'Unity" talks had failed and on the eve of the MCA elections the "roll call" of the 2 contesting camps indicated a 24 votes for one side and 11 for the other. Mind you this was based on some form of commitments from the 9 incumbents and the 26 delegates from the 13 affiliates. As the beers and whisky was "put down" on the eve, there was a high level of confidence beaming out of one of the camps. The presences of most of the delegates at a pre-BGM probably gave sufficient comfort that all shall be going well the next day. The other camp on the meantime had used certain elder "statesmen" of cricket to talk to various incumbents and delegates to give them their support. These therefore meant that a selected few in the other camp had already been approached by the various emissaries. Yet ! some of them remained silent and continued as without giving any inclination of the approaches.
Quite honestly, there is nothing sinister in what was going on. A perfectly legitimate exercise and the onus is left with each individual who choose to join the "camp configuration", to judge for themselves, what they are going to do is morally right or wrong. Beyond that, really I feel there cannot be any critical comment on that strategy. A lesson that people must learn, is, whether you can trust delegates when they give you a commitment.
On Valentine's Day, at MCA premise in Kinara, the BGM commenced and there was enough confidence oozing from everyone. Nobody had any other notion except to come and vote on a "bloc" manner. However, between the pre-election meeting of one camp and the day of the election i.e about 12 hours a part, a strategy materialised among 4 + 1 personalities to use their combined 12 votes to determine who to be put in as office bearers. This I call the "floaters". They are part of the 24 votes but yet they quietly decided to "break away" and vote for candidates from the other camp. They hold the so called "swing" votes to determine the results. Incidentally, the equation of 4 + 1, represents the 4 who were at the pre-election meeting while the other, +1 was not at that meeting,.
Accordingly, the anticipated "clean sweep" of the elections backfired. The incumbent President, Tunku Imran won easily. Indeed i have been one of those who advocated that he should gracefully step down. I am proven wrong as the delegates wanted him to remain and it is a reflection of his support with the affiliates. Sadly, P Krishnasamy (PK) failed to retain his position as Deputy President and Dr Amarjeet Singh, a former national cricket captain easily won the post. With Tunku Imran and Dr Amarjeet in their respective positions, it seem to show that each "camp" is represented. Maybe the initial results seem to indicate a "subtle" arrangement for a "unity" team.
I feel sad, as PK had done a lot for MCA from the time he was Treasurer, where he extended his personal funds to keep MCA from being financially bankrupt. He personally financed a lot of players for their education and even got them employment. He helped MCA in the supervision during the construction of the cricket stadium including lately the "lighting" for day and night match. His organisational skills was best reflected in the 2006 3 Test nations one day international tournament and the Junior cricket World Cup. Nothing can be done except that there is no assurances that even if you do a good job you are guaranteed a place. A lesson that office bearers must take cognizance's .
For the 2 Vice Presidents, again the results reflect one from each camp. Mahinda Vallipuram, a former Vice President of MCA and who was not in the list of the past incumbents made a sensational comeback. Indeed, not many gave him a chance if bloc votes had prevailed. Affendi Stephens, the President of Sabah Cricket Association easily got the highest vote for this position. Affendi is a newcomer to MCA. Rosmanizam from Malaysian Malays failed to secure a position and this was the surprising aspect of the results. It seem that the "unity" line-up was still prevailing.
One of the "survivor" of various MCA elections is the former Executive Secretary, who served as Secretary and then in the last 2 years was the incumbent Vice President. This time C Sivanandan, wanted to return to his old post and easily won the post.
When it came to the "ordinary members", the 4 posts was shared by 2 from each camp, thereby reflecting the continuous spirit of "unity" i.e literally determined by the "floaters" who carried the 12 votes. They provided the swing of 6 to 12 votes that in a way brought a "unity" Committee.
While on the surface that maybe so but the so called camp that had the largest votes were the biggest losers. Effectively the "floaters" have removed any strong personality from their camp in the new Committee, thereby giving the other camp a greater control. Yes ! it is a "unity" Committee but controlled by one camp. After all in reality that is how organisations must be governed i.e with one clear cut leader.
Indeed whoever orchestrated this entire strategy must be congratulated. A scheme that achieved its purpose and still gave effective control to the appropriate party. Brilliant !!!!!!!!!