Singapore is no country for 18 golf courses

Posted on February 3, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Which golf courses will get the chop?’ 3 Feb 2013, article by Royston Sim, Sunday Times and ‘Let’s debate land use for golf course’, 2 Feb 2013, Voices, Today

…In its Land Use Plan unveiled last week, the Government flagged golf courses as one area that could be consolidated to free up more land. The Ministry of Law said some of the 18 golf courses here would be phased out, and the land put to other uses. It did not specify which would be affected, saying only that it would be working with planning agencies over the next few months to “provide clarity” to various golf courses on whether their leases could be extended.

Golf courses here are a mix of public and private ones. They occupy a total of about 1,500ha – 2 per cent of Singapore’s total land area. Eleven clubs are private, with membership prices that range from $223,000 for the Singapore Island Country Club (SICC) to $5,000 for Changi Golf Club. These 11 clubs have about 30,000 members altogether, and most lease land on 30-year terms from government agencies including the PUB.

(Chng Koon Beng):…There should be a debate on the Land Use Plan for such a vast space of land, which is now only accessible to a fraction of our population. It is not only a question of which courses will be closed, which would lead to arguments over why others can have their lease renewed. Do we need private golf clubs at all?

Would it be fairer if all remaining clubs could be converted to public golf courses when these leases are renewed, so that everyone can enjoy this recreation, the lush greenery and fresh air?

The ‘club’ C in our ’5 Cs’ may very well refer to the golfing kind. This land-gobbling sport took up a total of  5-10 % of the total land area in the early eighties. We also assumed that the government knew how precious a resource land was – and still is – for a tiny pinprick of a nation like ours, but lacked the (wait for it) FORE-sight to manage them properly, otherwise we wouldn’t need a policy today to skim them down.

Some compared this devotion to golf to the analogy of setting aside land for a nudist colony - giving up a large area of secluded space just for a few privileged individuals. I myself have never stepped on the green nor handled a golf club, though I’ve always wanted to cruise around in a golf tram with a glass of champagne and act all hoity-toity. Now my dreams of living the high life are dashed, reduced to swinging imaginary clubs in front of the Xbox Kinect in my jammies. Thanks a lot, White Paper!

Even avid golfers questioned the need to allocate so much space to a sport that sells luxury watches and striped polo T’s, and were aware of the runaway profiteering that comes with the acquisition and transfer of exclusive golf memberships. And all I did as an NBA fan in my teens was trade Michael Jordan cards.  Expensive golf memberships are as prized an asset as property, with some investors holding on to multiple memberships, not ever having need to swing a club, or step onto the green, even once. It explains why the majority of golf course remain private, and why opening some up to the masses is like having vagrants crash your cocktail party to sip off your designer punchbowl. Asking the government to let go of these money-spinners is like turning the F1 into a Mario Go-Kart theme park. But I shudder at the thought of what the alternative could be. For such highly coveted land, I would imagine another high-end condo or a shopping megacomplex at least. You could use the existing ponds as a reason to make the name of your monolith sound as aquatic as possible. Or how about an aviation hub like the Aerospace PARK in Seletar and adding insult to injury by naming something a ‘park’ when it’s anything but. It’s like calling a landfill ‘Serenity Gardens’.

Even if enthusiasts claim that the sport has become more accessible over the years, one can see why clubs like SICC are unlikely to let go of their exclusive brand. Former NMP Jessie Phua and member of 3 clubs thinks golf courses have a role to play as ‘GREEN LUNGS‘, a last-ditch attempt to play the eco-card. Does anyone have any idea how much water is consumed to maintain these things? If all we had were golf courses to replenish our carbon dioxide we’d all be in respiratory distress. Instead of public golf courses, I’m more in favour of green untouched spaces, parks, prawning lagoons or playgrounds and courts which encourage team sports like basketball or football rather than one where people spend more time standing around amidst vast tracts of ‘lush greenery’ sealing deals and hobnobbing than hitting balls into holes, pretending that they’re the King of Versailles having a garden party. I would also rather see more land set aside for CRICKET than golf, safe in the knowledge that our foreign workers are entertaining themselves productively over the weekend instead of planning strikes or fooling around with maids.

In fact, I see little reason to promote golf as a recreational sport at all, knowing how hazardous it is, having to expose yourself to deadly lightning strikes or even knocking innocent bystanders out cold, for the price you pay to be a part of it. Let’s have artificial ponds, neighbourhood petting zoos and dog-runs by all means, create safe, social spaces to foster community spirit and active ageing rather than just staging them for royalty to see in Queenstown. For the golf aficionados with more club than credit cards, time to pack your golf bags and pursue your fairway dreams elsewhere like you can afford to, or you could mope around stroking your gear singing Tom Jones’ Green Green Grass of Home.

About these ads

Filed under: 1980s, 2013, Environment, Public works, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Li Jiawei returning to China after retirement

Posted on January 1, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Li Jiawei’s departure a loss to Singapore’, 1 Jan 2013, ST Forum

(Christopher Chong): IT WAS disappointing to learn that former world table tennis champion Li Jiawei (right), who came to Singapore on the Foreign Sports Talent Scheme, will be returning to China (“Hard for Li to say goodbye”; last Friday).

Singapore is losing someone who has had an impressive list of contributions and achievements; someone who has won countless medals for us and earned an estimated $1.27 million from the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme.

I am disappointed also because her departure lends support to those who doubt the long-term commitment of our foreign-born athletes: Will they return to their countries of origin after they are done with their sporting careers here?

Singapore should not be seen as “buying” success – fast-tracking citizenship for our foreign-born athletes, only for them to return to their countries of origin when they can no longer win medals for us. While Li has indicated that she will continue contributing to Singapore, it is unclear if she intends to remain a Singapore citizen, and whether her family will move here in future.

As a Singaporean, my wish for the new year – and the years ahead – is not to lose any more talented citizens.

