Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email I’m curious. How can hundreds of MIC branch leaders end up signing two set of nomination forms? Are they living in Mars until don’t know that there’s only two contenders for the post?
As a joe public, i can only think of the following reasons:
– dumb
– illiterate
– coward
– lying
– not bothered
– naive
– bought over
– unaware of the rules
– forged signatures
all except the last one of the reasons above signal the failure of MIC’s rebranding exercise. Are we to expect the branch leaders to perform well when even simple nomination forms also having problems? Are these the guys who are going to talk with department heads, ADUNs, MPs, and public as mentioned by Sothinathan?
If one form needs a proposer and five seconders, that’s 6 leaders per form. if (117+ 48) 165 forms rejected, we have 990 (if we consider all of them as unique signatories) negative elements in MIC.That’s 27.2% (990/3640). If we just consider the proposers, then its (165/3640) 4.53%, which is slightly more acceptable.
MIC disciplinary committee should do an evaluation of its branch leaders and sack them for making a mockery of its election procedures. MACC should also step in and investigate why there are so many irregularities in the nomination process.
all your reasons sounds correct !
‘thalaivan evvali , thondam avvali’