I concluded Part 3, by stating that MCA is calling both the parties to resolve the matter on 18th June. Other than what was reported in the media today, my sources have yet to revert to me on what took place at the hearing. As per the media, it would seem that the MCA President was not there and that would leave the balance of the Exco and Executive Secretary to be part of the decision makers. Lets see what sort of decision they may have come up with.
While waiting to hear the pertinent news, I checked out a some information that came to my hand. As much as the OCM Vice President got involved because of the OCM President (who is also MCA President), it must also be stated that both sides have had their connections to him. It is just that one side may have found him not quite to their satisfaction that they did not keep abreast with him. It is the former President's regular contact with the OCM official and one of his Adviser's family acquaintance may have sustained the relationship.
Question: Is that wrong? I do not think so, provided it did not make matters worse. From the intercepted documents the former President seems to give the impression he wholly relied on the OCM official. It is a pity that we are unable to have his side of the story, other than the aspect when he was confronted on the issue.
Obviously, the delays and the "wild goose chase" that MCA created also complicated the matter. All this could have been avoided at the time, had the e-mail been promptly opened and acted upon or the Executive Secretary who made the 2 journeys for the BGMs had made proper reports. It is the bureaucratic nature of operations in MCA and that everything has some form of political connotation which literally gets things to move at "snail" pace.
If this is the style MCA is going to operate in, then forget the idea of becoming a "Test" playing nation. We will always be worried of the small things that we lose sight of the big picture. This is the problem of pettiness. Looking at what is going on in MCA, we seem always to be revolving around such triviality, simply because we encourage these sort of activities. We do not stem them off from the onset so it grows into an "octopus" like problem.
In all this, cricket suffers. Around 15 to 20 years ago we were comparable to Bangladesh. Today they are a "Test" playing nation while we are still struggling to beat even Singapore. Why? Because we waste time and resources on pettiness and do not improve whilst others move on.
Please wait for Part 5 to determine if MCA sees the "big" picture or still bogged down on triviality.