Li Jiawei’s not the first foreign-born athlete to return to her homeland after a sporting stint here. Another naturalised player and former compatriot Zhang Xueling quit the game after just 7 years as a Singaporean, moving to Beijing to join her Chinese husband only to endure his sudden and tragic demise. In the interview, Zhang had initially wanted to settle down in her adopted country, but things ‘didn’t go as planned’. In 2008, another top shuttler and Singaporean Li Li resigned abruptly and returned to Wuhan to spend CNY with her parents, citing ‘personal reasons’ and ‘fatigue’. Fellow shuttlers Zhang Beiwen and Gu Juan followed suit barely a YEAR after being granted citizenship. None of those who departed have been seen or heard since. I doubt they can even get past the first line of Majulah Singapura.

It’s probably the same ‘change of plans’ with Jiawei here, for whatever personal reasons that she decided to move back to China. Many would recall her high-profile turbulent relationship with ex-fiance Ronald Susilo, and her similarly public marriage to a Chinese businessman right up to her pregnancy and birth of her Singaporean boy. Who knows, if Ronald and Jiawei had worked out and stayed for good, critics wouldn’t be howling ‘I told you so!’ at the STTA right after the her retirement announcement. Some may have noticed her slow creep back to the motherland when she took part in the China Super Table Tennis League playing for BEIJING University. Now, there’s the possibility of us not just losing another Singaporean athlete, but her progeny as well. I don’t hear ESM Goh Chok Tong coming out to chastise those who pack their bags before even learning how to construct a proper sentence in English as ‘quitters’.

Along with Sun Bei Bei, who also decided to quit table tennis, Jiawei, Li Li and Xueling were all part of the $7 million Project 0812 funding program, which unashamedly declares that its mission was to win medals and national glory for Singapore. The program also involves converting star players into Singaporeans as soon as possible to qualify for international tournaments. If they had arrived as nobodies playing for domestic clubs and left as millionaire Chinese nationals we wouldn’t have bothered, but these girls left their hard-earned fans as Singaporeans and have given critics all the more reason to call them out for treachery, treating the citizenship as a mere feather in their cap and using the Olympic opportunity as a stepping stone to loftier ambitions that have nothing to do with Singapore. But what else can they do if they had chosen to remain after retiring from professional sports? Just look at happened to our original silver medallist Tan Howe Liang. Maybe our ex-National Players were just looking out for their own given the uncertain, limited future of sports professionals here.

I would question why so much effort and money is splurged on nurturing foreign sports talent at the risk of losing them, and whether the pursuit of Olympic success is worth dispensing citizenship like candy from a vending machine. With many Singaporeans giving our China-born sportsmen a less than lukewarm reception, you should expect them to be a little ‘homesick’ given the cold treatment. Maybe we were a bit too hasty in christening our paddlers as our own, or overestimated our reputation as a ‘promised land’ for sporting achievement. With Wang Yuegu also retiring from competitive sport, maybe it’s time to close this obsessive chapter on Singapore table tennis and focus on other talents. Let’s hope Feng Tianwei makes good of her stay, finds a decent Singaporean man for once (instead of a Chinese tycoon) and settle down. Meanwhile I’m still waiting for a sighting of fellow Singaporean Jet Li here. No one I know was particularly excited that we had a Singaporean starring alongside the biggest action stars on the planet in The Expendables 2. I’m sure many of us still think he’s either from Hong Kong or China (Like Jiawei he’s also from Beijing)

Filed under: 2013, Foreign workers, PRCs, Sports | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Queenstown wayanging during the Royal Visit

Posted on September 13, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Queenstown visit was an exhibition’, 13 Sept 2012, article by Tessa Wong, Singapolitics, ST

Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Indranee Rajah has responded to online criticism of the staged scenes put up at the Queenstown Green playground for the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. “The pictures that people have posted do not take into account the context of the visit,” she said.

She was referring to several pictures surfacing on the Internet showing the playground before and during the visit, accompanied with sarcastic captions. Many netizens felt that the sight of residents performing taichi and silat, and using the playground and fitness equipment in the middle of the afternoon presented an unrealistic slice of Singapore life.

She told Singapolitics that the organisers – made up of grassroots groups, the Housing Board, the People’s Association and the British High Commission – had two objectives for that visit. One was to showcase HDB living. The other was to showcase the various cultural and community activities of Singapore.

“At the same time, the organisers were also given a very short timeframe of about 25 minutes to show all of that,” she said, adding that they felt the best way to achieve it was to “do it in little exhibition spots…The demonstrations were to showcase the different types of activities themselves. It was not to suggest that these activities take place at 3pm everyday… It was meant to give a snapshot, and in that sense it was no different from a demonstration of activities,” she said.

Ms Indranee said that as she toured the area with Prince William, he had asked her if Singaporeans actually practice taichi and silat in the afternoon. “I explained that they wouldn’t do so at 3pm because it’s hot, and that these groups were just here to demonstrate… So it was explained to our visitors that we were just showcasing activities,” she said.

Uncle, you can’t get any cuter

The Queenstown wayang is the Singaporean way of laying the red carpet to welcome aristocrats, and somewhat of a hospitality overkill. The image of a playground JAMPACKED with activity looks like a scene taken off a staged musical, a real-life collage of local kampong pasttimes squeezed into a common space, people PRETENDING like they JUST happened to be there at the time.  I wonder who’s the director of this conniving carnival set-piece, thinking it could fool the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge into believing that Singaporeans owe their success today to afternoon playtime and chapteh kicking (Who plays with chapteh these days, anyway?). One can imagine what Will must be thinking while fumbling with a toy not many children actually know about these days: ‘Bugger. Back home we hit these feathered things with racquets. This game is bollocks, now I appreciate Polo better’. Still, he would get thunderous applause even if he so much as tossed the chapteh to a commoner. WITH HIS BARE HANDS.

Will was also cheeky enough to ask if uncles do taichi at 3pm in the afternoon, probably long aware that his trip here is one elaborate, but fishy, show and tell after another. Kudos to the couple for pulling through what seems like a laborious globetrotting courtesy call to celebrate the Queen Mother’s Jubilee, while grinning and bearing with the phony Potemkin-ness of it all. Anyway, the Queen would have spoilt the surprise for them by now. In 2006, she dropped by Toa Payoh to the same rousing lion dance routine, watched a demo of SEPAK TAKRAW (not the most elegant of sports I must say), and of course had to endure some uncle performing TAICHI like waiting for painting on a wall to dry. She also planted a tree. There’s nothing uniquely Singaporean about taichi and lion-dancing anyway. At least a flash mob of the Great Singapore Workout would have meant something.

