A struggle for power. KLCA vs MCF

Ref: Here.

How come it is Peter Long that states that local players must be members of a State Association? There is no such MCF guideline. This is so strange that the New Deputy President is asking for a meeting to clarify those assertions and to lay down MCF guidelines for these tournaments.

There are good reasons why that sort of power is not given to State Associations and I covered a lot on it last year. Until the State Associations stop their abuse of power, MCF needs to retain the ability to enable players who are victimised to continue playing chess without reference to the State. More so for National Chess players.

Also note that Peter is again trying last year's trick. The procedure for enrolment is via email again. Last year after the "banning" of a player, Peter said in Jimmy's blog that he never received the application from "the player". This of course side steps the issue. The parent or another chess academy can make the application. There is no need for the player themselves to make the application. The actual issue is, can an organiser ban without proper grounds? And who determines what those grounds are?

The proper process is a bank account published and payment made to it. If the organiser has solid grounds to ban, then a written explanation must be given to the player and simultaneously referred to MCF to justify the banning.

And this case is even more serious than KL Open. National rapid and blitz is an MCF event and so it cannot fall into the hands of unprincipled organisers.

So now we have Peter/KLCA telling MCF how he wants things done. Can KLCA dictate National policy? There is of course more but I will reveal it later. So I will leave you with a question here.

Is KLCA a real Association or is it a dummy organisation meant to serve a business concern? This is an important question so do think on it.