Set higher standards for foreign sports talent

19 Responses to “Set higher standards for foreign sports talent”

1) Observer(SG-HK) on September 20th, 2008 11.07 am

Here are two simples question to the author.

Since when (not that i remember since schooling age, that’s like decades and decades ago) Singapore is a competitive sport oriented nation?

SInce when majority of native Singaporean (parents and the likes) emphasize sports as one of their major development in their children growing up?

Sports is not all about winning. Same can be said that money is not all things about living. If you have watched the Beijing olympics & paralympics, what inspiration or (any inspiration at all) did SIngaporean draw from the competing athletes?

I am tired of reading and hearing all these ever relentless bashing of “Foreign Talents”. Is there ever going to be an end? When is Singapore ever going to learn? Why can’t Singaporean be a little more receptive and gracious (without ever assoicating everything to money)? Yes, native Singaporean (the lower income, the poor, the unfortunate, the less privilege, the outcast), they are all hurting., but are we alone in the so call developed world?

Current score: 0
2) Observer(SG-HK) on September 20th, 2008 11.08 am

Opps! Mistake! I meant “Here are two simple questions to the author”.

Current score: 0
3) Vacuum State on September 20th, 2008 4.57 pm

Dear Observer

I think the author is not bashing FST, but seeking a middle way where the scheme can benefit Singapore in the longer run. I would congratulate the author for having a sharp and yet balanced point of view. And he is only 16.

Current score: 0
4) Pearl on September 20th, 2008 9.53 pm

How would you propose to make a sporting career more attractive to Singaporeans? Because of poverty and less access to education in foreign countries, parents put their hopes in other areas like sports. For one, unlike in China, every Singaporean child is provided with education and parents tend to want their children to excel academically.

Current score: 0
5) exuviate on September 20th, 2008 10.34 pm

in response to the first comment…

singapore may not have been a sports-oriented nation, but it’s time to change that as our people realize that the true value of humanity lies in the variety of fields in which we try to distinguish ourselves, chief among them being the notion of altius citius fortius - higher faster stronger. we aim to be at the pinnacle of physical perfection because of humanity’s innate drive to success, and because it is a celebration of the human spirit and the sacrifices and effort it took to get them where they are. after all, there are certain people born with the inherent physical ability.

therefore it isn’t very fair to deprive our local people who aspire to be the best sportsmen of opportunities [whether it's because of FTs or because Singapore's govt. doesn't care nuts about sports]. Obviously it’s not the latter, they’ve realized the value of sport in rallying a nation together and instilling pride, if not in our table tennis team, then our sailing team, and [formerly] our soccer team, etc. no one can forget the Kallang Wave, or the Kallang Roar, for example.

it’s just that over the years sports has been placed aside by the government because survival and economy were two key areas that necessitated the resources flowing in that direction. parents were thus not encouraged to let their sons become sportsmen [or daughters], for it didn’t pay that well. now however things are different, and we’re trying to correct this perception among the people.

but one major problem with accomplishing that is the presence of excessive FTs. not FTs per se, mind, because they do assimilate with our culture and S’pore is after all an immigrant nation. Examples include Daniel Bennett and yes, Jing Junhong, and Susilo, and Li Jiawei [she's quite a veteran here]. They haven’t failed. They haven’t left. They’re not completely foreign now.

It’s true to a certain extent that S’poreans are biased against FTs. It’s the natural anti-immigration sentiment. But we must also understand that for the citizens who were born here, they deserve the opportunity first because they were placed into the social contract first. And because they are true Singaporean citizens first we should aim at developing our own talent pool [for we want to maximize the potential of our own people] rather than simply neglecting them and giving more resources to the foreign people [good though they be].

