Different competitive states

The opening of Sukma XXI at Sarawak Stadium on August 17. – Photo by Chimon Upon

It is common in democracies for former and current ministers of a portfolio to disagree with each other, to prove that they did or are doing a better job. Often these take the form of potshots at politicians that voters do not like, but substantive policy questions emerge from the jokes.

During one of these recent conversations, an important question was raised about responsibility for sport, which is relevant in the aftermath of the Olympic Games and the current Sukan Malaysia (Sukma).

Who is actually responsible for the development of sports in the country?

Is it the minister, 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 regional sports associations, each with chairmen and committees elected by the members of the respective associations?

Then there is the Olympic Council of Malaysia, whose objectives include “ensuring compliance with the Olympic Charter in Malaysia” and “taking measures to select, organise, supervise and, where necessary and required, train representatives of Malaysia at the Olympic, Asian, Commonwealth, South-East Asian Games and any other global or regional multi-sport competition.”

The short answer is that all three have a role. Each has a mandate 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 is how we have created champions before. But sometimes disagreements arise – even between national and state federations of the same sport, or between committee members and even coaches of a federation, and that can be extremely damaging.

Hardened egos – often fueled by misplaced optimism about your children’s abilities – cause training and development programs to be disrupted. This leads to jealousy, more deliberate disruption, and ultimately to lost time and missed opportunities to nurture a true talent for the international stage.

I have been the chairman of the Negeri Sembilan Squash Association (PSNS) for six years and until recently I was also a board member of the Squash Racquets Association of Malaysia (SRAM).

(The term ‘squash rackets’, as opposed to simply ‘squash’, is an archaic term still used in some associations around the world.)

I wouldn’t say I’ve seen it all, but I’ve seen a lot. There are countless ways that resources and access are manipulated (sometimes within the rules, sometimes not) to favor certain players or outcomes – and by the time people figure it out, it’s too late to do anything about it.

You simply have to try to sharpen the policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the many moving parts in sport governance – from national government policy, rule changes from international sporting bodies to the increased use of technology in organising tournaments.

(A recent example concerns the introduction of computer generated random draws for competitions, even though the seeding is done manually. What was forgotten was that it is possible to keep generating draws until you have the desired configuration, which is very useful for a parent on the competition committee with a child competing!)

So, while responsibility for sport may be delegated 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 official can make a greater contribution. This is not necessarily a bad thing: often it means that a previously obscure sport or a neglected talent finally gets the attention they deserve, allowing a player (and their state and country) to shine.

The Sukma medal count is not yet complete as I write this as I fly to Kuching to support my squash contingent, but there is another inter-state ranking recently released by IDEAS. It is the Open Budget Index, which rates state governments on how transparent their budgets are.

Like Sukma, states are proud of their achievements. When they topped the list (along with Selangor), the Terengganu government proclaimed their unwavering commitment to integrity, transparency and good governance.

But unlike Sukma, not all states can participate in all sports. Because of their greater autonomy, Sabah and Sarawak have items in their budgets that the peninsular states do not.

It is right that the division of powers – including budgets – between federal and state governments is constantly being reviewed for the sake of better governance. Meanwhile, even if not all states are in the same place in terms of sports development or budget autonomy, there is undoubtedly still value in analysing how they are performing.

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