<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Canada? NZ is a better example
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Cheong Wing Lee's letter last Saturday, 'Let's learn from Canada', which criticised Singaporeans who, he claims, sarcastically commented on our Olympic paddlers winning the silver medal.
Mr Cheong compared the arguments put forth by opponents of our foreign sports talent scheme to those used by the former white South African government and the Ku Klux Klan to justify apartheid or so-called white supremacy.
Those two organisations' policies or views are racist in nature.
But those who disagree with the scheme are not racist. They include Singaporeans of different races who prefer native-born Singaporeans, of any race, to foreign-born athletes donning national colours. Race is not the issue here.
Nor is the issue of foreign-born citizens taking up political office or working in Singapore. Six of the seven Canadian examples Mr Cheong listed for Singaporeans to learn from have no relevance in this debate.
The current debate is on the use of naturalised citizens to represent Singapore in international competitive sports.
Mr Cheong's mention of Carol Huynh, the first Canadian to win gold in Beijing, is puzzling. Huynh is not a foreign import. She was born in Canada.
Instead of Canada, let us learn from New Zealand. There are only 4.2 million Kiwis, yet they produced three Olympic champions in Beijing and won six other medals. Other accomplishments include winning the inaugural rugby World Cup in 1987, qualifying for soccer's 1982 World Cup finals, and reaching the Wimbledon men's singles final in 1983.
The Kiwis did it without systematic recruitment of foreign athletes.
We could do likewise. In fact, we have already produced world champions - in bowling - without the foreign sports talent scheme. That should mean we can hit targets in other sports using homegrown talent.
While the scheme may do well in promoting sports excellence among Singaporeans, we should not rely on it to win honours.
I hope there is at least one child in Singapore who has been inspired by our Beijing success, and eventually taps his or her talent to win international sporting glory for Singapore.
Michael Ang
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Mr Cheong Wing Lee's letter last Saturday, 'Let's learn from Canada', which criticised Singaporeans who, he claims, sarcastically commented on our Olympic paddlers winning the silver medal.
Mr Cheong compared the arguments put forth by opponents of our foreign sports talent scheme to those used by the former white South African government and the Ku Klux Klan to justify apartheid or so-called white supremacy.
Those two organisations' policies or views are racist in nature.
But those who disagree with the scheme are not racist. They include Singaporeans of different races who prefer native-born Singaporeans, of any race, to foreign-born athletes donning national colours. Race is not the issue here.
Nor is the issue of foreign-born citizens taking up political office or working in Singapore. Six of the seven Canadian examples Mr Cheong listed for Singaporeans to learn from have no relevance in this debate.
The current debate is on the use of naturalised citizens to represent Singapore in international competitive sports.
Mr Cheong's mention of Carol Huynh, the first Canadian to win gold in Beijing, is puzzling. Huynh is not a foreign import. She was born in Canada.
Instead of Canada, let us learn from New Zealand. There are only 4.2 million Kiwis, yet they produced three Olympic champions in Beijing and won six other medals. Other accomplishments include winning the inaugural rugby World Cup in 1987, qualifying for soccer's 1982 World Cup finals, and reaching the Wimbledon men's singles final in 1983.
The Kiwis did it without systematic recruitment of foreign athletes.
We could do likewise. In fact, we have already produced world champions - in bowling - without the foreign sports talent scheme. That should mean we can hit targets in other sports using homegrown talent.
While the scheme may do well in promoting sports excellence among Singaporeans, we should not rely on it to win honours.
I hope there is at least one child in Singapore who has been inspired by our Beijing success, and eventually taps his or her talent to win international sporting glory for Singapore.
Michael Ang
