Last Saturday at the Park Royal Hotel in Kuala Lumpur, at least 5 incumbent Office Bearers and about 15 to 16 Affiliates congregated to meet the Tengku Mahkota (TM) of Pahang. Their aim was to get the TM to become the President of MHF as nominations were to close on the 25th.Oct, and the election was due on 1st.Nov.
Most of the Affiliates want to see a change except for 1, or maybe 2, who were there to provide feedback to their "masters". There is no doubt that the MHF badly needs a change but is it the Office Bearers alone or the whole structure of the MHF? Every 2 years it would seem the Affiliates of the MHF become "power brokers" to determine who gets what in terms of position. Whether the Affiliate is active or simply dormant, they carry the same number of votes. It simply means everyone has equal power and therefore they all become very important to aspiring candidates. Sometimes, the less active Affiliates can jointly decide the future and faith of the MHF. This probably explains why the MHF is in this diabolical situation.
What happened at Park Royal hotel in military terminology constitutes a "mutiny". Was it necessary? A definite "Yes". Why? The MHF leadership seem to have gone astray forgetting the very purpose of their existence. Why did the Affiliates not react much earlier through the Council? Probably fearful or possessing a misplaced feeling of obligation. Should the Affiliates also be blamed to the state of affairs of the MHF? They equally share the burden for the state of hockey as the incumbent Office Bearers.
Yet! The Affiliates sit in a paradoxical position i.e still being able to decide on the future of MHF. Probably that is democracy. The membership decides as they have the rights. Such being the case the Affiliates have the given right to determine what they feel appropriate. The Affiliates know that and they therefore enjoy the position once every 2 years. It is not about the "Agenda for hockey" but rather seems to be all about the maneuvering and manipulation that takes place in the jostling for positions; in essence, the Affiliates become "King Makers". Needless to say, this is a position they all cherish.
In 2006 the Affiliates went against the advice of the then incumbents to put in the current incumbents. Now in 2008, the Affiliates are endeavouring to get rid of the incumbent leadership i.e the 2 people they put in. This seem to be their specialty. I wonder whether the TM is aware of this? Would TM suffer the same faith in 2 years?
The question is whether the TM is going into the MHF with an "Agenda", or just leaving the future to the Affiliates? Further, would the TM have a team that he believes can carry the MHF into the future? If he does not, then the TM must start thinking whether he is doing the right thing? Why I raise this, is because the future of the MHF rests with him if he decide to helm the MHF.