In fact, the aim of not having excessive FTS is not to be a pessimist. We don’t mind if FTs are here, we recognize their contribution in challenging our locals and even winning us medals. But too many FTs means that our spots are taken up. We don’t mind not winning so often as a result [at least in the short-term] and thus we shouldn’t be so results-oriented, but we want to change the future generations into those that value sport as a part of human achievement. And to make people believe in that dream, we need to show that we’re willing to put money where our mouth is. with locals.

hopefully more people will realize the value of an olympic medal for singapore [some already do]. hopefully FTs and s’porean locals can work together. this author is calling for a balance, not a FT-bashing party. If we want to convince ppl that FTs are good, then filter out the mediocre ones.

it’s not the ungratefulness, it’s not money. its the sporting culture at stake, and no singaporean is gonna believe in it if you have FTs dominating the scene. That’s why we want things like quotas. so the best FTs can excel, give FTs a good name, and help our locals along as they get mentored by the foreign greats.

Current score: 0
6) hciR on September 21st, 2008 12.20 am

your proportional representation sounds good and is quite balanced. However, it looks to me to be somewhat akin to “affirmative action”, ya know, like err across the causeway kind.

the thing about proportional representation is that it is often seen as ‘protectionism’, and perhaps rightly so, providing on an exclusive sliver platter, local athletes the opportunities they need and desire.

However, I dun think the SG government set out to make the table tennis team, or any other sport, a foreign-import-dominated one. Quite sadly, its more because of a dearth of local talent that leads the Government to seek our sporting fortunes overseas. It’s meritocracy at work.

Also, though we might have ‘more competent foreign athletes’, there is no denying that with such an artificial shortage of opportunities, many will fly the coop, to our competitors. Yes, we’ll be able to better separate the wheat from the chaff with regards to foreign athletes, but what about the competence of the team as a whole?

Admittedly, by ‘allotting’ places for locals can indeed “balance out the pragmatist approach to winning a medal with the need for local representation.” If we look at it, the most probable reason why the whole of our table-tennis team is foreign, is because- Singaporean No Enough & Singaporean No Good enough. if they were, why aren’t they in the team?

but i truly wonder whether Singaporeans can tolerate waiting another cycle of 5-48 years or more while we wait for our local talent to blossom. The sacrifice of meritocracy and material-’gains’ for the need for identity and native-affirmation may not be a compromise everybody likes, Singaporean or not.

Current score: 0
7) Observer(SG-HK) on September 21st, 2008 12.47 am

Dear #5, exuviate on September 20th, 2008 10.34 pm

Let me counter your points raise with two basic questions and examples on how others done it. Just for the sake of discussing. No insult intended.

In your response you mention “quote”:

1) but one major problem with accomplishing that is the presence of excessive FTs

2) we must also understand that for the citizens who were born here, they deserve the opportunity first because they were placed into the social contract first.

3) We don’t mind if FTs are here, we recognize their contribution in challenging our locals and even winning us medals. But too many FTs means that our spots are taken up.

4) it’s not the ungratefulness, it’s not money. its the sporting culture at stake, and no singaporean is gonna believe in it if you have FTs dominating the scene.

Question:

How do you think we get to point 1,2, 3 and 4 today? Are any interested native Singaporean who loves sport deprive of the chance to excel at moment?

Do you think rewarding Athletes with enormous sum (1 million for gold olympic medal and so on) is the right thing to do (when there are fellow citizens, the old folks, lower-income and the likes are suffering?). Get a hold of life. You can only excel in anything you do if you are focus and fully dedicated to it even without the incentives. It is the love of sports in your words.

I do not know whether you are old enough to know our one and only natvie Singaporean who won a medal 48 years ago. He was not given the supposed treatment that he deserves. He stride it out on his own with his hard work and dedication. You can’t find any more dedicated person today like Mr. Tan Liang Howe.

The sporting scene in Singapore is changing only if “parents” mindset goes along with it. In general, that’s typical and a concrete fact you cannot deny. It has to do with the mindset of the native Singaporean who are determined enough to prove that they wanted it so much and willing to dedicate their time to it.

