Table of ContentsIntroductionLimitation - Small Population BaseSingapore - A Country Based on MeritocracyOur CounterargumentIntroductionSingapore was a regional and international power in the field of sport and more particularly badminton in the 1950s and 1960s. The winners of the Thomas Cup and the All-England were born in China and even Singapore's only gold medal at the Commonwealth Games and the only medal of The silver at the Olympic Games was won by athletes of Chinese origin Chua Phung Kim and Tan Howe Liang respectively. Singapore's promotion of sportsmen of the 1960s who enjoyed many sporting successes initially originated in countries such as India, Malaysia, Britain and others. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay But since those halcyon days, Singapore has evolved to establish its own identity. Nowadays, even with the influx of foreign-born people acquiring Singapore citizenship, only those who were born and raised in Singapore are seen as true Singaporeans. Recently, there has been a lot of hype about Singapore's success in sports. . Li Jiawei, Jing Junhong, Li Li and Ronald Susilo, all foreign talents recruited to play under the Crescent and Stars flag, are among those who have raised the bar for Singapore sports. These successes also sparked a national debate over the recruitment of foreign talent and Singapore's reliance on foreign talent for sporting success. And it is true that different strata of Singapore's sporting fraternity have come up with justifications for inculcating foreigners in the Singapore team, but Singaporeans remain divided on this issue. The most heard justification is that sporting talent from around the world is courted, transferred and nurtured across the country. Borders and the introduction of foreign talent into sport is a global phenomenon practiced by many countries. These countries are actually very supportive of the idea of ​​foreign players representing their country in sports and even rejoice in their victories with great passion and intimacy. It is even believed that such movements are inevitable in the sporting field. Many therefore believe that it is justified for Singapore to also support and accept such ideas. To support this assertion, it is usually cited that half of the 1998 French football team was made up of immigrants and former Chinese champions wearing the national colors of European countries in table tennis. The assertion that the majority of players who won France's 1998 World Cup were not French by birth should be taken with a grain of salt. The undisclosed fact is that among the majority of non-French born players, the majority of them have lived their entire lives in France or French colonies. These players were actually trained and nurtured by the country for many years before they were able to represent the country and were not just bought or brought in to represent the country. Another argument that surfaces is that Singapore has always drawn on foreign talent in other areas to boost its economic competitiveness and therefore sport is just a logical extension of what is already happening in other areas . Even Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan was quoted as saying that Team Singapore needed to be flexible and innovative to become a sporting powerhouse in Asia and compared the situation to that of Singapore Inc, which hasdone for the economy thanks to foreign talents. But should Singapore take the plunge? in the train of recruiting foreign talents to win honors at international sporting events? In general, sports and economics are far apart in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans. In Singapore, sport is equated with national pride and national identity. It would therefore take a massive paradigm shift to see a goal scored by Egmar Goncalves; a Brazilian turned Singaporean and a French banker striking a deal for DBS. The image of Fandi Ahmad or Ang PengSiong delivering the goods is felt with more pride and intensity. Therefore, the analogy of comparing sports to economics and the induction of foreign talent as an extension of existing foreign talent induction policies does not necessarily justify foreigners playing for the Singapore team . Limitation – small population base Another major rejoinder from major sports agencies is directly related to the size of Singapore’s population. It is often argued that Singapore's small population and limited talent pool lack the depth and diversity to give rise to global leaders like China, the United States and even Malaysia. Therefore, to overcome this problem, Singapore must bring in foreign talent to expand its sporting talent pool. Minister Lee Kuan Yew's words that foreign talent is the "key to Singapore's future" as Singapore's small population cannot produce enough talent are widely used as an obvious shield. A team that plays to its strengths is a major factor in any successful sport. team. Shouldn't this translate into the sporting success of a nation? Denmark and Sweden are relatively small and sparsely populated countries, but they have achieved remarkable results in badminton and table tennis respectively. Singapore should therefore take a narrower approach and focus on the relative strength of its population and concentrate on sports like swimming, athletics, bowling and football rather than attempting to succeed in many sporting disciplines by acquiring foreign talents. How many would have forgotten the exploits of Denmark; a country with a small population, during Euro 1992? It has always been emphasized that foreign talent brings with them skills and experience that our local players lack and can learn from, thereby creating a more competitive and dynamic sporting environment in Singapore. Even the recruitment of coaches and technical directors in the respective sport is justified to add invaluable quality to the sports scene. It is agreed that these foreign talents help raise the quality of local sports, but our argument is that these foreign talents should be recruited. as training partners to play or train with the locals rather than representing the nation. This will contribute to local and youth development. A good example is that of Singapore's Tan Paey Fern, the only Singapore-born table tennis player who managed to win two bronze medals thanks to "her regular training and practice sessions with her Chinese-born teammates ". Another source of concern regarding these benefits. of foreign talent is the phenomenon which seems correlated to the influx of foreign imports which is the premature death of the sporting career of local athletes; with the usual excuse of other commitments, studies and waning interest given for these retirements. Tay Paey Fern, Fatimah Kumin-Lim and Patrick Lau are just a few names that come to mind on thisquestion. The sad truth behind these “cover-up excuses” is that local athletes are losing faith in the system. and are ousted from the sports system. These local sporting heroes have struggled their whole lives to reach the pinnacle of local sporting excellence in their respective fields and are then pushed effortlessly by foreign challengers. In this world of the fittest to survive, it makes sense to play someone good and cheaply recruited more often, but there is certainly no golden rule against not protecting born and bred athletes. locally raised who have served this nation with pride and selflessness over the years. Like our table tennis team, if half or three-quarters of the national team were to be "sardine-filled" with imports, it would realistically dash the dreams of many budding local talents of representing their birthplace . This vicious cycle could further encourage parents to discourage their children from playing sports and would ultimately lead to a mass death of local sporting talent. Even the idea of ​​recruiting foreign talent for coaching and technical roles does not necessarily equate to success. Even though Douglas Moore and Ron Hoppe did a great job as coaches of the football and bowling team, everything Jan Poulsen and Ken Worden did for the football team was contrary to the term "athletic success ". In hindsight, technical expertise hired on a consultative basis and systems put in place for local coaches and technical directors to leverage that expertise would better serve the nation's interests. Singapore - A country based on meritocracy A section of society believes that Singapore has no passion or special abilities in sports, unlike mid-sized countries like Australia and Malaysia. Singapore being a country based on meritocracy, education and career are considered more important for Singaporeans. As a result, Singaporeans devote most of their time and energy to getting a good degree and earning a living, with little time for sports, except perhaps watching it. Often parents are skeptical about their children's participation in sports activities because they see no future in them. The current trend of putting sport on the back burner in Singapore is changing, albeit slowly. Singapore has evolved from a third world country to a first world country and with this wealth, comes the need for self-realization and potential fulfillment. Recent trends suggest that young Singaporeans are ready to abandon their studies to dive headfirst into the ocean of sports to realize how far they can go. This paradigm shift negates the claim that Singaporeans are turning away from sports. The new Singapore Sports School is an exemplary model to demonstrate the changing values, attitudes and priorities in the lives of Singaporeans. Singapore's strong financial strength is another positive factor that has been cited for recruiting foreign talent. The rich government coffers that provide sports agencies with start-up funds therefore strengthen their ability to attract foreign talent to represent Singapore. As most of these foreign talents are relatively poorly paid in their home countries, sports officials say it is an interesting alternative for training champions. It is conceivable that these foreign talents are paid relatively less, but the bigger picture reveals that these foreign talents are not cheap either. It is not really fair and justifiable to spend taxpayers' money..