Your way will produce candidates that are not completely independent of their country's government influence. Council members must have the independence to tell their government to go to hell if it steps on the Council's area of influence. This is especially true of Council members from the smaller countries, whose governments seem to think they can be influenced to see their point of view. The President of the Olympics Committee can tell off any government, including the US and the country the President comes from, if it feels that its sphere of influence is being compromised or interfered by governments. This is what the BWF should aspire to, but it doesn't look like it is as strong and independent as the Olympics Council or FIFA.. If a Council member has fallen foul of the law of a country, then go after him on a point of law independently.
Taneepak What I couldn't really understand is why the current fracas came about. Did it come precipitate from the elevation of Ganga Rao to COO perhaps by authority of the President as opposed to council? GM and COO is really pretty synonymous as far as the statutes are concerned, its a really row about nothing much. The GM/COO as far as I can discern from the stautes is that of a "civil servant" with an important role of facilitator for the council and of administrator for BWF. The role of "executive deputy president" seemed to be a completely contrived one and not really envisioned within the statutes in my view. Merging the role of political excecutive (arising from Council or directly elected officials by AGM) and that of the civil service (eg GM/COO) by creating an executive deputy president seemed to contravene the spirit of the statutes which envisioned separation of powers. It seemed bizarre to have a exec dep Prez not an exec Prez. When there is a serious split between the President and Council (both elected by members at AGM) it seemed appropriate to have an election to settle the issue and provide definitive direction for the sport.
All organizations, including the BWF, have internal or "family" disagreements or fights. They do get resolved somehow, but to be legitimate they are done through the constitutions of the organizations (memorandum and articles). Sometimes a chairman or an executive vp gets the boot. I myself have got a chairman and a corporate secretary kicked out in an AGM, but it was through the constitution. You are right about merging an executive deputy president's or even a vp's role with the role of a COO or even CFO being undesirable. But are the two roles being merged or are they just being under a caretaking arrangement until a new COO is hired? When there is serious disagreement between the president and most other Council members there are two scenarios, depending on the constitution. In an industrial corporation the role of the president depends on his terms of appointment. Usually, but not always, the president is the number #1 boss who then appoints all the other executive vps or vps. The command is straight forward. All the other vps and executive vps act on the president's behalf. The president can fire them and rehire others, anytime, even without reason. There is no vote for the simple reason that the company hold only the president responsible for running the company. He is king but he will be hanged if he does not deliver. In a sporting entity like the BWF you have a set of very different constitutons where power is shared by so many Council members. The president has no more voting power than any other Council member, except in exercising a casting vote in the very rare case of an equal number of votes for and against any Council decision. It is management by majority decision. Personally, this is not my cup of tea because I am no concensus builder.
Constitution, Powers and Operations Taneepak, you are right in your constitutional views and also administrative views. What has gone wrong now and the previous council i.e. prior to 2005, the BWF was run by COO Mr.Andrew Ryan, and the council was controlled by the Administrative office and there was no possibility of usage of power and it was a ritual every year that the team was elected and glory was celebrated year by year. It was first time in the history of badminton the powers changed the constitution when a council member became the administrative power log and hence the confusion started although it was thought it is a great combination and the resultant was a. new scoring system b. New logo c. Super Series d. Ranking calculation amendments like identical tournaments inclusion, exclusion etc d. Chairman of events acting as chief referee [Paisan] e. Power struggle inside council f. Employees of BWF vs Council members g. Contracts evaluation h. Number of tournaments increased etc, etc etc The root cause for this is the constitutional powers has changed indirectly and now council is running the show of BWF and staff are only executors and previously staff were running the show and council were only meeting to get re-elected and the eligibility was decided. So at the end of the whole exercise , there was a good spike in the badminton industry and spark of momentum ONLY TO LEAD to power struggle but certainly a positive vibration and sign of rising up the ladder. website hits of over 3.5 million every month vis a vis - 10 million in a year tournaments increased to 220 in a year multi country participation Hope you would agree that since the powers have changed it is a good sign. All started in bringing a GM and president using his veto power to elevate him to COO and now president power in jeopardy. Now the power of interest is overtaking the badminton interest. The website
If you asked me, I think great improvements have been made by BWF within a relatively short time. The Constitution is necessary to set out the objectives, the direction and the tone towards which BWF is heading. IBF was too slow in making improvements to world badminton, IMHO, and in fact at the rate they were going, we may be kicked out of the Olympics sooner than later. Hopefully this will never happen as the present Council seems to be determined to make an impact at the world stage. I wish them success. In a very fast moving world, changes are inevitable. BWF had better make the necessary changes to stay afloat and to move forward. Change is a dirty word and few welcome it. But those who can adapt to change should be able to survive and maybe prosper later. Therefore I would expect changes to come about to challenge BWF and we will be able to see how good the Council is at anticipating and adapting to such changes. Don't delude yourself that all will turn up well if we stand still in our comfort zone. Forget the IBF, think about BWF and the challenges that will face them in the years ahead and how they could overcome all difficulties and make world badminton stand proud among all the major games and sports at the Olympiad. Have confdence.