I disagree with your point that then Singapore was busy developing the nation and emphasis is put on building up our economy. Look at Zimbabwe, Kenya, and other less successful nation (in terms of per capita income). Did their Athletes require the kind of incentives to excel? Then you look at the bigger and more successful countries like America, Germany and so on. America do not have enough sports talent that they have to import foreign Atheletes and coaches? There are ample examples to go around if you look carefully at the line up of each country participating in the Beijing Olympics. The medalist are not all natives of their country so to speaks. They are there because they have dedicated their time to excel in what they like to do whether with or without the help or incentive program from their government.

I do not know how much coverage you have watched over the Olympics and Paralympics. I watched almost all of them over the CCTV coverage (live and re-broadcast) and it is not hard to find inspirational stories from these Athletes whether they are medalists or not. It is their dedication that touches the people’s heart.

Have a nice weekend.

Current score: 0
8) panadol on September 21st, 2008 1.06 am

Personally I believe that the government hasn’t done enough to cultivate local talent, frankly. Looking at the Sports School — our young athletes begin training at this institute at the age of 12-13. Although I believe that setting up the Sports School was a good move on the part of the government as part of their focus on developing sporting talent in our country, we know that most truly successful athletes, however, begin training way before this. Yet since primary education is compulsory for all Singaporeans, while intensive training would definitely take up a great deal of a child’s time per day, I don’t see how many young athletes would be able to reach the pinnacle of sporting ability given the context of Singapore. And by the time young athletes below the age of 12 finally reach the age for secondary schooling, I think they would hardly be comparable to young athletes of the same age in other countries. Such as China, where children begin training from a very young age because sports is viewed as a viable alternative to education on the path to success, fame and glory.

And because there’s more of a challenge posed for Singaporean children to excel in the field of sports, I believe parents and children themselves would correspondingly feel that there is more risk involved in simply concentrating on developing their sporting ability. As such, it is also less likely that young athletes will want to pursue sports only. In fact, if these young athletes are also very intelligent in their own right, they’re likely to want to pursue their academics and do sports on the side. An example would be young swimmer Quah Tingwen who made it to the Olympics and won her 100m freestyle heats at Beijing last month. She is a Secondary 4 student from Raffles Girls School. Undoubtedly, if she were in the Sports School and was able to devote more of her time to swimming, she would excel even more at sports than she already does.

Yet, people like her have chosen instead to develop their academics… and why? Because from her perspective, pursuing sports by itself would be taking a huge risk. There’s no sustainable income to be gained from it, and so these athletes pursue sports on the side.

The trouble is, I don’t see how there’s any hope for Singapore’s sporting future if the government cannot correct the common mindset that there’s no future in sports. And if this mindset continues to be prevalent, then I also don’t see how Singaporeans can sit back and complain about Foreign sporting talent when in fact local sporting talents in Singapore are few and far between, and mostly the result of our own kiasi mentality.

Current score: 0
9) exuviate on September 21st, 2008 1.31 am

i agree with panadol. that’s why the FTS scheme, IMHO is doomed to fail in the long term. Which is why in the short term, to ensure that it survives and does well, we need to limit the number of FTS to ’sort out the wheat from the chaff’.

let me first clarify that I am in support of a limited version of the FTS, much like the author. I’m not sure exactly what the stance of observer[SG-HK] is, but the points the commenter has raised are quite pertinent.

i do understand that it’s difficult to foster a sporting culture in Singapore, because of what the nation is like. I understand as well that we’ve been complaining so much it’s getting irritating. what i’m doing here is not complaining. i’m trying to rationally explain the situation in which we’re stuck and how we can get ourselves out of it.

i think its not a matter of singaporeans who are openly discriminated against because of FTs, though Tan Paey Fern, Kendrick Lee, Xing Aiying et al. have usually played second fiddle to Susilo and the table tennis trio, and scores more at the SSS probably never get the opportunity, that is why we don’t hear of them. My dream is that all teams consist of mostly locals, with a few good FTs anchoring the team, so that we can develop a strong infrastructure and culture of sports, rather than buying off FTs [that's why I also partly disagree with the $1 million incentive]. That’s why I hope everyone shares the passion for sport, either through playing or supporting it. That’s why I want locals like Mr Tan Howe Liang to be supported financially, not grandiose schemes of paying FTs richly [and to be fair to the FTs the less talented ones are underpaid].

