Tag Archives: Oon Jin Teik

Resignations at SingaporeSailing are part and parcel of leadership changes

The report:

This report appeared in today’s edition of The Straits Times. Similar reports appeared in The New Paper and Today.

Choppy Waters

(The Straits Times, 19 Oct 2010)

Two senior staff members quit sailing federation less than a month before Asian Games

By Lin Xinyi

WITH less than a month to the Asian Games, there are signs that the ride to Guangzhou is not going to be smooth for the Singapore Sailing Federation.

The national sports association yesterday confirmed that two senior staff members – executive director Edwin Low and head of high performance Mark Robinson – had tendered their resignation on Sept 24 and Oct 12, respectively.

However, they are expected to remain in their posts until after the Games in Guangzhou, where sailing is expected to deliver at least two gold medals.

Both men downplayed the significance of their departure and signalled a desire to move on.

According to a source, at least two more full-time staff members and a national coach are poised to leave – a claim denied by the association.

Parting will be hard for 54-year-old Low, who is also the secretary general.

He has been with SingaporeSailing since 2000, and was one of the pioneer staff at the National Sailing Centre.

‘After 10 years, it was definitely a tough decision to leave,’ he said. ‘I’ve had a good time. I suppose with a new management in place, it was a good time to step out before I got too deep in the system.’

Robinson, 36, joined as a technical manager in 2003. When asked if his decision to resign had anything to do with Low’s earlier resignation, Robinson said it was not a factor.

‘It’s just part of an ongoing evolution,’ he said. ‘I’m not sure it’s a dramatic event. I don’t think it’ll have any effect on the Asian Games.’

SingaporeSailing deputy president Dr Loh Kok Hua said that preparations for next month’s Guangzhou Games would not be disrupted.

‘This is a tremendous loss because of their sterling service to SingaporeSailing,’ said Dr Loh, who also chairs the search committee for suitable successors.

‘The most important thing now is to make sure that preparations continue and our sailors are well prepared.’

He expects the transition period to take up to six months but insisted that strategic plans will be carried out.

Low himself had taken over his current post from his predecessor Andrew Sanders in February.

In June, Dr Ben Tan took over the helm from outgoing president Low Teo Ping, who served for 12 years.

Dr Tan could not be reached for comment.

Teo Ping said he was numbed by the news but was quick to pay tribute to the two stalwarts.

Singapore’s chef de mission for the Asian Games said: ‘Knowing that Edwin and Mark are going to play pivotal roles in supporting the sailors, and hearing that they will leave only after the Asian Games, I’m relieved.’

With the Games beckoning, both Low and Robinson are eager to bow out on a high when they leave in April and January respectively.

 Said Low: ‘We’ve been working on the Asian Games project since 2006. We want to see this through and end on a good note.’

My thoughts:

To be honest,  I felt that the reports on Low and Robinson’s resinations in all the three main English papers ie The Straits Times, The New Paper and Today sounded a little alarmist.

Let’s give these two men a little more credit, hey? Yes, they have tendered their resignations, and yes, it is a pity to see them go, particularly Low who is a good bloke and whose ‘uncle-ly’ presence, I am sure, will be missed by the sailors.

But Robinson and Low  are only leaving in January and April, which means they will be around to see the Asian Games through before preparing the handing over process. So for the above report to say that “the ride to Guangzhou is not going to be smooth” is a bit of an extreme view.

Am I shocked by the resignations? Well, I was surprised when I read the reports today but then again, resignations are a common occurence in organisations whenever new leadership takes over at the helm.

For example, six top executives in the Singapore Sports Council subsequently resigned over a period of time after Oon Jin Teik took over as its chief executive in 2004. And now that Oon is leaving to join water management systems company Hyflux next year, it will be normal to expect some of his lieutenants to be quitting soon after his successor takes over.

Likewise, the senior management staff at the Singapore Athletics Association also stepped down soon after Loh Lin Kok announced that he would not be running for the presidency again.

As such, I felt it was a crude and cheap shot for a source to tell The New Paper that the resignations are not as amicable as they seem, that “there is discontent with the new management, wheher it’s because of their modus operandi or something else , I don’t know.”

