative efficiency and effectiveness are important considerations that are adaptable to a consumption tax with either (or any) name. What Malaysia needs from policymakers is greater tax policy reform coherence, communication and ambition. And the leadership to design and deliver tax strategies and mechanisms that benefit Malaysia and Malaysians. ‒ July 2, 2025 Dr Stewart Nixon is the deputy director of research at the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS). The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: Bigstock