Queen having a ball

In 1989, the same Queen was greeted by pom-pom schoolgirls while touring Townsville Primary School. She was also caught wearing shoes into a resident’s home during an Ang Mo Kio Town Centre visit. Of course one doesn’t just tell the QUEEN to take off her shoes before stepping into your abode. It’s like asking her if she’s the one who farted at a dinner table.

Exhibition or not, one can’t help feeling that this outlandish choreography is an insult to royal intelligence. I’d assume Will and Kate have done their homework on Singapore before trotting over here. These blue-bloods are probably secretly wishing to see the things low-lifes only whisper about in seedy underground London bars, like:

  • The auntie who feeds stray cats and leaves a mess the morning after
  • The rats that are bigger than cats
  • The stained underwear and sanitary pads which were tossed out of windows
  • People hanging flags of China on their window ledges
  • Children doing homework at void decks
  • The ‘No Urinating’ sign in the lifts
  • The hidden CCTVs which track residents’ every move
  • Loan sharks’ O$P$ calling card
  • And of course, the MILLION DOLLAR flat barely big enough to house the Queen’s corgis

Viewing a slum in a country like Singapore is an eye-opener, not something ‘been there, done that’ which can pass off in a bid for the next Happiness Olympics. After all, these guys spend their entire lives in pageantry, the last thing they need is trying to act like they’re thoroughly impressed. Adieu, Will and Kate, you have been obliging, sporting, very noble and if you’ve been disappointed by this patronisingly sterile charade of  Singapore, a hub of stress, sleaze and scandal rather than a picture of spotless, blissful ‘gotong royong’, then I offer my humble apologies.

Filed under: 2000s, 2012, Fun and games, HDB, Politicians, Public works, Sports, Tourists | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Feng Tianwei’s bronze reward 5 times more than Paralympian’s

Posted on September 5, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Why the big disparity in cash rewards?’, 5 Sept 2012, ST Forum

(Shanta Danielle Arul):…It saddens me to hear that while both (Laurentia) Tan and paddler Feng Tianwei won individual bronze medals at competitions of the highest sporting level, Feng was awarded a $250,000 cash prize while Tan got only $50,000.

During the Beijing Paralympic Games in 2008, when swimmer Yip Pin Xiu won a gold medal for Singapore in the 50m backstroke, she was first awarded $100,000 – a tenth of the $1 million an Olympic gold medal would have earned. This was later doubled to $200,000.

Why should there be such a disparity in rewards for these athletes?

We yearn for Singaporeans to do us proud on the international stage, and champions like Tan give us that source of pride. Yet, it seems some wins are viewed as more worthy than others.

In 2008, our Olympian paddlers got $750, ooo for their silver showing in the team event, a win which overshadowed the GOLD AND SILVER won by Pin Xiu in the Paralympics, not just in terms of dollars and cents but the amount of media attention, just like how it is today where the Paralympics is treated like the 1 minute extra-credits scene at the end of a blockbuster movie. I personally never watched a minute of Paralympic footage, and I wonder if those who complain about award discrepancy have done so themselves.

With everyone either swooning over Feng’s win or busy scoffing it as one bought for the price of citizenship, our ‘true-blue’ Singaporeans in the less ‘prestigious’ sister Olympic event were all but forgotten. But perhaps it’s worth thinking about where exactly the prize money comes from, before accusing the sports council and the government of discrimination against the disabled, treating our Paralympians like Michael Jordan dunking in the face of an opponent on a breathing tube in a wheelchair, though we’re talking about a country where the disabled are described as ‘HOPELESS’ in public service ads, and more money is pumped into making the city more cyclist than wheelchair friendly.

According to a 2008 forum letter, sponsors were not ‘forthcoming’ for the Paralympics, and it does make cold-hearted business sense to invest in an event which draws more eyeballs. A structured payout ranked in accordance to the level of competition was formalised only in that same year, whereby the Singapore Disability Sports Council (SDSC) would dish out a range of monetary rewards from a measly $1K in the ASEAN Para games gold to the $100,000 Paralympics gold. In September, Teo Ser Luck responded to critics that the Olympics was ‘open to all and sundry’, and that rewards came from the ‘private sector, not state funds’. But that doesn’t mean the government can’t do a little more just to show they give a damn instead of a patronising pat on the back. To be fair, they did dish out some consolation tokens of appreciation to past winners like Theresa Goh, including titles like SDSC’s Sportswoman of the year and a National Day Public Service medal. For Feng Tianwei, the additional reward was having Chan Chun Sing find her a Man. Wonder if our Para girls would get the same match-making perks.

Most of us can’t relate to either contest to judge how intense the competition could be, but the odds of a Paralympian doing well in an event may seem better than an able-bodied person who has to endure heat after heat to make it to a final. In Laurentia’s silver-winning equestrian event, she was placed in Grade 1a, which includes athletes whose ‘impairment has the greatest impact on their ability to ride’. This classification system, unique to the Paralympics, is intended to ensure fair play, but also narrows down the field, at the same time ensuring that there are multiples of gold, silver and bronze medals for EACH event. We shouldn’t take anything away from Paralympians of course. I  wouldn’t be able to make a horse boogie myself even if I spiked its hay with Ecstasy.

In the Olympics, there is no such physical moderation or generosity to ensure that slight, Asian swimmers only battle one another while big Caucasians like Michael Phelps are placed in a separate grade of ‘Superhumans built like winged torpedoes’. Freaks of nature like Phelps, breakout eye-candy celebrity athletes, even controversial doping scandals, are all part of the reason for the Olympics being an sponsor’s goldmine. Still, lottery thinking and advertising dollars alone will do nothing to convince critics playing the sympathy card, those who believe that a higher reward would help offset our Paralympian’s medical bills, though I doubt that’s our winners’ primary goal when they take part in these games. It then becomes a question if our disgust at the pay disparity arises from our emotions being tugged by sportsmen who overcome tremendous physical limitations to excel, from a sense of fairness in terms of performance or effort, or the lack of ‘big-heartedness’ in accepting Feng Tianwei as a true Singaporean champion. If we’re comparing Laurentia to a Singapore-born Olympics champion instead, would we be less picky on the money? (To throw another curveball in the argument, Laurentia Tan is based in the UK and has been living there since she was THREE years old. How much more ‘Singaporean’ is she now compared to Tianwei?)

