Monday, August 19, 2013
Latest on EGM, taking sides and a little about sucking sweets.
I spent a lot of time during the Malaysian Open talking to all that would talk to me from all sides of the divide to get a clearer picture of the issues. Some of the conversations were cordial and constructive and some were outright hostile. Directly after having a meeting with the Deputy President of MCF, I heard that some people were running around and saying that I have changed sides.
So lets tackle this topic first before I give you the updates. I am on no side except for the issues. Let me show you the evidence. Look at my blog from 2009, 2010, 2011. Then 2012 and 2013. How many years has that been? And I have been talking about the same thing haven't I? For your further information, the first contest as far as I know in a State Affiliate was when I challenged for the post of President in PICA in early 2009 and I lost by one vote. I then took on the post as the Chairman of the selection committee in PICA.
After I was sacked without any grounds, I shared my experiences with Greg, who was then the new Secretary of MCF, on the problems surrounding putting in a selection criteria and then the first written criteria for National selection for NAG and National Juniors came out. Go back to my postings in 2009. That posting came out even before the official announcement. Why? Because that posting created an uproar with certain parties within the MCF at that time, who still wanted the authority to award back door entries.
It was also from my experience in contesting in 2009 that I adviced the candidates at the recent AGM. Go and look at all my postings just before the AGM addressing the issues.
So there are no sides as far as I am concerned. There are only the issues that I have raised. I belong to no gang. I started talking about those issues long before there were contestants for the AGM. So maybe it is those people that have used the issues raised by FGM to launch a contest that have lost their way. So let us remind ourselves what those issues are.
All must follow due process without exception. You cannot sack an official without grounds. You cannot ban a player without any legitimate reason. You cannot attack the players who freely choose to train with another Coach/Trainer. And you cannot represent the State or Country without a proper selection. MCF and the State Affiliates do not belong to you. It belongs to all within the chess community.
You cannot attack the training of the National Juniors by a GM by attacking the organiser and the sponsors by coming up with numerous vile anonymous blogs all sprouting from Jimmy Liew's site with impunity. You cannot sabotage a training tournament meant to help our top players with impunity. All of those things happened because MCF did not take action to protect private initiatives. In fact there were strong circumstantial evidence that the attacks took place with the collusion of certain MCF officials.
So those were the issues that caused the ground swell and were used by the contestants as the mantle for contest at the AGM. And all those issues were those raised by FGM. So how could I have changed sides? Lets see.
We now have selection for the Juniors and the Seniors. We now have due process for conflict resolution. See here. Are these not the issues raised by FGM? So what sides are they talking about? Gang 18 immortals?
So we have progress on the issues. That was the goal. And it was hard earned. So where is the problem now? Why have the EGM? So let me risk a little by talking about sucking sweets. More than one official have talked to me and urged me to write and attack certain people. What I told them was why didn't they raise the issue in Council? One told me that he didn't want to get shot down and the other said that he didn't want to be shot down and not to teach him how to suck sweets. And that is the problem isn't it? They have the authority but they want to use my blog. So how is that any different from those using anonymous blogs to attack all and sundry coming out from Jimmy's site?
Read this again. Here. Doesn't point a) sound very much like what they said about FGM until they wanted to use the issues raised by FGM to contest? So who have failed in their duties to the chess community?
This is how it works. The way is not to whisper and talk to bloggers. Follow due process as there is one now. The way is to put down a motion for debate in the Council by writing in to the Secretary. So lets take the example used in the petition. The treasurer puts in a motion. He goes to the Council with his evidence and then convinces the Council that he has a case. All of this must be documented. Then he waits for the minutes to determine that the minutes reflects accurately the decision of the Council. And if he is a good official he not only goes to the meeting with the problems but he also goes with a few good suggestions for solutions.
But they are scared of speaking up at meetings but they want the office. So they learn to write poison letters and put it up on unscrupulous blogs. So where is the problem when these people do not use due process? Do they not suspiciously sound like the same people who attacked FGM and then tried to use the issues raised by FGM with modifications to run in the AGM?
So I say no, the problem is not with the entire new Council. There have been improvements and we should support that. And there are still a lot of things left to be done. I am informed that some of the signatories of that petition who are on the Council have not even had a single meeting of their committee. That is the problem.
They only know how to tear down and not how to build.
Consider this. In order to build we need new ideas to replace the non functioning ones. Otherwise what are we going to replace the bad ideas with? So if they do not have meetings to generate new ideas, put it to Council for debate and then make decisions, how are we to progress further?
What are the architects of the the petition putting forward? Don't they know that merely using character assasination, slander and lies speaks more about them and who they really are?
So I urge those people who have been misguided into supporting the petition to withdraw their names. There are no grounds. Ask those Council members behind the petition to go back to the table and engage the full Council and to learn how to work as a team.
In one of my conversations at Malaysian Open, I was asked if I am for an EGM. My answer was yes. But only if there are real and substantive grounds. But I will not lend my name and support to this blaming of others for their own shortcomings.
If they have done all that I said above and they have documentary proof that their requests to put substantive topics up for discussion have been unreasonably rejected, if the minutes have been manipulated and changed; if the decisions have been sabotaged, then produce all that evidence to the State Affiliates and then ask for an EGM, I will surely lend my support to that cause. But not this way, not via the Jimmy method. That way only knows how to tear down.