I’m not exactly sure how to change the mindset, but one good way to start is by giving them more opportunity, or else we’re stuck in the situation that panadol has put forth.

So the major argument I see in observer[SG-HK]’s case is the fact that not all athletes are natives of their country. that i recognize. but the majority of their teams are still locals, because they can count on a sporting culture in their nation that has nothing to do with economy, i admit, especially in the US and China. I do agree that some FTs really play their hearts out for their new countries because they like the sport, so I do advocate limited FT-ism.

But there’s the other side of the coin - that S’pore is unique in the sense that it very openly sacrificed sport for economy - and that the kiasu nature of parents makes it hard for kids to pursue a career in sport, even though they may be capable. This distinguishes it from say, the US, in which you can choose a musical/sporting/political/academic/other career path and you’ll be successful anyway because there’s opportunity. The govt, at least earlier, channeled resources elsewhere, which is why people like Mr Tan get compromised. We need to improve their situation.

This is especially so for the Kenyans, because for them, and for the Brazilians, sport, whether running or soccer, is seen as the surest way out of poverty. That is why many of them take up sport. They like it, but they also need to survive, and they recognize that countries like the UAE, Qatar, and US pay them well for their citizenship and representation. So it’s not entirely altruism, it’s money too, and not for riches, but survival.

Singapore counts itself fortunate that it is economically strong after 40 years of growth. In an age where sport is increasingly important it is time to convert that economic advantage to the sporting arena. We have capable locals. We just need to entice them, and train them. Part of this enticement is money i.e. decent career. not $1 mill, but a decent career. Part of this enticement, is more opportunity, something that has been denied because of less than desirable FTs. so keep the good ones, i don’t care if the other countries take the rest, there are bound to be Chinamen/other nations’ citizens joining rival nations because there are too many good talents there anyway, that we acknowledge, in contrast to our small talent pool. Just take what we need.

I.E. give locals more opportunity, get the best FTs to mentor them, and channel more money to locals. honestly the sporting budget is not a lot. it’s very little. in an age where the singapore govt.’s annual budget is approaching $30-40 billion [and its actual revenue from taxes etc. is far more], and that 20-25% of it is spent on defence and education EACH, we can afford to take care of our poor without compromising on sport. We just need better management, enthusiasm and support. That, unfortunately, involves answering people’s calls for less FT.

no offence intended, of course, just clarifying what i meant in what i wrote. by the way if you don’t mind may i know who you are (: I don’t know, I’m a newcomer, but personally it seems that you are somewhat a regular reader/contributor…

Current score: 0
10) vadhog on September 21st, 2008 2.33 am

i see 2 often mentioned valid issues in similar discussions:
1. lack of future prospect
2. keeping foreign talent

instead of giving the 1mil in 1 lump sum (i assume),
doesn’t it make more sense to spread this over, say 25 years?

this should provide medalist with a steady stream of $40k annual income
which should be reasonably enough to sustain them after they retire.
this will also encourage foreign sports talent to think “long term” before joining team singapore.

Current score: 0
11) Burger on September 21st, 2008 10.02 am

Firstly, sports isn’t only about winning, and i dislike the idea that we have the import foreigners to represent my country in order to squeeze out a medal something. It’s not that I’m xenophobic or anything, but the point is that I find it hard for myself to identify myself with these athlete who are, in my opinion, competing only for the sake of money and glory but not national pride, evident from how they’re leaving after getting the money for “personal reasons”.