What the resignations do suggest, however, is that former Singapore Sailing president Low Teo Ping and his successor Ben Tan probably have different leadership styles and that both men have different plans for the sport. And now Tan needs to find his own people to carry out his vision for the future of the sport.

Let’s see whether Tan’s own men can deliver the goods for Singapore sailing. Only after a period of time, when they have settled in, can we then be in a position to say whether the ride ahead for the sport is looking rough or smooth.

Yours in sport

Singapore Sports Fan

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

War of words between the Singapore Sports Council and the Singapore Athletic Association

The reports:

Of all the newspapers, I felt that The New Paper’s coverage of the current spat between the Singapore Sports Council and the Singapore Athletic Association was probably the best.

That’s why I am reproducing the paper’s interviews with SAA president Loh Lin Kok (18 Dec 2009) and SSC chief executive Oon Jin Teik (19 Dec 2009) here so that people can get a good overall idea of what the spat is about, and make up their minds about who is talking sense and who is not.

I’ve begun with Loh’s blast which came after Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishan and Senior  Parliamentary Secretary Teo Ser Luck’s criticisms of the SAA.

On Tuesday, during a Team Singapore gathering at the Singapore embassy in Vientiane, Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had said that the SAA needs to do an internal house cleaning.

“Without athletics firing on all cylinders, Singapore’s final performance in multi-sport events will always be hamstrung,” he said in one of the strongest rebukes of the SAA in recent years.

The following day, Teo Ser Luck, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development, Youth and Sports, fired another salvo at the SAA. Speaking after James Wong’s victory in the discus, he said he was disappointed that in the flagship sport of every multi-sport Games, Singapore are standing still.

“I can’t say we are a sporting nation until we sort things out in athletics,” he said pointedly.

“We have a strong swimming tradition which also has a renewal process. I need athletics to step up.”

Loh then blasted back. Here’s the report (The New Paper’s questions are in bold):

****************

THEY DECLARED WAR, NOT ME

(The New Paper, 18 Dec 2009)

Singapore Athletic Association president LOH LIN KOK breaks his silence in a no-holds-barred interview with ERNEST LUIS after the constant barrage of statements from Singapore’s sporting powers at the South-east Asia Games

ERNEST: Would you say this means war for Singapore athletics? Between the Singapore Sports Council (SSC), Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), and the Singapore Athletic Association?

LOH: Yes, they have declared war. Not me.

We had peace all these years, but it’s been like a mini-tsunami in the last few weeks.

But let me say this. I’m amicable. I’m open. For all the accusations that have been thrown our way, I’ve been open to engaging them. But they refused to engage me. I could have spoken up earlier but I didn’t.

Now, all hell is breaking loose. How hard is it to reach me? You just called me up like this, and I’m speaking to you. Why ostracise us to this extent?

Teo Ser Luck, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports & Ministry of Transport, said this in (yesterday’s) The Straits Times. That the ‘SSC is considering funding athletes and coaches directly’. What are the implications?

Of course, such a thing is possible. But this is a very serious statement that can boomerang in his face, do you know that?

All over the world, we’ve seen countries who have destroyed their sports because of such political moves. There is an established system. Does it suggest a secessionist group? A rival association? Do you know that if that happens, the IAAF (world ruling body of athletics) will really ostracise Singapore from all athletics events?

That won’t kill me. But Teo Ser Luck could go down in history as the man who single-handedly destroyed Singapore athletics? That’s a very explosive statement to make.

Two days ago, the SAA and the SSC announced a split over the organisation of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon. Standard Chartered will support the SSC’s own marathon, while SAA will be the sole rights holder to the Singapore Marathon. All this, coming at the same time as the claims about your association made at the SEA Games?

Well, isn’t the timing coincidental? It’s not rational in thinking.

Personally, I’m not keen on running my own marathon. I was open to them, but do they care?

As it stands, the world’s top runners will have to come to our event because that’s the way the system works. They have to go to the IAAF-sanctioned events around the world, and we are a sanctioned affiliate of the IAAF.

Their (SSC and Standard Chartered’s) marathon will become a People’s Fun Run. That’s what it means in the end. But it looks like it’s all part of a concerted effort against us.

Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said that ‘without athletics firing on all cylinders, Singapore will always be hamstrung in our final performance in multi-sport events’.

Teo also said that ‘if in every SEA Games we are winning only one or two golds when there are 45 on offer, then I think something needs to be done’ and he compared athletics to swimming.

I have a young team and we entered for 10 events. Do you expect me to enter them for every event? Also, there shouldn’t be a direct comparison.

That’s a sweeping statement. That’s because people know athletics is different from swimming. Each event is almost a specialist event, unlike in swimming where the strokes can be used in multiple events, to help each athlete win more than one medal.

From a sprinter, to a shot putter to a long jumper, these are all very different specialist events.

Teo also said in yesterday’s The Straits Times, he was disappointed that in the ‘flagship sport’ of every multi-sport Games, Singapore are ‘standing still’.

This has been an often-used phrase against us. But are we really at a standstill?

You guys in The New Paper yesterday analysed the times and distances that our youngsters did so far. That progress – despite the lack of medals from them – shows we have a young team, and we are not at a standstill.

What about the claims that the SAA has not really developed all the athletes, that the Sports School really should claim the credit for developing, for example, the jumpers like Stefan Tseng and Matthew Goh? But then, there’s the jumps coach Valeri Obidko from the Sports School on the SEA Games coaching team?

That’s why I keep saying there’s a system. A National Sports Association like ours will have affiliates. The Sports School has a tie-up with me. We share the costs. Half Obidko’s salary is paid by me, the other half by Sports School. We all work together for Singapore athletics. This is the system.

Even James Wong himself, after winning the first medal for Singapore athletics on Wednesday, said on national television: ‘Personally, it is sad to see that I have to make a comeback in the sport to make a contribution to the medal tally (for athletics). Your reaction?

That old guy should be a beacon of light for his younger team-mate Scott Wong.

Scott finished fourth with a personal best (44.95m) compared to Wong’s winning distance of 53.60m.

Today, I’m very proud of my 4x100m team which won the silver medal behind the Thais, despite all our known setbacks.

We did it all since April this year – the start of our financial year – without a single cent in funding from the SSC for preparing for this SEA Games.

We spent $140,000 since, from our reserves to help pay our staff, coaches, train athletes for this SEA Games.

How much reserves do you have?

That’s the magic question everyone’s asking right? They just want to see how long I can last like this.

I don’t know what I’ve done wrong. It’s like a mini-tsunami in the past few weeks.

Do you think it’s simply because it’s you who is in charge of Singapore athletics? Do you feel like a bad guy?

How can I be a bad guy? Is it fair?

Do it in a democratic way. We’ve been open. Assist us, but I see it’s all lip service. We try to engage them, but they don’t want to engage us.

Instead of promoting sports, they are treating us like lepers. I feel like this is not the Singapore Athletic Association. It’s more like the Singapore Leprosy Association and I don’t want to offend leprosy patients, but that’s how they (SSC and MCYS) are making us feel.

Your final words on this war on Singapore athletics?

What disorder are they claiming? Leadership? The association?

I’m more than amenable to discussion. But there’s the feeling they would like the public to know that I’m not open.

What I’m saying to them (SSC and MCYS), is this: You may have declared war on us. But I’ve not.

Tell us what we’ve done wrong. Engage us day and night till we satisfy you. Call me any time, any day after this.

I don’t want this SEA Games to be remembered by Singaporeans for the wrong reasons.

I’m not the party-pooper here. I didn’t start this.

*************

Following that blast, SSC Oon Jin Teik gave an interview to The New Paper to rebut all the points that Loh had made. His replies are in bold:

$12 MILLION of the people’s money spent and what did we get?

EMPTY PROMISES

(The New Paper, 19 Dec 2009)

In The New Paper yesterday, Singapore Athletic Association president Loh Lin Kok said Singapore’s sporting powers had declared war on him and his association. Today, Singapore Sports Council chief executive OON JIN TEIK tells ERNEST LUIS there is no war but…

ERNEST: Loh Lin Kok told The New Paper that the SSC and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) have declared war, not him. Your reaction?

OON: From our perspective, this is definitely not war.

We never used the word ‘war’. We simply want everyone to be good in sports. We can’t afford to go down this path. There’s nothing personal I can assure you, despite what he told The New Paper.

ERNEST: Loh said the idea of funding athletes and coaches directly implies a secessionist group or rival association which could see the IAAF (world ruling body for athletics) ostracising Singapore from all athletic events, and destroy Singapore athletics. What are your reasons for such a move when there is an established system for the National Sports Association (NSA)?

OON: We are not suggesting any of that at all. We recognised the NSA is a democratically elected group which has its own constitution and is a strategic partner of the SSC. Any issues would be perhaps to upgrade governance. Otherwise, it would be suicidal of SSC to even suggest setting up a rival association.

We ourselves know the boundaries. There is an NSA, then the Asian federation, and finally the world ruling body.

ERNEST: So why the direct funding of athletes and coaches for athletics in this case?

OON: As I said, these are taxpayers’ funds. There’s governance and return of investment, and we’re responsible for giving out such funds.

When funding through a third party like the NSA may not help achieve the objectives, we want to ensure the athletes and coaches receive their grants they need to better themselves.

So none of them get sidelined, while we sort out other administrative issues with the NSA, in this case, SAA.

How it works is that we issue a cheque direct to the athlete.

ERNEST: Loh said in yesterday’s The Straits Times that funding for next year’s Youth Olympic Games of $50,000 has also been withheld by the SSC. What do you have to say to affected athletes and their parents?

OON: Like the national athletes, athletes preparing for the Youth Olympic Games will not penalised. We will fund them directly in the same system until we sort out all those outstanding issues with SAA.

My message to all athletes is to keep their hopes high and concentrate on being better athletes. Don’t let the politics around you worry you.

We just want to get them to be the best in South-east Asia for a start, and that’s the reason why we’ve been doing this (temporary direct funding measure since November).

ERNEST: Loh said his Singapore Athletic Association (SAA) has spent $140,000 of its reserves since April this year to pay staff, coaches, train athletes, after the SSC withheld funding from it. He said SSC wants to see how long the SAA can last like this. Your answer to that?

OON: Let’s talk about the tangible here.

I have a set of figures and targets which the SAA gave us, since 2004. In return for all those key performance indicators and targets that they clearly listed out to us, we gave them $12m in funding.

This is taxpayers’ money. We have to be accountable for this too.

How can we keep spending taxpayers’ money like this when they have refused to engage us on addressing a 12-point plan (first presented in July) to improve the state of affairs in athletics?

ERNEST: But you do accept that in sports, there are no guarantees of medals because there is unpredictability. Do you think that what the SAA delivered in the end – since 2004 – is worth anything close to $12m?

OON: Not even close. And yes, that’s even when we know that there are no guarantees in winning sports medals.

But the signs of decline are clear from the lists we have shown you.

Since 2005, there have been questions over depth, qualifiers for finals, top-half finishers, and even the age group, to show these athletes have a longer span to aim for.

And this is only at the SEA Games, the lowest level of competition for us. We are doing this to ensure survival first, then work on success.

But we cannot throw water on the element that the SAA’s young team at this SEA Games has shown potential of being developed further. There must be progress, not talk.

ERNEST: Loh said he’s been open to engaging you. But you’ve refused to engage him all this while. He said to engage him day and night till he and his association satisfy you.

OON: Let me correct this perception that everything seems to have been done only in e-mail correspondence.

At the 2005 SEA Games, I was sitting next to Mr Loh and as we saw our own performance, compared to the rest of the countries, I said we need to sit down and have a talk. There was danger of decline.

Since then, I’ve always met him twice a year, face to face.

This year, I invited them to a meeting. I’ve even met with him and our SSC chairman Alex Chan, and Teo Ser Luck (Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports & Ministry of Transport).

We drew up a 12-point plan for the sport, and we followed up by e-mail to see how we could put up a plan. But Mr Loh turned around and said we never spoke about such things during our face-to-face meetings.

ERNEST: So what’s the next concrete step that the SSC, MCYS and SAA can take? Loh said to call him any time, any day, after this SEA Games.

OON: He keeps saying, and I keep reading, that there are no problems. So I think the breakthrough will only come if he recognises there is a problem. Then, we can start discussions to improve things all round for Singapore athletics.

