Sports
Quest for glory
Costly investment to win world medals - mainly to raise national pride - begins to pay off, but not without controversy. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Jan 6, 2008

IF I had to choose a simple subject to tell The Singapore Story, one that could explain how this island-state works well when it embarks on the right course, I’d opt for sports.

Competitive sports, to be precise.

It is the handiest way I can think of to show that once this society has set its mind on something, it can produce results – albeit with the help of money and some imported talent.

The story began a decade ago when the new generation of leaders embarked on a strategy to produce sports champions.

It was a departure from Lee Kuan Yew’s concept that sports was purely for promoting health for the masses, rather than winning world medals.

He considered the state too small – and its people lacking in physique – to take on the world. So why waste resources? Besides, investing in the economy was top priority.

The official change of mind was partly in response to public demand for sports winners. Besides, it was a good way to instil nationalism and bond ties among Singaporeans, so badly needed for a new nation.

The younger ministers decided that sports could help nation building only if there were winners, not losers.

In 2001, even as the economy was turning downwards, they launched a S$500mil programme to propel Singapore into the top 10 sporting nations in Asia. A Sports Ministry was set up.

The bureaucrats obviously know their people, realising that merely appealing to people’s national pride isn’t enough. Huge rewards were offered to winners

A Singaporean can actually become an instant millionaire by winning an Olympic gold medal (SEA Games: S$10,000).

The populace had been partly to blame for the relative gold medal drought.

Driven by parents, Singaporean youths would invest their time across the tuition table and in fighting for a place in a prestigious school and then a good job, however much they liked sports.

With the new payouts, they could opt for sports and make good money.

The pay-off is popularly cheered but the use of foreign talents has not been without controversy.

Another criticism is the spending of millions of dollars on the “gold” chase – training athletes, importing talent, and large rewards at a time when the poor needs a lot more help.

There is, however, no denying the success.

In recent years, the number of medals won by Singapore in regional and world meets has been rising sharply. The city-state has begun to gain some recognition in the region.

In the recent SEA Games, for example, its haul of 43 gold medals, 43 silver, and 41 bronze was a top achievement, short only of the 50 gold in 1993 when it played host.

It was almost twice as many as it had won eight years ago in Brunei. In a year without many blessings to count, that was a great morale booster for Singaporeans.

This followed a similar surge in the Doha Asian Games in 2006, when it won 8 gold, 7 silver and 12 bronze, compared to 1–1–3 eight years earlier in Hiroshima.

In the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, Singapore emerged 17th among the 54 countries although its medal counts (5-6-7).

Singapore’s medals (gold, silver, bronze)
Asian Games
2006 Doha – 8, 7, 12
2002 Busan – 5, 2, 10
1998 Hiroshima – 1, 1, 3
1990-1986 Seoul/Beijing – 0, 1, 4
1982 Delhi – 1, 0, 2
1978 Bangkok – 2, 1, 0
1974 Tehran – 1, 0, 0
1970 Bangkok – 0, 6, 9
1966 Bangkok – 0, 5, 7
1951 Delhi – 5, 7, 2
==
Sea Games
2007 Bangkok – 43, 43, 41
2005 Manila – 42, 32, 55
2003 Hanoi - 30, 33, 50
2001 KL – 22, 31, 42
1999 Brunei – 23, 28, 45
1997 Jakarta - 30, 26, 50
1995 Chiang Mai – 26, 27, 42
1993 Singapore – 50, 40, 74
1991 Manila – 18, 32, 45
1989 KL – 32, 38, 48
1987 Jakarta – 19, 41, 64
1985 Bangkok – 16, 11, 23
1983 Singapore - 38, 38, 58
1981 Manila – 12, 26, 33
1979 Jakarta - 16, 20, 36
1977 KL – 14, 21, 28
1975 Bangkok – 38, 42, 49
1973 Singapore 45, 50, 47
==
Commonwealth Games
2006 Melbourne – 5, 6, 7 (17th out of 54 winners)
2002 Manchester – 8, 3, 11
1974 Christchurch – 4, 1, 2
1966 Kingston – 4, 0, 0
1962 Perth 4- 0, 4
1958 Cardiff 2, 0, 0
1954 Vancouver – 0 –
==
A bigger achievement was in football, which is the first love for many Singaporeans. Many still clamour for a return to the Malaysia Cup tournament.

Singapore, which once struggled to beat a Malaysian state, has surprised even its own fans by winning the Asean Championship three times, in 1998, 2005 and 2007.

In the FIFA World Rankings, Singapore is now second in Southeast Asia behind Thailand and 20th in Asia. It aspires to be top 10.

Putting bureaucrats into sports obviously works to some extent even though it is with the help of foreign talent.

Singapore today ranks fourth in the world in the fewest number of people (population) it takes to produce a gold medal, 561,519 – behind oil-rich countries Qatar (98,373), Bahrain (99,798) and Kuwait (403,066).

A well-run semi-professional league that involves foreign players and foreign teams from Japan and China helps chart soccer success.

Although it failed to bring back the Malaysia Cup-size fans, it has evidently succeeded in raising the local standard.

Criticism

Cynics have said much of this winning achievement should be discounted because of the input of foreigners, who have been given citizenship – and high rewards - for winning.

The complaint is an extension of that generally levelled on the large immigration inflow in recent years.

Like the economy at large, the alien role is mainly confined to sports that Singaporeans are weakest at – principally table-tennis, badminton, basketball and some athletic field events.

It is, however, evident that the authorities are trying to confine the numbers.

Their role is unfair to Singaporeans who have won the bulk of the medals in swimming, sailing, bowling, water polo, shooting and bodybuilding, where several have won world titles.

Critics say they do not want to see Singapore win on the back of imported talent. “It’s not sporting,” they say.

“I don’t feel proud. Some of them can’t even sing our national anthem,” said one sports fan. “I’d rather see our resources spent developing our own home-grown talent.”

An official explained: “Including foreign players is a widespread trend in the US and Europe today.

”Besides we’re a migrant society. We import bankers, computer programmers, domestic help by the millions over the years. Why not sportsmen and women?”

(An expanded version of the report published in The Star on Jan 5, 2006)