Organisation and administration • • •
The Singapore Amateur Athletic Association (SAAA) was estab-lished in 1934 and is ‘responsible for sanctioning, promoting, expanding and strengthening athletics in Singapore’ (SAAA, 2005). Currently it has 20 affiliate clubs in its membership and is the national governing body for track and field, cross-country,
road racing, race walking and tug of war. According to a senior official in the organisation, track and field has the privileged status as an elite sport under the sports excellence programme, and is also ‘the largest participation sport in schools’ (Interview, 3 August 2005) in Singapore. Recently, in a determined bid to renew and align itself to the nation’s sporting vision, the word
‘amateur’ was dropped from its title and the NSA is now known as the Singapore Athletic Association (SAA) (SAA, 2006; Tan, 2006a). Yet, it is notoriously weak leadership and poor athlete management that characterises the administration of the SAA.
Subsequent to a review of the SPEX Programme in 2000, track and field was removed from the SSC list of privileged sports because the SAAA had not achieved its targets. The SSC leader-ship argued that ‘the SAAA should revamp its management practices and put in place an effective leadership. The SSC hopes that the association and its members will strive to make improve-ments to revive the sport’ (quoted in Thomas, 2000b, p. 75). One of the SSC’s main concerns was the failure of SAA to modernise and reciprocate by adopting effective organisational and admin-istrative strategies befitting a Core sport. The tension between the SAA and the SSC was expressed by the SSC’s Executive Director when he stated:
We found that they [SAAA officials] were not prepared to listen, not interested in doing any soul-searching. We have nothing in common with them. The SSC is also hoping that the dropping of track and field from the SPEX programme would lead to an injection of new blood into the SAAA’s management.
(quoted in Tay, 2000, p. 76)
Of note were the in-house power struggles that ensued in the SAA’s leadership, centred on the reluctance of the incumbent to step aside despite a 23 year reign as President. Two tightly con-tested elections for the top position in 2000 and 2002 provided the SSC with the excuse to intervene and, following the 2002 annual meeting, the SSC’s Deputy Director (Sports Excellence) was seconded to the SAA to establish a full-time secretariat and assume responsibility for implementing the development plans (Chan, 2002b). When the incumbent finally agreed to resign in 2004, and after the SAA had submitted its Strategic and High Performance Plans as required by the COG, track and field was duly reinstated to the elite sport status (Chan, 2002a; SAA, 2006).
The newly installed leadership undertook to demonstrate more resolve by aiming ‘to provide adequate exposure to ath-letes at appropriate international competitions and to develop monitoring and support schemes such as sports science and
financial support’ as its long-term sports excellence objectives for 2005 (SAA, 2006, p. 7). At its 2005 Annual General Meeting (AGM), the new administration declared that its mission was
‘to develop the sport of track and field as a preferred choice of sporting pursuit by Singaporeans, while its focus would be high performance management, coaching excellence, sport delivery system and infrastructure’ (SAA, 2006, p. 7). Despite these lofty aims, the SAA still has to contend with ‘the deficiencies of the previous administration, and help soothe disgruntled stakehold-ers ranging from athletes to coaches and parents’ (Luis, 2004, p. 60) as more controversies ensued.
In July 2005, two Chinese-born athletes sued the SAA for alleged wrongful termination of their contracts and are still awaiting an outcome (Raymond, 2005b). Then, in October 2005, a highly publicised case involving unaffiliated coaches and their athletes broke out over the running sequence for the 4 400 metre relay squad selected for the 2005 SEA Games. The new President blamed ‘the lack of control’ over athletes and coaches who were not affiliated with the SAA as one of the major rea-sons for the fiasco (Siow, 2005). Despite efforts by the President to placate all parties, the relay squad missed out on an SEA Games spot and a disciplinary committee was convened to investigate and recommend actions (Siow, 2005). The case drew strong criti-cism from the media and the SNOC as the affected coaches and runners had irresponsibly put self before country (Fang, 2006b).
The President summed up his frustration by stating that ‘when I took over athletics last year, I didn’t expect it to be so difficult.
I was wrong … because what control do I have over the rene-gade coaches? None’ (quoted in Siow, 2005, p. H10).
