Sunday, January 24, 2010

Ethics, Latest

I got a call last night from the MCF official about my posting. Said that his assistant did not contact my sponsor and wanted me to post an apology or he will bring this matter up to the President of MCF. So I asked him if he was saying that my sponsor was lying? And I also said if that was the case I will sever all ties with the sponsor for giving me false information and causing me to falsely accuse this official. Maybe he wasn't expecting that but I would. I do not need a sponsor to bring discord to the chess community.

But while he was denying this my sponsor contacted me and said there were 3 calls from this persons assistant and 1 call from the MCF official. The sponsor felt harrased. A conduit was established and not respected. Please understand. No sponsor can talk to everyone involved in chess. That is why channels are established.

Where is the professionalism? The sponsor has already indicated a readiness to look into sponsoring chess and this is the result? I get threatened again, the sponsor gets harrased. Is there any wonder chess is languishing the way it is?

So I told this official to stop harrasing the sponsor and to talk to me directly. That is just normal protocol. I was asked by this official if there is something wrong with me. Are we so far gone that we cannot tell right from wrong anymore? Can we not see that we do not harass sponsors or they will run away. So what's the point of marketing when this is the way sponsors are treated?

So what is this about?

(My son, Mark read my posting and I asked his opinion. He said he feels what I write is fair but maybe there was another way to say it. I said I hoped he finds that way but this is the way I know. Maybe the kids can find a better way.)

This MCF official is someone who have done very good work. It is not personal. It's about wrong action, damaging action. It's about conducting ourselves professionally. It's about building chess, so the public and corporate sponsors do not think chess is promoted by cowboys. So in this matter what was done is wrong.


  1. i used to have a great respect for you. Father of a promising chess player who is willing to sacrifice time, money etc for good of chess but after reading your latest posting, my respect evaporate.
    The whole idea of sponsor etc seems to me like profitering racket (hence, it must only go thru me thing) and discussing about internal Perak's chess account openly...!? sorry, it actually reflects badly on you, rather to the other party.

    Chess Angel

  2. Thank you for your comments, chess angel. I know some of my views are controversial but I will explain as time goes on why I have come to the conclusions that I have. And if you wait and see, I believe you will also see why the Perak story has to be told. I have not come to these decisions easily and it is only after a lot of reflection that I am doing so. So I hope the jury is still out and you keep an open mind till then.

  3. I disagree with chess angel! He/She seemed to make judgement although he/she may not know what actually happen in Raymond case. I believe the truth will prevail if MCF dare to respond. Otherwise it seemes that all make sense to me. Personally I do support you Raymond for your courage to speak about MCF and how they treat us as new chess community. mmm..thats mean if we are new, we have no say in chess!!What a ridiculous mind!! Keep up with good work Raymond.

  4. I really don't like the direction in which this blog is going and my advice to you is stop. From past experience with chess officials in Malaysia, you are only painting a big target on your forehead and your son's. True, you may "fight the good fight" but for what? How many will support you even though they know what you say is true.

    I also disagree with Chess Angel. So what if the accounts are discussed openly within the comittee? Isn't this the correct thing to do in an AGM? It's a suspiciously profiteering racket when "internal" accounts are kept only for certain eyes and not the other members of the comittee.

    Again many similiar "hanky panky" incidents is well known to certain parents in the circle. But what are we to say? Better to play along and make it work the best we can. Stirring trouble just hurts everybody.

    No Angel

  5. Dear No Angel,

    I just asked my son Mark what he thought of your comment. He said that if I hadn't stepped in, he probably wouldnt be playing chess today. Let me recount my story. My son played at MSSPK for the first time when he was U12 and he became State Champ. From that time onwards he was threatened and attacked. I became concerned and followed him to tournaments thereafter. I couldnt believe that there were adults that would attack young children and so I had to see and judge for myself. And Mark was attacked again and again over the years. So you see, the moment he showed promise he was already a target. And not because I started this blog. I have been in chess for 6 years now and I have seen how fear and intimidation destroy the players. So what I have done is tell my son that I will stand by him if he is in the right. Because whatever happens he will know that at least. But when I saw it happening to the other kids as well, I decided to stand for election last year. If I had not stepped in my son would have become a fear ridden person and whether he ever wants to be a GM or not he would have had his dreams destroyed even before he began. I think the message needs to be brought to the officials that one of the reasons why we have no GM could very well be because of this practice and it needs to be stopped if we ever want a GM. And even if we didnt it still should be stopped.