Different states of competition

IT is common in democracies that past and present ministers of a portfolio disagree with one another, to prove that they did or are doing a better job. Often these take the form of potshots that do not endear voters to politicians, but substantive questions of policy emerge from the banter.

Amidst one such current exchange, one important question has been raised about responsibility over sport, pertinent in the aftermath of the Olympic Games and the ongoing Sukan Malaysia (Sukma).

In essence, who is responsible for the development of sports in the country?

Is it the minister, who is an elected Member of Parliament appointed to the cabinet by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of a democratically legitimate Prime Minister?

Or is it the national and state associations of each sport, each with presidents and committees elected by members of the said associations?

Then there is the Olympic Council of Malaysia whose objectives include “to ensure the observance of the Olympic Charter in Malaysia” and “to take such action to select, organise, control and where required and necessary, train representatives of Malaysia at the Olympic, Asian, Commonwealth, SEA Games and any other world or regional multi-sports competition.”

The short answer is that all three have a role. Each has their mandates from different sources of legitimacy, and each with different perspectives, resources and areas of expertise.

I have seen wonderful things when interests and visions align. That’s how we’ve created champions before. But sometimes, disagreements happen – even between national and state associations of the same sport, or between committee members and even coaches of an association, and that can be tremendously damaging.

Hardened egos – often augmented by misplaced optimism in one’s children’s abilities – mean that training and development programmes get interrupted, spawning jealousy, more deliberate disruption, and ultimately lost time and missed opportunities to nurture a real talent for the international stage.

I have been President of the Negeri Sembilan Squash Association (PSNS) for six years, and until recently also served as a committee member of the Squash Racquets Association of Malaysia (SRAM).

(The term ‘squash racquets’ as opposed to simply ‘squash’ is an archaic term that has survived in some associations around the world.)

I wouldn’t say that I have seen it all, but I have seen a lot. There are umpteen different ways in which resources and access are manipulated (sometimes within the rules, sometimes not) in order to favour certain players or outcomes – and by the time people find out, it’s too late to do anything about it.

You just have to try and tighten policies to catch up with the opportunities that arise with the many moving parts in sports administration – from national government policy, rule changes from international sporting bodies, to the increased use of technology in organising tournaments.

(One recent example relates to the adoption of computer-generated randomised draws for competitions, even though seeding is done manually. What was forgotten was that it is possible to keep generating the draws until you got the configuration you wanted, which is very handy for a parent on the competition committee with a child competing!)

Thus, even though the responsibility of sport might be devolved to different bodies, the reality is that much depends on individuals and the personalities and resources they bring to the table. Regardless of their official position, a particularly influential or wealthy officeholder is able to make a bigger contribution. This is not necessarily a bad thing: often times, this means that a hitherto obscure sport or a neglected talent finally gets the attention they deserve, enabling a player (and their state and country) to shine.

The Sukma medal tally hasn’t been finalised as I write while flying to Kuching to support my squash contingent, but there is another ranking between states that was recently released by IDEAS. It is the Open Budget Index, which assesses state governments on how transparent their budgets are.

Like Sukma, states are proud of their achievements. Upon topping the table (jointly with Selangor), the Terengganu government proclaimed their unwavering commitment to integrity, transparency and good governance.

But unlike Sukma, not all states are able to participate in all sports. By virtue of their greater autonomy, Sabah and Sarawak have items in their budget that the peninsular states do not.

It is right that the distribution of powers – including budgets – between federal and state governments be continuously reviewed for the sake of better governance. In the meantime, even though not all states are in the same place with regards to sports development or budget autonomy, there is undoubtedly still a value in analysing how they are performing.

* Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin is President of the Squash Association of Negeri Sembilan (PSNS) and Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS)