In response to the comments to "Ethics, Latest", allow me to say this. Chess is a game where we are taught the skills to analyse all the evidence before us. We also look at the thinking that brings us results and the thinking that does not. I would also go on to say that our thinking in general is also reflected in our thinking on the board which means to say, for example: if you are hasty in general you cannot be patient on the board.
So let us go back to question of Ethics vis-a-vis sponsors. I think a reasonable assumption is that there should be certain rules of engagement in the market (can you imagine chess being played without rules). Another reasonable assumption is that sponsors who have the means to make a difference in chess will also be busy and successful people. (I spoke to another sponsor and told him what is happening in the new MSSM initiative and he was not shocked as he is a businessman but said that he would never participate in that type of cowboy behaviour. I called him to tell him simply because he has no time to even read my blog).
Let us look at a possible example of what happens when it's a free-for-all and a culture of sabotage. Let us look at what happened to the Commonwealth Chess last year that was supposed to be held in Perak and what the lack of proper rules of conduct can result in. In the free-for-all, from the accounts I have heard, Singapore swooped in and took the event. What does this loss represent to us? Briefly, a loss of revenue to local businesses in Perak, a loss of confidence by the promoters and sponsors in our chess officials, a loss of foreign exchange and a loss of the opportunity to promote Malaysia Boleh etc. etc. Maybe a detailed post mortem is needed. Because now this same behaviour may scuttle the new MSSM initiative and we'll have another lost chess game.
I also want to state here that I do not view MCF, the same as PICA. The evidence before me now does not justify that conclusion. I have not witnessed the deliberate sabotage of players in MCF like I have in PICA. I have not seen the total and flagrant abuse of authority as I see in PICA. What I see is the need for a better system of engagement between all stakeholders in chess. MCF's officials work hard and that itself is a big distinction from PICA. So here all I am saying is a need to improve. PICA is another story altogether. I will post the evidence in due time. I only ask that the readers examine all the evidence carefully without jumping to conclusions. Question me and question the officials in PICA and make up your own minds.
Another point, (brought up by chess angel in the comment to "Ethics, Latest") - which I won't cover in too great detail now as I will write on it later - is the question of profits and profiteering. Two very different words. Profits mean the reasonable return for appropriate risk and effort to enable the organisation to grow and develop. Profiteering means to take unreasonable advantage of circumstances to make extraordinary profits and is deemed unethical.
Thank you for your time.