Taneepak, you still don't understand, do you ? Whatever meeting you call, what people are saying is that the votes have been bought by Punch. Unless one does away with the proxy voting. And make voting a secret. Then you will see the real difference. They will get booted out. On the surface, it may seems that everything follow the rules , then can. But the fact is cannot as people already bought out the votes of the poor countries.
Loh, I think that is where you are wong. From what I understand, the BWF administration has become worse. Ranking points published always wrong and had to be corrected. Draws not on time. Evrything falling apart. And now the politics getting worse.
BWF and Administration gitee, the administration department is really disturbed by the council level changes and the draw is done by a third party vendor tournament software which was changed due to the internal package of BWF was posing a problem which was raised by Paisan , then chair of events. It was changed to his favourite "Tournament software" due to the selfish interest probably "other interest" also and even the debacle is still on. One needs to analyse this is, Is it a problem that the internal events department requires training to do all this since they are all new, secondly since the tournaments have increased from the previous years and also the ranking rules have changed like 2 tournaments can be considered etc is the cause for the ranking issue. The administrators are only baffled by the top level council level changes and it becomes a problem in that manner. the new GM was appointed to lubricate the entire administration of BWF but unfortunately he was not a competent to handle things and rely on political play for his survival. There were three draws which went wrong in january and february for which he was elevated to COO position also is a paradox and irony. So the entire administration has to be changed.
Kewsoo, thanks for trying to explain for BWF admin. But the fact is the draws prior to using the Tournament Software , were conducted using the BWF new draw software after the relocation of BWF HQ to Malaysia. Which business will ever throw away a proven software used in England's IBF which had been developed and 'honed' over the years , when the business (BWF) has not really thoroughly tested the new software. That was why this indian IT company contract is under investigations. And this software was commissioned by BWF Dy President, not Paisan. One should have contingency plans before one decide to switch over. And all these the BWF COO position was not appointed. It was BWF Dy President. Then when countries complained about the draws integrity, then a compromise made to use the proven Tournament Software in the interim for Olympic Qualifying Year. This was brought about by Paisan and then BWF COO, a better one than that of BWF Dy President. There was much progress during the time when BWF COO was appointed. Then now again, everything thrown square one bcause of politiks. If you ask me, I think first the key people involved in the politiks need to step down first. Then the office can be properly reinstated.
I think you believe in the law of the jungle to resolve problems. Getting rid of proxy votes will get any meeting of the BWF declared illegal, do you know that? Like others who lose the legitimate vote, you are also giving excuses by saying that there the poor countries who have been bought out. Poor countries shouldn't be rubbished, and I think your obvious contempt for them is based on lies and not on facts. BTW the accounts of the BWF are audited,, as required by law, yearly. If there are bribes Council members will be behind bars. You didn't know that, did you? If you are so sure that dirty money has been involved, then how come the auditors' audit report did not mention it? Also if bribery is involved this is the surest way to kick all Council members out and haul them to the courts and put them behind bars. For one who knows almost nothing about the legitimacy of AGM, EGM or Council meetings, I suggest you get the facts right and not tie yourself in knots with just hip-shooting.
I am not a computer buff but setting up a software system that caters to a few thousand players with an algorithm (with tweaking as rules change) for ranking points calcs should not be supremely difficult and neither should a draw system algorithm. It is reasonably easy to do individually (boringly mechanical and time consuming admittedly) and a decent programmer should be abe to produce the required algorithm. Why the tremendous fuss and costs - poor leadership and management? The Exec Dep Prez as a position I believe has been in existence since not long after BWF moved to KL (I am open to correction this point) and the transition has been far from smooth in that move in the subsequent administration of badminton and justifying the rationale of the move. Some good changes has occurred in badminton as well as some pretty unsavoury things and some pretty incompetent looking ones recently. Overall my take is that its all well below par. The (non exec) Prez is effectively gone - time also for the arguably even more responsible exec dep Prez and probably the council too to fall on their respective swords.
taneepak I need a tuition about proxy votes: 1) A proxy vote might be given to e.g. to the meeting's chairman to vote a certain way on your behalf (no discretion given to representative)? 2) A proxy vote might also be given where the representative have complete discretion? Of course you can give specific instructions (or not) for issues on the agenda when you appoint a representative to proxy vote. If an issue came up not already on the agenda but allowed under the rules and the rules also say it can be put into agenda if x% voted yes, then effectively a proxy vote given under condition 2 (or even under condition 1 but with broad power to use the vote when an unscheduled matter arises) whilst perfectly legal, it lacks a certain moral authority and can give rise to legitimate questions about true grassroots feelings no?
Of course there are things that could be handled better. It is equally correct to say that there are things that were handled well above expectations. The legimate body to have any real say and can do something about it is the AGM, EGM and the Council. The ultimate decider is the bottom line-has the BWF more funds now than before for the game of badminton? The recent Council meeting was attended in person by all members, and the vote taken, 14-5, is decisive, although it probably caused much surprise to the president, who actually expected the vote to go his way by forcing and calling for a vote instead of compromising. No proxies were involved, I believe. For both AGM and EGM, I believe the use of proxy is limited to one delegate, one proxy. How on earth can one buy proxies is beyond me. Look at the big picture. Finding faults in a comma here and a colon there, whilst a good way to vent one's frustration, is a poor substitute for leadership.
First thing first. The main objective for the use of proxies is to get as many members or shareholders involved in an AGM. The United States pioneered the wide use of proxies because Americans had a strong tradition (more than 60 years) of getting stakeholders or shareholders involved. More than 50% of American shareholders vote by proxy in an AGM of a corporation. In other countries it is woefully low. So proxies are good. Denying proxy voting is undemocratic which tyrants simply love to see. Proxies can be directed or undirected, for one meeting or for many or even for a fixed period. Undirected proxies are a blank check for the proxy holder. Proxies have all the moral authority exactly the same as the proxy-giver if he were to attend. It is also legal.
That's perfectly clear. What happens if the proxy was given to an authority, serious allegations were then brought against that authority in the meeting which might very well change the stakeholder's views of giving that proxy to that authority and that authority then used these proxies to "quash" these allegations despite prima facie evidence without reference to stakeholder? Legal but moral?
Good governance cures Uncertainty Taneepak has a very good microanalysis of the whole thing which is very good. My humble opinion is these proxies are very crucial and vital in big corporations, establishments, firms and companies. in federations such as BWF as taneepak has put it, the proxies cannot be there in a council meeting , may be in AGM all possibilities. But it is the testing time for constitution and its statutes more than good governance, hierarchy , power sharing and also the exercising of mandates and franchisees. In this case, the entire council can be dissolved and can be newly constituted as was previously done like every year. when this council was elected, it was changed to four year term because one council is elected and they come with a vision and another year another vision, etc. So the intentions was good, governance and motive was bad falling to self centric approach. If one wants to serve badminton community, they can serve very well even through national associations and not necessarily through world body or continental body. But in this case, if the president does not know how to respect the majority which cannot be certainly proxies, also, he should have taken the letter and email stuffs in the council rather taking and raking the matter of reading punch's letter in the AGM to satisfy some is well beyond a poor leadership qualities although he can be appreciated for transparency and openness. Transparency and openness in a company is not sharing the formulation techniques or product knowledge but effective financials involved in cost of production or cost of sales etc. In this case, in the name of power, punch, kang and others are killing badminton and creating only sympathisers, supports and well wishers for each one of them where it is brewed by poeple like ganga , media and politicians Luckily, the tournaments organisers or sponsors have not exhibited their inhibitions and still have faith in the badminton. May god save BWF and the administrators and spare badminton to grow !
Dear dear Taneepak. Don't you see now ? Everything on the surface is legalised like you say to cover up. If you think just b'cos the auditors didn't uncover anything in audit, then everything good. If a person wants to hide, it's not easy to dig unless the auditor goes in with the aim to uncover. Just like quite a lot of companies have audited statement, but in the end also uncover wrongdoing of their Board members or their CEO ? Like that big American company .... can't remember the name. Hopefully soon, you will see those Council members, like the CEO or Board members of those big companies which cheated, be behind the bar. Then the truth will be out.
Don't think the President is surprised. It is just that knowing he will lose the vote, he will still stand firm on the truth. And he wants to expose the cronies clearly. ou may say use of proxy is limited to one delegate, one proxy. But that's why people said Punch's wife is one, Robin's wife is one ...... so unless your so-called big brain is suddenly so limited in this proxy stuff, why would it be beyond you to know that one can buy proxies ?
I hope I have made one thing crystal clear-that proxy is not a "dirty" word. For business meetings, it (proxy) enables true democracy to work properly. Do you know that one can also get married, legally, by proxy? Queens and Kings sometimes do this. So can the commom man. Have you heard of power of attorney? At meetings proxies are given, usually directed, to vote for or against the list of proposed resolutions on the Agenda. Some constitutions do allow items not on the agenda to be voted on, but this is uncommon, simply because it is not morally right to "ambush" those directed proxies who were never given a chance to have their vote because of the "parachuting" nature of such non-agenda items.
That American company was ENRON and it went bankrupt, and so did their auditors. But the BWF seems to have more funds to spend than the old IBF. Unlike ENRON, BWF does not have shares or stocks for it to lose.
