Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Malaysian Cricket : Part 3 - NSCA recognition by MCA seems to revolve around a 2 votes issue for MCA election.

Part 2 of the article drew attention to aspects of Presidential Prerogative, ground rules (which were not enshrined in NSCA Constitution nor approved by its Exco or Council) and the probability of MCA having undertaken some form of "disinformation" exercise, which sent the newly elected NSCA office bearers on a "wild goose chase", in which the "goose" did not exist.

All this chasing that the newly elected office bearers had to undertake was based on their own time and resources. They are volunteers wanting to do good for cricket and yet MCA as its parent body seems to have some absurd notion of justice. The matter is simple and only complicated unnecessarily by OCM President and one of the Vice President's of OCM. Hold it! the OCM President is also the President of MCA. So why the need for a Vice President of OCM to be involved? Unless the President is of the opinion that the other MCA office bearers are not capable of handling such matters or there is too much politics in MCA that a fair hearing may not be possible. Whatever it may be the parties on both sides of the NSCA equation are paying the price due to the manner in which this matter is being handled.

The time wasting maneuvers that MCA had been undertaking gave the former President of NSCA sufficient time to continue seeking advice and meeting with this OCM official. As to why this OCM official was getting deeply involved begs a number of questions. I hope it is in the best interest of sports!

With this time, the former President, using his Presidential Prerogative and unilaterally devised ground rules, called for another BGM in May 2004. Hereon the story gets more interesting. In accordance to ground rules only 4 people were qualified to participate in the BGM. They were the President, 2 of the Vice Presidents and the Secretary. No others including the affiliates were permitted.

From the onset, the BGM seemed to be heading to a disaster. The NSCA Constitution requires a quorum of 7 for General Meetings and 5 for Exco meetings. So, the unilaterally devised ground rules had created an absurdity, as there were only 4 so called "qualified" people and as such the BGM is flawed i.e. without a quorum, even before a meeting could be called.

The ingenious nature of mankind is such that once the tampering of the Constitution takes place, then the there is no limitation on how to interpret the document. Such was the case here as the former President took the position that the BGM lacked the quorum on the day of the meeting. He then interpreted the Constitution in such a manner that the postponed BGM can then proceed without a quorum at its next meeting. As such the postponed BGM was held and the former President was re-elected as President, with 2 Vice Presidents (same personalities as before) and a new Secretary.

Question: Was that the time MCA was creating for the former President to hold a BGM and get re-elected? Again, why? Maybe it is the 2 votes issue that could make a difference as to who controls MCA. Therefore, at the end of May 2008, if a "stock take"was to be taken then there were 2 set of office bearers for NSCA.

Intercepted documents of communication between the former President of NSCA and the OCM official reflect that every thing, including the minutes of the BGM, were done in accordance to the advice per the OCM official. Honestly, this is a very damaging set of documents and I have sighted them. Indeed I understand the OCM official was confronted and he denies his involvement to such an extent. He also stated that if the former President of NSCA chooses to mention his name on matters like these he cannot do anything. Strange and yet it must be stated that he was not aware that the former President of NSCA and the current President of MCA are cousins.

The saga continues but there has been so much of colour on the scene that it would easily dazzle anyone as to what exactly is happening. It would be interesting to see how MCA conduct themselves when they meet the 2 parties on Wednesday 18th June. MCA is on watch i.e.
on what basis they are going to handle the matter, how long they are going to take to come to a decision and finally would justice be properly administered?

Part 4 will further reveal matters that would set everyones' mind boggling on exactly what is going on with the NSCA issue. Wait for it.

No comments: