Anyone watching the shenanigans at ACCA knows that Council elections are fixed. All candidates have to send their nomination papers to the ACCA officials. This gives the ACCA Head Office plenty of time to intervene, field its own candidates and even unilaterally change the election statements issued by the candidates. ACCA's unelected leadership also casts between 20%-25% of all the votes, enough for it to secure the desired outcome.
ACCA is concerned about the 'independence' spirit in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong and was keen to secure the right outcome for the 2001 council elections. For the 2001 elections, ACCA officials sought to shape the outcome. ACCA officials in London told representatives in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong that Teo (Malaysia) should be supported. They were also told that there was no head office support for Singh or Jayapal - although, of the two, Jayapal was the preferred candidate. ACCA head office did not support Singh.
With Head Office support, Teo was elected. Singh was also elected but Jayapal narrowly failed to get elected by 200 votes (click here). It is not clear why Singh did not secure the ACCA officialdom's stamp of approval. Perhaps, this strengthens his position. ACCA officials have failed to provide any information about the number of proxy votes given to the three candidates. ACCA officials have remained on silent on why they seek to secure the desired election result. How do they influence the outcomes?
If ACCA Head Office has favorite candidates, it should share that information with members together with an explanation of why it is keen to subvert the election processes.
As long as candidates have to submit their election papers and election
addresses to ACCA officials, there is always a possibility of shady practices.
Given its past history, ACCA officials are probably already busy fixing
the outcome of the 2002 elections.