Many of us think that corruption is just about money and you need to catch someone with the money before there is corruption. Actually that isn't the case.
Lets look at the meaning of the word in the larger sense first. To corrupt something means that something is diverted from its intended purpose. And it is referred in the positive sense. What I mean is that the intended purpose is always to build. When something is meant to destroy we do not say that it has been corrupted when it is turned to build instead. Get what I mean?
So, if you agree with my definition that corruption is any action that diverts from the true intention of building we can now look at these questions.
Is it corruption when an Association that was meant to serve the local chess community is hijacked by a business?
Is it corruption when a National event is given to an unscrupulous organiser that bans as and how he wants and sets national policies? (If he has the right to ban at all then it can only be for his own private events). Once the national body is involved then is it corruption that the national body now does not impose conditions that help build our chess players?
Is it corruption if an event is given to an individual as opposed to an Academy or Association which is against MCF "rules"?
Is it corruption if a National Official uses his post to selectively give tournaments to his inner circle only?
Is it corruption if that National Official now profits from an event when profits is forbidden by law for NGO's?
So the big question now is do we need to catch them with money in their pockets or is there sufficient evidence of corruption? Is abuse of the power and authority meant for the building of chess in Malaysia also not corruption?