In a candid assessment of his 2 year reign as head of the SAA, the President admitted responsibility for the Association’s dis-mal situation: ‘To be brutally honest, I’ve failed. While I’ve done all right in developing our sports industry and in terms of mass participation, I’ve failed in terms of sports excellence, in not being able to produce the desired results’ (quoted in Tan, 2006a, p. 55). In a strange turn of events, member clubs rallied together to vote in the former leader – the same person who had previ-ously held the position for 23 years – as the new SAA President at the Association’s AGM in June 2006 (Foo, 2005b; Wang, 2006).
In the victory speech to mark the start of his 24th year at the helm of track and field, the new President stated: ‘I am happy with the convincing result. I am also guarded as there is a lot to do, with new programmes to look into and things that need to be revamped’ (quoted in Lai, 2006, p. 64).
If history is anything to go by, then it appears that the SAA’s
‘new–old’ administration and secretariat face challenging times
ahead in its pursuit of elite sport glory, ‘to chart new territories for the future … and take bold strides to nurture talents, work towards holistic athlete development and making competitive athletics a viable career’ (SAA, 2006). While there have been no major achievements that support the SAA’s strategies and plans, the organisation realises that it faces the challenging task of rekind-ling the public’s confidence in its management of the sport.
Today, it appears that the SAA enjoys an amenable relation-ship with the SSC and other stakeholders, having put in place the obligatory systems required of an elite sport. On this issue, a high-ranking SAA official stated that ‘There has never been any one period where we do not have problems with anyone’
and that policies should be clear and well-communicated (Interview, 3 August 2005). At the heart of these comments are questions relating to the SAA’s ability to adjust and cope with the pressures of professional governance and corporate account-ability. It will also be interesting to observe how the SAA con-tinues to manage its relationship with the SSC, particularly since funding is contingent upon medal returns at international competitions, and on the SAA’s ability to integrate and manage its governance structure for the future of the sport.
Development of elite sport facilities • • •
The responsibility for construction, development and mainten-ance of most sports facilities in Singapore lies with the SSC.
These cater mainly for the masses and are aligned to commu-nity and national interest. With the advent of SPEX 2000, the NSAs were encouraged to work with the SSC in identifying existing facilities as Centres of Excellence (COE) to facilitate elite sport development in Singapore (MCDS, 2001). In October 2004, the SAA announced (SAA, 2005) that it had obtained pri-ority use at one of the public stadiums as its COE although, due to the multi-disciplinary nature of the sport, athletes and coaches continue to train at various venues. The new COE at Bukit Gombak Stadium was renovated specifically with track and field in mind and includes modern and comprehensive facilities such as a woodchip track for warming-up, sports science test-ing facilities, fully furnished gym and therapeutic rooms, and laboratories equipped with computers for technique-analysis and biomechanical assessments (SAA, 2005; SSC, 2005b). As observed by an SAA official, ‘this is truly a world-class COE that has the facilities instrumental in developing athletic excel-lence’ (quoted in Britcher, 2005, p. 15).
In addition, the SAA also benefits from the Track and Field Academy within the SSS (2005). Equipped with first-rate facilities,
modern coaching and sports science services, the Academy’s vision is to assist the SAA in improving the standard of athlet-ics and to ‘mould world-class youth track and field athletes’
(SSS, 2005) in Singapore. Together with the impending world-class stadium to be built in Singapore’s new sports hub in 2010, there is no shortage of facilities for athletes to train and compete at the top level. The SAA recently succeeded in attaining accredi-tation for its COE as an International Association of Athletics Federations’ (IAAF) High Performance Centre (SAAA, 2005).
On the other hand, the SSC and the SAA are realistic and acknowledge that facilities and infrastructure are not adequate to host the Olympics or World Championships, although the Commonwealth and/or Asian Games were considered ‘not out of Singapore’s league’ (Xue, 2005). However, it is argued that the lack of facilities for training and competition at the grass-roots level is not an issue for the SAA and athletes in Singapore – there are presently 18 public, ‘third-generation’ (SSC, 1998b, p. 3) sport and athletic stadiums including numerous other synthetic tracks housed within schools, junior colleges, tertiary institu-tions and military camps throughout the island. Rather, the SAA’s chief concern is the sport’s lingering negative reputation, tainted largely by management deficiencies over the past 10 years (Yap, 2003a; Luis, 2004). As the President of the SAA argued: ‘would athletes and parents be convinced by the SAA’s efforts? Would they want to pursue their dreams together with the SAA? So you see, the biggest problem is the SAA’s current image’ (quoted in Luis, 2004, p. 60). To its credit, the SAA has made attempts to address this concern by recognising its social responsibilities and persuading the public, for example through education and implementing a community outreach programme at the COE (SSC, 2005b).