Matching Olympian pay is probably a stretch, but a good start would be the sports councils increasing the publicity for the Paralympic games, so that those who continue to heckle Feng Tianwei and her success would at least do something more productive like supporting another Singaporean in a world-class event. Maybe they should organise a charity match between the Brazilian Paralympic football team against our very own Lions, if only to educate fans that some professionals can dribble and pass balls better on one leg than our two-legged Lions ever can.  A heroes’ welcome would be a nice touch too. Chan Chun Sing, you know what to do.

Also, just watching this ‘Murderball’ trailer below will change your mind about the Paralympics forever.

Filed under: 2000s, 2012, Money, Sports | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Singapore pulling out of Venice Biennale 2013

Posted on September 1, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From various letters, 1 Sept 2012, St Life! Mailbag

(Hua Tye Swee): While I understand the need of pulling out of the next Venice Biennale in 2013 so as to assess Singapore’s overall visual arts development, my hope is that we will return for the 2015 edition. Two of our artists, Ho Tzu Nyen and Ming Wong, have proven that taking part in the Biennale is money well-spent compared to the sports budget for the Olympics.

If this is a budget issue, perhaps a private-public funding partnership is the right way to go. We should help our artists scale their own Olympics.

(Peh Chin Sin): I would like to see the Government spread its funding for the arts to promote arts appreciation and learning for the masses, especially for the underprivileged. To have a renaissance in arts for Singapore, we need to cast the net wider, to nurture the larger population and not just a select few.

Public funding must go towards public good and not just benefit the egos of a few privileged people. Can the masses here identify with Singapore’s participation in the Venice Biennale?

I am not sure they can.

I’m not going to be an arts patron anytime soon, and I’m not sure what Peh Chin Sin meant by ‘egos of a few privileged people’. But honestly this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a ‘Venice’ Biennale, and the last time we had our own Singapore version we raised a fuss over ventilation at Old Kallang Airport, some homoerotic exhibit called Hotel Munber, and people turning our Merlion into a one-night love nest. I wonder how many people who’re fiercely passionate about this event can claim to pronounce ‘Biennale’ correctly.

So how ‘accessible’ is a typical Venice Biennale entry anyway? In 2011, Ho Tzu Nyen presented a video installation presciently called ‘The Cloud of Unknowing’, a wispy, sensory ‘journey’ which pretty much describes the future of the arts in Singapore.

Looks like a Nine Inch Nails music video

Ming Wong did ‘Life of Imitation’ , another video installation for the 2009 event which requires split-brain syndrome to fully understand it. I wonder if they gave out free packs of Panadol at the Biennale like they dish out 3-D specs at a blockbuster movie. But you don’t need a ‘prestigious’ champagne-swirling event to bring out the best in our local artists. Sometimes you just need a pen company as a sponsor, like Faber Castell pitching Singaporean Chan Hwee Chong’s amazing spiral portraits drawn with ONE SINGLE CONTINUOUS LINE. Now this is GENIUS. Chan is a one man Biennale all by himself, and it’s a shame that he’s less well known at home than among the non-Singaporean internet community.

How convenient to choose the Olympics as an analogy for recognition in the arts, though I believe there are distinct differences between the two, even as purveyors argue over which should get greater attention and funding. In sports, for instance, people of different ages and backgrounds can rally together to support a national player or team, and games are relatively EASY to understand (cricket is an exception) though not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea. Art, in the award-winning, biennale-standard form, is anything but SIMPLE and often strives to be a personal journey of the ‘higher senses’. For every fermenting shark in a tank there is someone snipping off his pubes in public, and always someone lauding such baffling works as ‘masterpieces’. Most lay people find contemporary art frustrating, distant, highbrow and feel oestracised by the arts scene which has developed an exclusive appeal and magnetism of its own, while the ‘arty-farties’ thrive on being coolly ambiguous, nodding in appreciation while the rest of us scratch our heads. Let’s not forget that sport has the crowdpleasing, goosebump-inducing legacy of Malaysia Cup nostalgia behind it. Nothing wins votes like a minister turning up to support a national team in an away match. That’s why we pump in money for trophies and bronze medals, not top prizes in fancy art contests.

You would need an arts enthusiast to have a lively conversation and debate over art, while you can have a water cooler conversation with your boss or the security guard at the front desk over something as humdrum as sports. When people say they seek ‘intelligent conversation’ you know they’re not going to discuss football club trades but rather look to be impressed by your knowledge of the Renaissance. If you’re caught in an awkward speed date you’re likely to be saved by mentioning Feng Tianwei than UOB painting of the Year winner Bai Tianyuan. When people think contemporary art they don’t think Biennale, they think of that Chinese guy who paints himself into his surroundings like a chameleon. In the age of Instagram where anyone can show off artistic touches, actual artists need to differentiate themselves from cookie-cutter installations, and with a little help from the Internet and a brilliant idea coupled with a show-stopping talent, you could be the talk of the town, and you know you have succeeded if people discuss your work in place of ‘How’s the weather’, Biennale or No Biennale. Provided you don’t break the law of course, though that appears to be a surefire way to get noticed.

If there’s one thing in common between arts and sport it’s how hard it is to make a living out of either. But even as rivaling siblings with vastly different characters, we need both to keep society fresh, vibrant and distinctly HUMAN. Watering down arts to suit the pop-culture-fed masses may not be such a good idea if that means creating a rift between public perception and the upper crust of the arts community. In my opinion we have little to worry about. We won’t descend into a band of uncultured hoodlums just because we got pipped out of a world-class exhibition that only the arts folks seem protective about, while those of us who haven’t a clue about Biennales refrain from asking ‘What’s the big deal?’ in fear of being labelled a soulless troglodyte. But neither should we chase elusive golds and forget that there’s more to life than beating China in pingpong all the time.

Filed under: 2011, 2012, Art, Sports | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Feng Tianwei cannot compare to Tan Howe Liang

Posted on August 4, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Foreign sports talent..There’s a difference’, 4 Aug 2012, ST Forum

(Tan Boon Keng): THERE is a difference between Singaporeans who were born and raised here and those who were recruited to win medals for the country (“Simply Feng-tastic” by Mrs Eunice Ang-Choo Sok Ee; yesterday). While paddler Feng Tianwei is a Singaporean who made history by winning the country its first individual Olympic medal in more than 50 years, she is unlike the first Olympic medallist, weightlifter Tan Howe Liang, who was a home-grown sportsman.

Mrs Ang-Choo’s remark that she, too, is a foreign import by virtue of her heritage is puzzling because she was born here. My grandparents arrived from China, but I do not consider myself an import, because I was born in Singapore. Certainly, I shall feel proud if Feng’s children win medals for Singapore, provided they are born here.

As a former Chinese citizen, Feng can opt to return to China. For us, Singapore is home.

Tan Howe Liang’s skimpy leotard. In 50 years maybe we’ll see Feng Tianwei’s legendary bat. From KeropokMan’s blog.

As long as there are immigrants in our Olympic squads, there will always be people making comparisons to ‘home-grown’ Tan Howe Liang (He was actually born in Swatow China and came to Singapore when he was 4 years old). You can argue all day about what exactly makes one Singaporean enough for one to be fully satisfied with the victory, and even if Feng could cram a user manual on all things Singaporean and recite the pledge in all 4 languages, she still wouldn’t hold a candle to our much lauded Silver Olympiad because, according to the writer, she just wasn’t here long enough. Even if Feng continues to participate in ping pong until she’s 70, there will be critics who’ll continue to go ‘Meh’ at her well-deserved Bronze award. It’s also easy to forget that during Tan’s time, hardly anyone of us were true-blue Singaporeans in the first place.

Tan Howe Liang didn’t just win ONE silver medal and called it a day. He accomplished it despite cramping in the legs, and walked out a hero without a SINGLE CENT. He was a world record breaker, once hailed as the BEST at his weight in ASIA and made it into the GUINNESS BOOK of Olympic records in 1972. That is why Feng (now $250,000 richer) and her gang can’t compare to Howe Liang, not because they’re not ‘localised’ enough, but Tan is probably the greatest athlete Singapore has ever produced, or will ever have. Like Feng, Tan had his share of critics too, that he wasn’t the humble boy from Chinatown as everyone thought he was. His post-medal refusal to participate in the Rangoon SEA games trials got him labelled as a ‘prima donna’ and a ‘spoiled child’.  Still, it’s easy to heap praise and remember Tan’s sporting achievements fondly, or make him a flag bearer and curate his photos and stories in the National Archives, but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t FORGOTTEN as a person.

In the 80′s, Howe Liang was appointed national coach for the SEA games, but suffered from a lack of participation in the event. I thought any professional athlete who has spent his entire life mastering a single sport could slide easily into a coaching post, like what paddler Jin Junhong and Ang Peng Siong have, but apparently not in the case of a niche and severely gruelling sport like weightlifting. According to a Today letter writer, Tan also spent some of his post-glory years as a CARETAKER in the National Stadium (More likely he was a gym instructor i.e glorified caretaker. A ST headline in 1982 reads ‘Olympic hero PERFECT for gym job’ 4 Nov 1982). He was last reported to be earning his keep as a gym supervisor at the Singapore Sports Council, struggling to pay medical bills for his cancer-stricken wife, a little known fact overshadowed by his past Olympic success. Ironically, if it weren’t for our foreign-talent paddlers and reporters, few would have heard of Tan at all, and it seems like it was only in the mid 2000′s when somebody, in the midst of the Olympic ping pong glitz, suddenly remembered ‘Hey, didn’t we have whats-his-name win a Silver medal in 1960?!’ Which is all the more inexcusable because we’ve only ever had ONE guy winning at the Olympics. I have to admit I had trouble recalling his name myself during a recent argument with a friend about Singapore’s Olympic history.

In a Today piece, Tan had this to say about his so-called Olympic fame:

..The problem is Singapore sport. After you represent your country, they will CHUCK you to one side. Who will remember you? At least I’m lucky. Some people still remember me.

Instead of being made to languish as a convenient afterthought in obligatory tributes to local sportsmen or as a standard trivia question on a game show like We Are Singaporeans, more should be done not just to TELL the story of Tan’s ascent and quick decline, but to make sure that our legends continue to contribute by fulfilling the dreams of subsequent generations of sportsmen, like how they have fulfilled the entire nation’s during their glory days. The story of Tan Howe Liang is the story of Singapore’s sporting dilemma, where the quest for excellence and the pursuit of passion at the expense of academic success gives one diminishing returns. That the worst thing that could happen to any committed sportsman here is to get a debilitating injury, or RETIRE. That the fact you’ll be the only benchmark against which all other local sportsmen will be compared is proof of how popular sports is as a career choice. That winning an Olympic medal is like the brutal curse that is the Best Actor/Actress award at the Oscars. It goes all downhill from there.

Tan’s recognition is long overdue. And yet here we have people swooning over expat billionaries or praising a disgraced pastor in music videos. There is no God.

Filed under: 1960s, 1980s, 2000s, 2011, 2012, Foreign workers, Sports | Tagged: , | 6 Comments »

No Arts and Sports in reshuffled Ministries

Posted on August 3, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Keep Arts and Sports in ministries’ names’, 3 Aug 2012, ST Forum

(Ace Kindred Cheong): I AM saddened that “Sports” and the “Arts” have been omitted from the names of the new and restructured ministries (“No ‘sports’ in name sparks debate”; yesterday). The omissions will lead to doubts about whether the Government is still as committed to supporting the arts and sports.

It is also ironic that it happened in the middle of a historic Olympics in which Singapore won its first individual medal in 52 years, after the fantastic bronze medal achievement by our top women’s table tennis star Feng Tianwei. It would be more sensible for the Cabinet to retain the titles of the two ministries – the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts.

This will send a clear signal that sports and the arts have not been sidelined by the Government.

