The SSA-Tao Li Row

BillyBong SG

A gracious society would not take back what has been given, whether in cash or in kind

I STAND on the side of swimmer Tao Li, 'Tao Li taken to task over comments' (ST, Jan 29).

I do not think it is the duty of participants to worry or be involved in the funding or contribution of their own sports fraternity.

Conversely, participants' only duty is to train hard and win a 'gold' when they participate in any game. This will do the country proud and bring honour to Singapore.

It has been argued that a percentage of their winnings should be given back for the 'development of their academy players' or for grooming athletes.

There is also the argument that the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) 'has supported Tao Li, sent her for overseas competition and these things cost money'. But surely if we do not expose her to overseas competition, she can only be as good in our own country. If our participants, after exposure, win a gold medal, our pride is that she wins by beating the best participants who are good enough to represent their own countries.

As I understand it, the SSA gives out monetary rewards to gold medallists via the Multi-Million-Dollar Award Programme. However, there is a cap on how much the gold medallist can receive, irrespective of how many gold medals he or she wins.

Surely, the SSA can motivate our participants by (a) removing this maximum monetary reward, (b) giving out another reward, not only for winning a gold, but also for breaking the games record and (c) giving out a yet higher reward if the world record is broken. This indeed would be a motivating factor for all participants.

How, then, can sports fraternities be funded? It is for them to convince and get more funding from the Singapore National Olympic Council by showing it the exemplary and superb results of their participants.

It is also a gracious society that does not take back what it has given, whether in cash or kind.

Ronald Lee Yew Kee

~ST Forum, 01 Feb 08

BillyBong SG

Tao Li saga: Is there any legal basis for the SSA to ask for 15 per cent cut?

MAY I ask the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) and leaders of the local sporting fraternity who censored Tao Li what their anger is predicated on relative to her displeasure about the 15 per cent cut from her cash awards.

I understand the swimmer won four golds in last month's South-East Asian Games. Some officials of the SSA and the local sporting fraternity argue that Tao Li is ungrateful because she resents the 15 per cent deduction, which is said to be for the development of youth - I presume the nurturing of young sportspeople.

I believe altruism was one of the mainstays of the rebuttals. Let us look at it from this perspective.

When Tao Li was brought here, as foreign talent, to assist Singapore in accruing golds in swimmimg, what was in her contract?

Was there a condition, explicitly mentioned, that she had to give up 15 per cent of what she won, to a named sporting fraternity, to redistribute for youth development or some other cause?

Was there a clause which stated that her coach, or coaches, were entitled to a certain percentage of what was won? Was there a clause stating that she had to pay back a certain percentage, for food, housing, training, etc, to the SSA, or any other relevant body, in the event she accrued golds and was eligible for cash from the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme?

If there was, there is no argument involved. If there was no agreement (contract), then let's be forthright and go by the law. Let's not introduce arbitrary conditions, after the event, when the golds have come in and Tao Li is being paid cash. No court in the land will uphold a condition initiated after the contract is signed and without the knowledge of one signatory.

If, on the other hand, Tao Li is asked to donate, of her own free will, 15 per cent then there is still this problem. Donation must come without duress. There must be no pressure exerted to give, otherwise it becomes extortion. There can be no angry rebuttals or an arbitrary amount stated (15 per cent).

Tao Li has the option to accept or reject the plea, if plea it is, for a donation. It appears, however, that the SSA and some others see it as a command.

If it is a command, from where does the command draw its legal authority? And, in continuity, on what legal basis does the name-calling 'greedy' and 'insincere' draw its strength? The sine qua non in such instances is the legal principle on what was agreed and only on this must we decide equity and its justification.

Dudley Au

~ST Forum, 01 Feb 08

BillyBong SG

This topic wasn't exactly discussed at length in the previous thread, which was incorrectly labelled as 'PRC talent, bane or...' or something along that line.

I think the whole issue should be centered around our NSA's moneycentric approach to the matter - bottomline talks. In the end, money is what makes our singaporean mares (NSA chiefs) in their comfort seats go.

Dudley Au raised a very significant point - one of contract and legal binding. Ronald Lee raised the other, which begs the issue of graciousness and nobility - it cannot be forced upon, but given voluntarily. Browbeating a young talent and attempting to use the state media to embarrass and humiliate is bullying tactics of the guttter.

If the SSA did not include such a 'taxation' clause in Tao Li's initial contract, then they have no case and Tao Li can reject the notion of 'taxation' altogether. In fact, should the SSA insist and introduce abitrary clauses to permit them to 'tax' a sporting talent, Tao Li can tear up the existing contract and declare it null and void, because such an amendment was done without her approval.

I'd recommend to her to give up singapore citizenship and go home to china. Our unethical govt and sporting bodies does not deserve talents like her. After all, the altrusic reason for raising our sporting achievements is simply to improve our international standing as a first world nation. If altrusism is the real reason behind this 'taxation', then our ministers should get off their high horse and reduce their mega-salaries before demanding peasants to accept outrageous 'taxations'.

Teo Chee Hean should lead the charge, seeing as how he has 'gallantly' backed the NSAs and the SSA on their 'taxation' stand.

phil30k SG

Those were very good points. I had assumed it was not part of the contract but was a practice and she was asking for clarification before she made up her mind whether to adhere to it.

Putting it another way, to me it's like your employer saying you worked hard and in accordance with their variable bonus calcuations they issued you 3 months bonus. But they now want you to give them back 1 month's worth of money because it'll help the company because they could give that money to others to motivate them to stay with the company and work harder. Then they publish in the company's newsletter your refusal, implying that you didn't give them the money because you didn't care for the company or for your fellow workers.

I hope Citizens will see through the politics and recognize that it's a dishonest practice.

dragon_stone SG

Stupid! The money is already in my pocket. Why should I give it back for a good or bad cause? The SSA should not be overly generous during the initial rewards and then retracting it.

This episode seemed to be a replay of a telcom saga where the compensation to be overly generous and asking the return of the extra money in futile. Even engagement of QCs were of no help. Remember both cases are, perhaps tax payers' money.

In the end, guess who are the losing parties???