I’m not here to go after Mr Loh. I’m willing to second my best staff there, to do whatever it takes to help SAA.

*************

Finally, here’s the list of targets that the SAA apparently presented to the SSC in 2004, which the SSC showed the paper during the interview. If it is all true, then it is very telling…

WHAT SAA PROMISED

The following are the targets set by SAA since 2004, which the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) revealed to The New Paper yesterday.  All this, in return for $12m of taxpayers’ funds from Singapore Sports Council since:

2004 OLYMPICS: A finalist.

2005 SEA GAMES: Five to seven gold medals.

2006 COMMONWEALTH GAMES: A medal or finalist.

2006 ASIAN GAMES: One to two gold medals.

2007 SEA GAMES: 10 to 13 gold medals.

2008 OLYMPICS: Medal or finalist.

2009 SEA GAMES: 10 to 15 gold medals.

WHAT SAA DELIVERED:

2003 SEA GAMES : 4 golds, 4 silvers, 1 bronze

2005 SEA GAMES: 3 golds, 1 silver, 4 bronzes

2007 SEA GAMES: 1 gold, 1 bronze

2009 SEA GAMES: 2 golds, 1 silver

***********

Yours in sport

Singapore Sports Fan

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A letter-writer defends the Singapore Athletic Association, and mocks its detractors

The report and the letter:

As we all know by now, the Singapore Athletic Association (SAA) has been hit by a petition signed by more than 100 members of the local athletics fraternity – athletes, coaches and parents – proclaiming their loss in confidence in the management of the national body and asking the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to step in to manage the NSA.

Alas, most of the signatories opted to be anonymous for fear of reprisals from the SAA should they reveal their identities, which more or less takes away quite a bite of the bite of the petition, I feel. 

Here’s one of the reports which was published in TODAY on 4 Sept:

***********

Turmoil at the Athletic Association

(TODAY, 4 Sept 2009)

 By Low Lin Fhoong

THE management of one of Singapore’s most storied national sports association (NSA) has come under fire from members of its own fraternity.

Today has learnt that a petition – expressing a loss of confidence in the current Singapore Athletic Association (SAA) management, which is led by president Loh Lin Kok – has garnered over 100 signatures from athletes, coaches and parents.

The confidential petition – a copy of which was obtained by Today – has been submitted to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS); Mr Teo Ser Luck, MCYS Senior Parliamentary Secretary; and Mr Oon Jin Teik, chief executive officer of the Singapore Sports Council (SSC). It called on the “MYCS to step in to manage SAA”.

Some of the misgivings revolved around preparations for the South-east Asian (SEA) Games in Laos in December.

In April, the SAA had instructed all its athletes that the final qualifying meet for the SEA Games would be the Singapore Open, scheduled on Aug 1-2. The association called it off a month prior to the meet, citing a lack of interest from overseas competitors.

Other reasons listed in the 24-page petition included the lack of planning for overseas competitions, lack of coaching and technical expertise, and unclear selection policies for major competitions.

When contacted by Today, Mr Loh, 62, poured scorn on the petition. “These are not serious people, and we cannot take the things they do seriously,” said Mr Loh, who led the association from 1982-2004, and then again from 2006 onwards.

“This is a case of one faction trying to create problems … They’re acting very irresponsibly, and to achieve their means, they’ve spread controversial things and put the association in a bad light. The association is a legitimate elected body, and of international repute,” he added.

The SSC was unable to reply to Today’s queries by press time.

Former SAA president Mr Tang Weng Fei, who headed the SAA from 2004-2006, has joined the group calling for change.  Mr Tang, who signed the petition, said: “Loh Lin Kok is a passionate man and I think he’s done a fair job with the Singapore Marathon and Allcomers Meet … but the area SAA’s not done well in is excellence.

“Maybe it’s his style (that people are unhappy with). It may have worked 30 years ago, but athletes are different now, and the kids are different. We need someone who thinks outside the box, and has passion for the athletes.”

Said one coach, who spoke on the condition of anonymity: “Things have not changed much since the 1980s, and there’s nothing exciting about track and field now … we need a new leader who is of a high calibre to lead the sport to greater heights.”