The new ministries have been named MCCY (Culture, Community, Youth), MSF (Social, Family Development) and MCI (Communications, Information).  It’s made more confusing than it already is and drives one MAD (Ministry of Arts Defunct) just trying to tell one other apart. Ministries of ‘social affairs’ tend to be rather wishy washy over what they’re supposed to take charge of historically. ‘Culture’ is a catch-all term that is itself archaic in its usage. Established in the late fifties, the job of then ‘Ministry of Culture’ was responsible for brainwashing people with film propaganda. They were also the state censors, precursors to our current Board of Censors and MDA, who glued objectionable pages of books together. They were more the Culture and thought POLICE than a ministry of any sort, and here we see ‘Culture’ coming back with a vengeance. Watch out Fifty Shades of Grey sequels. Incidentally, the top Google search for ‘Ministry of Culture’ yields a local company that promotes some sort of corporate motivational team-building. Wonder if there’ll be any suits filed for copyright infringement ala Subway.

In 1985, ‘Culture’, with its negative connotations as mind controllers, was taken out, and the MCD (Community Development) was formed. It’s only in 2000 when SPORTS was plopped in to form MCDS, and ‘Youth’ joined the fray in 2004 to the soon-to-be-defunct MCYS. It’s also ironic how the government needs to set up a ministry arm solely for YOUTH when we’re on the crest of a silver tsunami. If I had my way with government acronyms, I would have gone for McCOYS (Ministry of Culture, Community, Old people, Youth and Sports) which just about covers EVERYTHING. We’re also more likely to have an SCOG (Senior Citizens’ Olympic Games) than a YOG. At the rate these ministries are splitting, you’ll have a whole chunk of large Roman numerals instead of abbreviations. At least some people can still make out Roman numerals.

What did having a SPORTS ministry ever do to produce a sporting  nation? Our Olympic medal winners are foreign-born. We have some decent swimmers, sailors and shooters here and there. But our local footballers have been the same dismally inconsistent lot for the last 12 years that ‘Sports’ has been part of MCYS. Our best moments in the Game (Malaysia Cup) were in the 90′s, BEFORE sports got noticed as a government agenda. Today, we can’t get past mediocre ASEAN teams even with the government boosting our foreign import funds, which either means our sports officials are getting it all wrong, or we simply are a nation who are no longer interested. Mah Bow Tan’s expensive Goal 2010 fantasy turned out to be one as attainable as flying solar-powered cars (It may be argued that the state of football is worse off now than when this pipe dream was cast more than a decade ago). Obviously the tactic of pumping in money to buy talent (players or coaches) on the pretense of grooming a sporting nation just isn’t working.

‘Arts’ emerged in 1990 from a messy series of acronym spin-offs, from the Ministry of Culture to MCI (Communications, Information), MCD and then MITA (the ‘TA’ stands for THE ARTS, without the ‘T’ it would be ‘M.I.A’), a move lauded by struggling artists who needed government investment and support, until MITA began clamping down again on offensive material and recordings as its grandparent Ministry once did (A Janet Jackson album and the video game Half-Life). Sounding too close to ‘MATA’, MITA then rebranded itself as the effeminate MICA (Information, Communication, Arts) in 2001, and proceeded to get on the nerves of arty folk by banning gay concerts like ‘Affect 05′ in 2005. Unlike the short-lived Sports arm, Arts enjoyed a good run of over 2 decades despite the zealous snipping, keeping the scene vibrant and local performances afloat, though there are always critics complaining that they’re never doing enough. We also have an ‘Arts’ NMP Janice Koh in a government now castrated of an Arts body, someone credible to comment on Grandfather Road issues when the ministerial body itself has trouble defining what ART is. But I think the simpler reason is that having a ministry of ARTS gives ART a bad name. Film fans have already felt the effects of the omission of ARTS , with this year’s Film Fest pulled out due to lack of funds. I think there’s something more deeply entrenched in the Singaporean psyche that defies government intervention when it comes to sports and arts. We have been bred and raised with a very skewed bias towards a results-based ideal of personal achievement, one that doesn’t involve a paintbrush or kicking balls.

Our Malaysian neighbours have a cleaner dichotomy in the form of a ‘Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage’ and a ‘Ministry of Youth and Sports’, the former bringing to mind the image of a fuddy-duddy curator who knows his history and the latter that of an hip, vivacious, fun-loving official devoted to keeping the country relevant. Japan has the same idea as me when it comes to combining everything together, with its Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The PM proposed 3-tier system with its bland categorisation sounds wan and jaded, with the MSF, or should I say Ministry of Procreation, as a disturbing personification of all the kaypoh aunties who ask when you’re getting married or when you’re having kids during Chinese New Year.

Filed under: 1950s, 1980s, 2000s, 2012, Art, Bureaucrats, Censors, Politicians, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Wang Yuegu blaming umpire for being German

Posted on August 1, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Wang lets fly at officials after loss’, article by Tan Yo-Hinn, 1 Aug 2012, Today

Singapore paddler Wang Yuegu yesterday lashed out in a controversial attack on the umpire after her quarter-final exit from the women’s singles competition yesterday. Moments after her 4-1 defeat to Japan’s Kasumi Ishikawa at London’s ExCel Arena, Wang stunned the Singapore media when she hit out at the appointment of German Claudia Moller as the umpire for their match.

“As soon as I saw I had a German umpire, I knew I was going to lose points,” said the 31-year-old, who is ranked world No 11, and who could be competing in her last Olympics. “My husband is German, and I have a private problem with them. Someone from their team is abusing their relationship with officials and has arranged for me to have a German umpire.

“They’re abusing their power and I can’t respect that. “Today, I feel fine personally about the match, but I feel bad for the sport and bad for the Olympic Games that this is allowed to happen.”

…At the World Championship in Dortmund, Germany, in March this year, Wang was shown the red card for protesting a series of dubious service calls by German umpire Klaus Seipold and Kosovo’s Jeton Beqiri during Singapore’s 3-0 win over Taiwan in a Group B match. She initially refused to leave, and women’s team coach Zhou Shusen and assistant coach Jing Junhong were also involved in the incident.

Damn you, Sky!