Although it is dependent on funding and facility support from the SSC, the SAA has steadily provided for mass develop-ment through various fund raising and sponsorship efforts. The New Paper Big Walk and Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon, for instance, are annual focal events on the local sport and tourism calendars that attract many overseas participants and visitors (SSC, 2003). Two points of interest are notable here. The first alludes to the amount of services and resources the full-time secretariat accords to the SAA’s mass sport objectives given the secretariat’s remit for high-performance athletic develop-ment, including the commitment to the terms of the COG and its medal targets as agreed with the SSC. Green and Houlihan (2005, p. 179) describe this practice as ‘ring-fencing of elite funding from those responsible for meeting the needs of club and grassroots members’. The second point relates to the fact
that revenue from sponsors and donors usually comes at a price, as acknowledged by the SAA President: ‘we [SAA] would have to remind ourselves that corporate sponsors would come in only when our Association is well-structured, properly admin-istered and, at the same time, shows reasonable results on the track and field’ (SAA, 2005, p. 8).
Fortunately for the SAA, the SSC remains responsible for ‘the provision of integrated sports facilities which … cater not only for the needs of Sports For All programmes but also for the spe-cific requirements of Sports Excellence programmes’ (Soon, 2000, p. 9). The government’s bold plans for a showpiece sports hub is a case in point. Unfortunately for Singapore, sporting glory or a sports culture do not stem merely from the building of extensive stadiums or arenas. As one senior official SAA stated,
‘Singapore has more money available than any other country on this earth but is still waiting for acceptable international per-formances and achievements’ (Interview, 21 July 2005).
Emergence of ‘full-time’ athletes • • •
A range of financial assistance schemes were introduced for athletes as part of the holistic approach to helping talent under the SPEX 2000 programme. These included funds for training and competition, grants for loss of income, allowances to assist young athletes with training and studies, and assistance to support the athlete for life during and after competition (MCD, 1993). Of significance was the introduction, in 1993, of SportsCOVER (Career Options, Vocational Emplacement and Recruitment) to provide lifestyle support for athletes during and after their high-performance careers (MCD, 1993). This scheme was replaced with Athlete Development programmes by the establishment of the High Performance Management Division (HPMD) within the SSC (2005b). Two prominent HPMD policies that contribute to the appearance of full-time athletes include the ACT (Athlete Career and Training Programme) and spexGLOW (Grants for Loss Of Wages). The ACT, launched in 2002, is ‘the clearest sign yet of the government’s drive to achieve sports excellence that virtually guarantees a top athlete’s well-being for life’ (Tay, 2002). Under the ACT, individual elite ath-letes receive carding support up to a maximum of $SGD80,000 a year (Tay, 2002) depending on their standing in the spexTEAM (Talented Elite Athlete Management) classification system (SSC, 2005b). These schemes are in line with Green and Oakley’s (2001, p. 262) identification of ‘lifestyle support programmes’ evident in Western elite sport approaches.
A total of 873 athletes, in various classification categories, received carding support from the SSC in the fiscal year 2002–2003 (SSC, 2003, p. 28). spexGLOW continues ‘to be one of the SSC’s popular financial assistance schemes’ (SSC, 2000, p.
26) wherein elite athletes are compensated for their full-time commitment at major competitions, perhaps indicative of the perceived general lack of career prospects in sport in Singapore today. According to the SSC’s Annual Report 2003–2004, athletes funded through the ACT and spexGLOW schemes accounted for 70 per cent of the 30 gold medals won at the 2003 Vietnam SEA Games (SSC, 2004), adding weight to the argument that excellence is contingent on the ‘adoption of performance criterion-based funding of elite athletes with subsistence, train-ing, equipment and educational aspects’ (Green and Oakley, 2001, p. 261).
The SAA claims to have put in place its own Athlete Support System where, according to one senior official, ‘Athletes are constantly monitored for welfare and career planning support’
and also benefit from a ‘Carding System based on performance benchmarks where athletes can apply for support ranging from training grants to sports science and sports medicine support’
(Interview, 3 August 2005). Interestingly, all three SAA athletes presently funded through ACT (two athletes) and spexGLOW (one athlete) are foreign-born talents while 54 track and field student-athletes were eligible only for carded training assist-ance grants from the SSC in 2004 (SAAA, 2005, p. 28).