One national sprinter endorsed the petition after his experience in going abroad for a competition. “We were informed of travel arrangements only one to two days before flying off, and not given allowances for meals while overseas,” he claimed. “Things are very disorganised.”

In their petition, many of the signatories said they had done so “on the condition of anonymity from the SAA”. “This is in fear of possible SAA reprisals against them”, the signatories said. 

The SAA has had its fair share of controversies in the past year. Last December, they failed to submit budget plans to the SSC on time, which resulted in the witholding of government funding for the association. Ms Christina Tay, then the chief executive officer, resigned over the matter.

In February, the SAA axed 4x100m women’s relay coach Mr Loh Chan Pew, claiming he didn’t meet the NSA’s minimum coaching qualification standard. As a result, Ms Amanda Choo and Ms Ann Siao Mei, who were part of the unit Mr Loh had coached to a new national record in 2007, quit the team.

************

The letter:

Yesterday, the SAA found its first supporter. Pavan Jeev Singh wrote to The Straits Times which published the letter in its online forum section.

In his letter, he pointed the finger at local athletes instead, blaming them instead for Singapore’s lack of success in athletics in the past two decades. Athletes, he said, are not hungry for success, want everything handed to them on a golden platter, do not train hard enough, and when they fail, blame the association for their failures. Coaches, on the other hand, are never keen to upgrade themselves.

He also defended the SAA, saying that the national body has over the years, created numerous opportunities for the athletes to excel but the athletes have failed to seize these chances.

Finally, the writer aso mocked the signatories for choosing to stay anonymous (this was bound to come back and haunt them). How can they claim to be genuine if they can’t stand up and be counted?

Ouch.

Well, here’s the letter in all its glory. Given the depth of his knowledge, I wonder if the writer was a member of the SAA’s managenent committee in the  late 90s.

Now I await to see which member of the local athletics fraternity will write back to whack the SAA and dish out more dirt on the NSA.

************

Problem not with SAA but with athletes who lack drive

(The Straits Times, Online Forum, 9 Sept 2009)

I HAVE been following the controversy surrounding the Singapore Athletic Association (“Athletics body should take stock – and care for the fraternity”, yesterday; “Athletes petition ministry”, Sept 4).

I am told that all this started with an SMS urging for a motion of no-confidence in SAA president Loh Lin Kok.

This puzzles me. The SAA is governed by a Constitution which is supreme. The management committee is elected at an annual general meeting. Things cannot be based on the whims and fancies of petitioners. How can they wake up one morning and decide what is right and what is wrong?

If these petitioners are genuine, they should stand up and be counted and not hide behind the cloak of anonymity.

Mr Loh has been at the helm of the SAA for almost three decades. He is not only passionate but has also done lots for the association.

Mr Loh and veteran track and field official Maurice Nicholas have been raising money for the SAA since he became president of SAA in 1982.

To help develop athletes here, Mr Loh brought in the Asian Track and Field Championships in 1987 and the Asian Junior Track and Field Championships in 1988 and once again in 1999.

The SAA has sent athletes for numerous training stints overseas, including in the United States, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Japan.

Money was raised and spent on these athletes; they failed and subsequently blamed the SAA. They went on a holiday trip rather than a serious training trip.

Take football, for example. Then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in a speech in 1998 that if France could win the World Cup using foreign-born players, Singapore should also aim to qualify using foreign talent in the 2010 World Cup.

We did not qualify. So do we sack the management committee of the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) for this failure? Soccer has yet to win a South-east Asian Games gold medal.

Like the FAS, Mr Loh has created opportunities for athletes to excel but they have failed.

The problem lies with athletes in Singapore, not the SAA management. Athletes here are not hungry for success, but they want everything on a golden platter. They are not focused and they do not give their best in training, and subsequently do not perform and end up blaming the association.

Coaches have been offered courses to upgrade their skills, but these coaches challenge the integrity of the management committee.

Mr Loh has a good team but I must say there is some excess baggage in his committee. He should look into the non-performing members.

I doubt if a new team can do better than Mr Loh’s. It will either be the same or worse.

We can put in as much of money as we can, but if athletes are not hungry for success, you will not see the results.

Pavan Jeev Singh

***********

Yours in sport

Singapore Sports Fan

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,