Considering how strange it is for Wang to discriminate against Germans when she claims her spouse is German himself, I dug further and pulled out another report stating that Wang’s husband is actually a TAIWANESE BASED in Germany. If not convinced, look no further than this Facebook pic of Wang in a wedding photo shoot.  Another discrepancy is the reason for Wang being red-carded in March; CNA reported that Wang was tossed out of the match for giving ‘illegal advice’ or ‘coaching’ from the sidelines. I didn’t think you could get ejected from a game of ping pong, but even in the face of immense pressure to perform for the current World no. 11, such unsportmanslike hysteria is disappointing of any athlete in any stage of competition, especially a silver medalist. Incidentally, Wang’s ranking points according to ITTF are on a rather steep decline, in proportion to her shortening temper and turning into the female Wayne Rooney of Table Tennis. I wonder if estrogen pills are permissible drugs in the Olympics because it seems obvious that a temperamental Wang needs some hormone replacement therapy. STAT. (Even though she’s only 32 this year, according to the Wang Yuegu Fanclub Facebook Page)

Wang’s not the only athlete to lash at everything other than their own inadequacies. Fellow paddler and ex-countryman Gao Ning blamed his coach and manager for his crashing out of the 2008 Olympics, humiliated and suffering a blow to the ego for being cast aside in favour of his silver-medal winning counterparts (Wang included). Naturalised citizen and foul-mouthed swimmer Tao Li ‘attributed’ her loss this year to the short time spent with a new coach. Teen sensation Joseph Schooling blamed officials sticking to their list of approved goggles rules for ‘messing up his swim’. Shooter Jasmine Ser was distracted by ‘a photographer’s camera clicks’ despite winning ‘only a silver’ in 2011′s SEA games. Singapore’s top golfer Mardan Marmat, bizarrely enough, blamed GOOD WEATHER for his failure at this year’s British Open. Wang Yuegu herself blamed the English summer heat and the lack of air-conditioning for ‘affecting her rest’

Picking on a bad coach, a spectator sneezing or the weather (good or bad) are petty excuses and typical of not just celebrities but instinctively loss-averse humans in general. To bear a grudge against certain ethnicities while representing the nation, however, is just shameful. Wang Yuegu is one racist weibo tweet away from being sacked from the Olympics, and while she’s giving the Germans all the more reason to think that Singaporeans are all ‘crazy’ in the head, perhaps the table tennis federation, for the sake of keeping ping pong prestigious and as our Olympic bread and butter,  should consider retiring her out of courtesy already.

Breaking news that Feng Tianwei just won Singapore a BRONZE after half a century of an individual medal eluding us. Yay to Tianwei! Boo to Yuegu!

Filed under: 2012, Racism, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Eye-candy male pacers in Shape Run

Posted on June 21, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Change of pace for Shape Run’, 21 June 2012, article by Chan U-Gene, ST

ONE of Singapore’s women-only runs is getting – for the first time – a shot of testosterone. This year’s Shape Run will introduce 30 male runners as pacers – chosen not only for their running abilities but also their pin-up looks.

Ms Diana Lee, general manager of fashion and beauty at Singapore Press Holdings, the organiser, said: ‘This is a chance for women to chase the guys for a change. It’s to introduce a fun element, to provide ‘eye candy’ for the runners.’

…Jason Tan, 38, is hoping to use the communication skills he developed from his six years in the insurance industry to engage the runners. The financial services manager, who has completed more than five marathons, said: ‘Talking to people is part and parcel of my life. I want to lift their spirits by greeting them in the morning, exchanging high-fives, and also by singing songs during the run.’

Most female runners are receptive to the novel idea. Human relations officer Audrey Huang, 29, said: ‘I’ll be running at my own pace. Unless they are eye candy, then maybe I’ll run faster.’

But there are a few women who are less than impressed. Ms Erika Keilig, 40, said that while she is fine with running alongside the men, some women preferred to keep women-only events, well, only for women. These women feel more comfortable running with members of the same sex, she said.

Avid marathoner Anne Date, 31, said: ‘If it’s a women’s race, then it’s a women’s race. It’ll be nice for women to be independent of men sometimes.’

Got to catch ‘em all!

Good looks or not, these guys have their work cut out for them. Not only do they have to strut about providing cheerleading services, but have to make sure that they don’t look out of ‘shape’ themselves, considering that they have 18 year old professional Kenyan runners in their midst, one of whom won last year’s 10km event. The annual Shape run is serious business, which explains why the intrusion of a few good men  into an exclusive marathon may be regarded by the more ambitious runners as a damper on their crowning achievement.  Some women are particularly bothered if boyfriends or husbands scamper uninvited in women’s only events taking snapshots of their partners. If there’s anyone who should feel stressed by this idea, it’s the pacers themselves. Imagine the pressure of having to keep the enthusiasm, high-fives and stamina up in front of thousands of women, some possibly as old as their mothers who can brisk walk faster than most NSmen can run 2.4 km for IPPT. Imagine facing the wrath of angry feminists who would toss used paper cups at you given the chance. It’s not an easy job, girls.

Who knows what this potent COCKtail of marathon running (itself a risk factor for sudden death) and sweaty hot bods would do to everyone involved in the event. Distractions and discomfort aside, if I were the organiser I would be extra wary about people collapsing, if not the eye candy themselves for over-enthusing, but women whose desperate hearts flutter easily at the sight of six-pecs and tight buns, or those over-exerting themselves running away from pacers like Jason Tan singing like they were leading a BMT road march ( Purple Light, anyone?). Any woman running beyond her capacity under the influence of hunky pacers risks injuries like patellofemoral pain syndrome. Any man who runs beyond his capacity just to impress a woman risks an unscheduled visit to the morgue.

Even if your timing remains unaffected by the presence of men as gratuitous sex objects, there’s nothing like a brawny dude getting in the way of some serious female bonding. A ladies only run is essentially a mahjong session or high tea for the active, sociable woman, and throwing in a man in the fray is like having the husband budging in asking when dinner is ready. Men have their motor shows, soccer bars, and online vice rings, why not leave the ladies alone with some ‘we-time’? On the other hand, putting sexy chicks in a mostly male marathon to man water stations like they straddle cars at motor shows may see less records being broken because of rubbernecking, but could potentially save a life or two if catching a glimpse of a real RACE queen means slowing down and queuing up for a drink (and drinking very slowly too).