A international sports competition like the Olympics is a display of our national identity on the global stage. I’ve been to many places where people have never even heard of Singapore, and when I asked some others, they reply, “Is it a part of China?” I’m not sure if that’s a direct result of sending in players from China to play in the games, but I am certain that if I was a foreigner who had no knowledge about our country, the first impression I get of Singapore is that it is probably a state like “Chinese Taipei” or something. Furthermore, I am sure that many are getting pretty cynical about the whole sporting scene with many even calling Singapore “Sinopore”, as it seriously has nothing to do with Singapore anymore when it is an army of foreign talents competing.

Just my two cents. Nice work anyway Mchia.

Current score: 0
12) Constantius on September 21st, 2008 11.39 pm

Hello Chia, first and foresmost, interesting article! It’s rather nuanced, so there’s nothing particularly radical to target. But on the issue at hand, I agree with the proportional ratios of local developed talent to foreign talent.

There is a theory that the modern Olympic games began as a substitute for war. Rather than have the best blood of the Greek city states flow away on dusty battlefields, why not have them compete for the glory and honour of the state in a fair institutionalised competing arena in sport. This explains why alot of the traditional Grecian events are still vaguely militaristic (think javelin) and place high emphasis on skills needed in the warfare of that time. In such a case, the Olympics became an avenue for fostering national pride while at the same time holding war and competition without casualties and devastation which were once inevitable corrolaries of armed conflict.

The latter aim of this sport has expanded much more since the hallowed days of the Grecian olympics. Since Baron d’ Coubertin’s espousing of the ideals of altius, citius fortius as my friend above pointed out, we see how the Olympics has become an event where it serves as the great leveller. It is the place where the poor man can stand up to the rich and beat him. It is the place where young men like Usain Bolt can dazzle the world and beat people with supposedly far greater training and all. It is the place where men compete in human ability at its most raw. It is an expression of humanity; a show that humanity has the capability to throw off the “natural boundaries” set on it by nature and supposed physical restrictions. The pursuit of human excellence is something inextricably tied to the Olympic spirit and I respect it for what it is.

However, on the issue of national pride, there is very much to be said. The first and most obvious question is, “Do Singaporeans feel proud about having to resort to employing mercenaries to compete for them?”

Note the use of the word “mercenaries”. The word here is used in a rather loose context, where someone is employed to do a task (usually to fight wars) in exchange for material wealth. While the immediate link to mercenaries may not be obvious, transposing the context of this modern day situation to the Grecian context, it very simply is one city state hiring mercenaries to make war on another. In the modern day, people hire foreign talent to compete for them. In post- Olympics Greece, City states would have hired citizens of other states to have competed for them and in pre-Olympic Greece, city states would have hired mercenary soldiers to fight their wars for them. This little evolution or perhaps devolution is rather telling. On one hand we are willing to call the people in pre-Olympic Greece mercenaries while on the other, we gladly use the euphemism “Foreign Talent” in the present day. I’m not some rabid xenophobe, but in all honesty the position these people stand in isn’t all that different from that of foreign mercenaries 2500 years ago.

Even if we want to discount all that historicity and not look at the evolution of roles over the centuries, we do need to realise that government sof states in the present have a duty of care to their own citizens first and foremost. This comes about due to the social contract between the two parties, that since the people vote the government into power and give it the mandate to rule, the government must act in the best interest of the people. Now the question to ask is, “Did these foreigners vote the government into power? Does it have a duty of care to them?”

Now needless to say, there are benefits that foreign talent can bring to Singapore, but the government does need to make sure that it’s own citizens get the exposure on the international stage. Now it is inevitable that at some point or another the idea of meritocracy will come along, but we must understand that this meritocracy applies first and foremost to the citizens of that nation.

As such, I agree largely with Matthias’ idea of a balanced ratio system, where there will be foreign talent to provide competition and the benefits that foreign talent can bring (which the government has harped on enough such that I do not need to elaborate on them) while at the same time fulfilling the duty of care of the government. Through this, national pride will be inculcated, at least more than in the status quo.

I’m tempted to draw a reference to history yet again. The Roman model of its pre-Marian legions was such that the main body ie the Hastati/Principes/Triarii was made up of true-blooded Romans but at the same time the auxillary units ie the Equites Auxilla, Velites Auxilla and all were made up of allies and foreign troops. The trick is the find the correct proportion and ratio to have the most effective force.

Failure to have an ideal ratio or one that is hugely skewed has got terrible consequences. Once again we look at the Western Roman army of the late empire, which largely consisted of Barbarian Foderati and mercenaries. These men turned their backs on the Empire when it needed them most and this is the perennial fear when it comes to mercenaries and men hired by money - Can we actually trust them to work for us altruistically and not flee the moment the money dries up or they do not like the working conditions?

Does this nation really not have the capability to create its own Olympians? Certainly not! Our weightlifting medal in Rome was ample proof of that. As such, in my opinion, Matthias’ idea would be good for application in the short term, while we look to build up local atheletes who can establish a sporting tradition of our own. Short term in the sense that we use it while our local atheletes cannot match up to foreign standard, but once we can, I say by all means there is no longer a need for this crutch.

Best regards
FVAC

Current score: 0
13) Barney The Purple Dinosaur on September 22nd, 2008 12.04 am

Singapore’s aim was never to promote sports in the spirit of sports. Singapore’s motivation from the first day was to increase the visibility of the nation, hence, it doesn’t matter to the government whether the talents are bought or not !

Current score: 0
14) The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 22 Sep 2008 on September 22nd, 2008 11.38 am

[...] Strangers in a Strange Land - TOC: Set higher standards for foreign sports talent [...]

Current score: 0
15) V S RAAJ on September 22nd, 2008 12.23 pm

I totally saddened that money has gotten deeply rooted in Sports…and we, Singaporeans by birth, are victims often waylaid by cash-rich government funded sports bodies!!!
There’s no joy for me in the so called medal at the Olympics!! I consider it a “synthetic’ one! We do need proxies to win for us!!! With so much of money been pumped into foreigners. fund those monies to the growth of local talents!! Somewhat our sports programmes are riddled with wrong approach/directions or the concoction to make sportsmen or sportwomen is wrong!
We take winning or loosing in our pride, plse don’t take that pride away or further ridicule us with ‘replacements’. If our neighbours can do it, so can we……

Current score: 0
16) Olympic Motto-Do you know? on September 22nd, 2008 1.25 pm

What is the motto of Olympics? Is it about winning? Is it about Foreign Talents?

The Olympic motto is made up of three Latin words : Citius-Altius-Fortius (Faster-Higher-Stronger).

“These three words encourage the athlete to give his or her best during competition. To better understand the motto, we can compare it with the Olympic creed : The most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the fight ; the essential thing is not to have won, but to have fought well. Together, the Olympic motto and the creed represent an ideal that Coubertin believed in and promoted as an important life lesson that could be gained from participation in sport and the Olympic Games: that giving one’s best and striving for personal excellence was a worthwhile goal. It is a lesson that can still be applied equally today, not just to athletes but to each one of us.”
- source http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1303.pdf

Do we understand the motto of olympic?

Current score: 0
17) V S RAAJ on September 22nd, 2008 4.51 pm

Well said….Olympic Motto! Perphaps our sports bodies may have missed out reading it or understanding it!

Current score: 0
18) Amused on September 23rd, 2008 12.57 pm

With all the money that is involved in modern olympics, do they (the olympics commitee) understand their own motto?

Current score: 0
19) Soh Rui Yong on September 25th, 2008 6.53 pm

hey mchia! haha i would love to comment on this here and now. but i got PHYSICS PROMOS TMR MORN so cannot i must go study. =( anyway i wrote on this exact same topic(almost) for my GP promos on monday, if i get A u can put it up here. =) haha take care!

-Ruiyong

Current score: 0

Leave a comment