The local athletics scene has had its share of worthy track and field champions with seven individuals named among
‘Singapore’s 50 Greatest Athletes’ by The Sunday Times in 1999 (Yap, 1999). Sadly, all seven have since retired from the elite level, further shrinking the pool of athletes for the SAA.
Between 1983 and 1993, Singaporean athletes failed to win a single gold medal at the biennial SEA Games, managing only 17 (3 silver, 14 bronze) medals during that period (SNOC, 2005).
With the introduction of SPEX incentives, local standards have improved and several athletes were selected by the SAA for Asian, Commonwealth and even World/Olympic level meets (SNOC, 2005). For example, Singapore’s track and field athletes won nine (four gold) medals at the 2003 Vietnam SEA Games, and one gold medal each at the 2004 Asian All-Stars Athletics Championships and 2005 Asian Grand Prix Series (Raymond, 2005a).
A local-born sprinter also impressed selectors sufficiently to be picked as a wild card entry for the 2005 Helsinki World Championships. However, despite the large and sustained fol-lowing at school and club levels, a persistent issue for the SAA
remains the dearth of outstanding talent emerging at the national and youth stages. One senior-ranking SAA official alluded to the ‘continuation after school issue’ (Interview, 3 August 2005) as a major concern, with many promising athletes citing the sense of duty to school rather than personal interest in track and field as their reasons for participating (and excelling) in school meets but not progressing further (Tan, J. 2005). The SAA President again cited the issue of lack of control over a student-athlete’s future when he stated that ‘I can’t control the athletes and coaches because we don’t pay them … What can you say when you have no control?’ (quoted in Siow, 2005, p. H10).
Another obstacle remains the lack of a sporting culture in Singapore, fuelled by parental reservations about their children pursuing sport at a higher level. These factors, it is argued, accelerated the NSA’s search for suitable foreign talent that would fast-track the quest for medals. The Sports Minister pro-vided the government’s rationale for endorsing the Foreign Talent Scheme in stating that ‘for those medals to be meaning-ful, they must be Singaporean and they must feel Singaporean ...
that’s where the Sports School gives them a Singaporean home, where they will integrate, where they will pick up our accents and idiosyncrasies’ (quoted in Tay, 2005).
The subject of importing foreign talent sparked much debate but the government’s unreserved endorsement of the policy has dispelled (for now) the groundswell of public opinion regarding a perceived loss of jobs and the feeling that there is little pride in the achievements as ‘medals were being bought’ (Yap, 2003b) by foreign imports. A pertinent illustra-tion of the latter is that all 13 medals at the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games were won by foreign-born athletes (Yap, 2003b). Today, athletes born in China lead the SAA’s medal charge, beginning at the 2005 Manila SEA Games and, subsequently, the Asian and Commonwealth Games in 2006 (Foo, 2005a) although local athletes have recently produced ster-ling performances at national and regional level (Tan, J. 2005).
Still, the objective remains fixed on loftier targets with the SAA’s Technical Director asserting, ‘the SEA Games is the min-imum we should aim at, and a stepping stone towards other things, like winning medals at the Asian level, and hitting the
“B” final standard at the Olympics. That is achievable’
(Interview, 1 August 2005). The SAA’s focus on youth develop-ment is also tied in with performance benchmarks, wherein, according to one high-ranking SAA official, the ‘SAA has set up a comprehensive monitoring system where we monitor per-formances at the various levels of competitions [and] … we are beginning to see some “fruits” of that labour’ (Interview,
3 August 2005). On the issue of full-time athletes, the same offi-cial stated:
Only the foreign sport talents (three of them) are full-time in that they only trained in the sport. A number of athletes may receive some form of financial support and in exchange provide minimal work service in SAA or its projects. The support is tied to their level of performance.
Athletes who receive such assistance must be in training for some immediate Major Games or Championships. Otherwise, on a case-by-case basis, any other potential youth athlete may receive the neces-sary support.
(Interview, 3 August 2005)
Yet, both the SAA and the SSS are quietly confident that the young athletes coming through the school will carry the future hopes for Singapore athletics (Leong, W.K. 2006a). Since its opening in 2004, the school boasts 31 athletes who have repre-sented Singapore at the senior level and who have set more than 30 age-group records in sailing, table tennis, swimming and athletics (Fang, 2006b). Undoubtedly, having a hothouse ‘study-sports’ environment like the SSS is also a decisive factor in the track and field production line whereby student-athletes undergo
‘the strict and disciplined lifestyle in order to become elite
‘the strict and disciplined lifestyle in order to become elite