Being a male pacer isn’t as lucrative as posing as a glorified gigolo or Chippendale in ‘host bars’, where men  are subject to bids like cattle in a beef auction, not only having to wiggle their way into a tai-tai’s heart but wear garlands around their necks like cowbells. If you insist on subjecting yourself to ogling, might as well make some good money while at it. Otherwise you’re just an Abercrombie stooge with running shoes.

Filed under: 2000s, Sex, Singaporean men, Singaporean women, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Golfers fighting at Kranji Sanctuary

Posted on December 11, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Golfer bashed at Kranji Course’, 11 Dec 2011, article by Teh Jen Lee, TNP

Golf is hardly a contact sport, but a fight broke out between two golfers on Wednesday morning, landing one of them in hospital. The name of the golfers are not known, but the incident took place at the Kranji Sanctuary Golf Course, near Hole 3.

…While verbal arguments can take place quite often, up to once a week sometimes, they do not usually escalate to physical violence…A common flashpoint is when a golfer hits a ball and it lands too close to another golfer. The first golfer is supposed to shout “Fore!” but sometimes they do not, or the other golfer does not hear.

Another source of friction is when a golfer’s ball falls near another’s and he mistakenly hits the wrong ball, thus disrupting the other golfer’s play. Mr Daniel Ng, 50, who has been golfing for about 20years, said he has seen golfers drive their buggy to confront the other golfer and demand an explanation.

“They will shout threatening things like ‘You watch out’. But it’s mostly verbal and they normally won’t use their golf equipment as a weapon,” said Mr Ng, who is a golf instructor. Things can also get heated when betting is involved and the players argue about the rules of the game, he added.

(Mr Robert Koh): “Sometimes people are impatient over slow play or they perceive others to be playing dangerously. It happened to my friend. He hit a ball and someone in the group ahead of him was not happy as they had not moved off yet so they lodged a complaint. He honestly didn’t know because there was a blind spot there.”

You have been FORE-warned. Golf is a deceptively dangerous sport, and no longer the realm of gentlemen ever since the Tiger Woods sex fiasco. It only appears to be safe because it proceeds at such an excruciatingly slow and tedious pace without anything much happening that I suspect golfers are secretly craving for some brute confrontation, blood and sweat like ‘real’ sports. The time one takes to place a shot is just the length of time for one to methodically plot a murder. Arguments over ball placements and dangerous putts may get you clobbered with a club, a fearsome weapon that ranks among the deadliest sports equipment along with the baseball bat and hockey stick. If you have a good aim and a nasty swing, you could even fracture someone’s skull with a well placed golf ball if you’re going for remote killing. Irate golfers also have a bonus vehicle at their disposal to mow down anyone who so much as touches the wrong ball during play.

The chilling potential of golf equipment to terrorise was captured in a little  South Korean film called 3-Iron. In the disturbing horror-thriller Funny Games, a golf club was the weapon of choice of psychopaths holding a family hostage. Golf courses get blown up and bums are used as target practice in the 80′s goofball flick  Caddyshack, while Adam Sandler lampooned the sport’s inherent violence to fart-joke proportions in Happy Gilmore. I can’t name one serious film about golf as a profession, and flamboyant as Tiger Woods may be, no one has considered making a movie out of his larger-than-life story to date. Golf is usually portrayed in film as a device for mayhem or Candid-camera standards of low-brow comedy, and ironically this dramatic exaggeration of an otherwise dreary sport which makes Gateball look like Dodgeball in comparison has spilled over into real life.

Forget the spacious, picturesque oases or SANCTUARIES of green calm and tranquility that our golf clubs like to imagine themselves to be. In 2009, some Singapore Island Country Club golfers came to blows with some punks trespassing on the green.  According to one of the victims, ‘spades, tee markers and golf balls‘ were being flung all over the place. Tee markers are basically sharp pins, while balls are lethal projectiles in their own right. This is no ‘sanctuary’, it’s an armory, a battlefield. With the added benefit of shrub cover, tee boxes, ponds and protected space, golf is probably one of the rare sports in which one can wage armed battle or commit murder without anyone noticing.

There are golf hazards aside from getting into brawls. If you’re extremely unlucky, you could get electrocuted by lightning, as what happened last year at Sentosa Golf Club, and this year at Laguna National Golf and Country Club. If not death by lightning in a sudden storm,  then by falling branches (Golfer killed by falling branch during storm, June 1997). You could also accidentally drive your buggy into a pond and drown (‘Death at golf club’, 2010), or die ‘mysteriously’ (Body found in lake’, 2 Aug 2002, ST, also Sentosa Golf Club). More commonly, you may lose your sight after being hit in the eye by stray golf balls, or inflict brain injury upon a child (No idea what children are doing on golf courses either). You don’t even have to launch a golf ball to hurt someone. In the 70′s, cutting a ball in half alone may trigger an explosion due to its ‘pressurised  liquid core’, and there was even a medical paper written on the case. So not only are fast balls as dangerous as rubber bullets, they are unpredictable mini grenades which you should keep away from curious children at all costs.

If you’re a clumsy novice who’s too eager to land a first birdie, you may hit yourself on the head/face with your own club/ricocheted ball slapstick-style, sustain back injuries and even your ELBOWS from holding the club too tightly (Golf goofs, July 2001, Today). According to a 1991 British Medical Journal article, golf is more dangerous for kids than skateboarding, horseriding or even SOCCER, with most hospitalised after being struck by a club or a ball. Even if you play golf in knight’s armour, it won’t guarantee safety to NON-golfers i.e caddies, lawn cutters, gardeners etc who suffer because of a wild, impatient putt.

So, why are our soccer players and racecar drivers getting all the attention and biographical movies, when the true sports warriors  whom we should really admire are golfers, professionals who risk it all on the fairways (or FEARways?): Blindness, drowning, buggy collisions, electrocution, back/hip injury, elbow/wrist injury, skull fracture and death, all for the singular purpose of getting a ball into a tiny hole.

Filed under: 1960s, 1970s, 2010, 2011, Clubs, Fun and games, Sports, Violence | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers