Blog

Bernd Stange: Penalty Hearthbreaking But Team Lack Backbone

SINGAPORE: Lions coach Bernd Stange had called Omani referee Ahmed Abu Bakar Said Al Kaf’s decision to award Malaysia a penalty in the 90th minute a “heart-breaker”.

In the post-match conference on Saturday night (Nov 29), Stange said: “From my view, it didn’t look like a penalty. I have to see the replay. It’s not my job to judge, it’s the referee’s.” He added that the players and him were “feeling empty” after the match.

Hafiz Sujad was adjudged to have fouled a Malaysian player in the box at the stroke of full-time, and Safiq Rahman converted the resultant penalty. Striker Indra Putra put the gloss on the victory when he slid home the third goal into an empty net after Singapore goalkeeper Hassan Sunny failed to rush back in time from a free-kick at the other end of the field.

Singapore striker Khairul Amri had earlier equalised, after Safee Sali put the Tigers ahead at the hour mark.

The coach said “injury time stopped our dreams” and “we are all disappointed”. “Tomorrow we will open the newspaper and only see 3-1,” he said.

Angry fans had thrown bottles on the pitch, in protest of the referee’s decision. The referees had to be escorted into the tunnel by riot police.

“We feel very, very sorry for our fantastic fans,” Stange said. “But it’s a young team, and we have a bright future ahead. Six to eight players can still play in next year’s SEA Games and we’re looking forward to it.”

That said, the coach admitted the team “lacked a little backbone” – something Singapore had two to three years ago, and these are areas the team have to improve on.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

November 30, 2014
Singapore Sports Hub Pitch Fiasco: The Untold Story

Michael Y.P. Ang is a Singaporean freelance journalist. He worked at the former Singapore Sports Council before covering local and international sports for Channel NewsAsia for several years. Like his Facebook page Michael Ang Sports for commentaries on sports issues that matter to Singaporeans.

COMMENT

By Michael Y.P. Ang

What’s happened in Singapore football, off the pitch, the past few days was more intriguing than even the most fiercely contested S-League match.

Few would have expected another football flip-flop, just days after last Saturday’s S-League announcement about the reversal of a recently introduced age-discriminatory policy.

But the TODAY newspaper, with its Nov 26 front-page headline “National Stadium to switch to artificial turf”, reported that SportsHub Pte Ltd (SHPL), the company managing the Singapore Sports Hub, was about to re-lay Singapore’s most famous football ground with an artificial turf.

The paper found itself making a U-turn 24 hours later (links to its original story have also been removed), carrying a correction in its Voices section to announce that its artificial-turf report was wrong, or at least premature.

Thanks to the hard work of stadium ground staff, the Kallang turf is less sandy now than during the Brazil-Japan match last month, but SHPL has yet to fully resolve the pitch problem. An artificial turf is among different options being considered and discussions are still ongoing, according to a spokesperson.

But the glaring issue remains, after years of planning and construction and billions thrown into the project, why and how has it come to this?

Three lingering issues

A Nov 27 Straits Times report shows that SHPL will bear the cost of providing an ideal pitch, but who will foot the bill for the $1.5 million spent on new lighting equipment for enhancing the quality of the problematic pitch?

Under the public-private partnership between the government and SHPL, Singaporean taxpayers are on the hook for the Sports Hub’s construction and operational costs. Would taxpayer money be required to fund the cost of rectifying a problem SHPL should have prevented in the first place?

Secondly, why was SHPL CEO Philippe Collin Delavaud’s subordinate, COO Oon Jin Teik, the one facing the media and making apologies last month? Isn’t it unfair to the former Singapore Olympic swimmer, who joined SHPL only a month before the stadium’s June reopening?

It would have been more appropriate for the Frenchman, who’s been at the helm since 2010, to be in the public eye during a crisis.

Thirdly, why was SHPL’s senior director of stadia Greg Gillin, the person overseeing the pitch installation, working on a major overseas project during the crucial final months of construction at the Sports Hub?

Within three months of joining SHPL in April 2013, Gillin was hired as a pitch consultant for the Indian Super League (ISL). The Australian soon became a frequent flyer to India, visiting ten sports centres, eight of which were eventually selected as ISL stadiums.

This year, from May to October alone, Gillin “made around 120 visits to the eight venues”to ensure that they met international standards.

To be fair, there’s nothing wrong with engaging in external work. But puzzlingly, Gillin was spending time away from Singapore when he himself had expected “teething problems” at the rebuilt National Stadium.

The ISL kicked off on Oct 12, and there’s been no pitch fiasco reported in India. Why was Gillin able to do so much and so well for eight stadiums overseas but not for the only stadium he is responsible for in his full-time job?

The Straits Times reported on Oct 14 that “The Sports Hub have flown in overseas consultants such as Alex Garbea, who was responsible for … the best field at the recent World Cup in Brazil”.

Is it logical that the Sports Hub’s own pitch chief was consulting overseas while the Sports Hub was forced to hire foreign consultants to find solutions to its own pitch problem?

Such a fiasco would have been unlikely had Sport Singapore been chosen to manage the National Stadium. After all, it has an outstanding record of running Singapore’s largest sporting arena for 37 consecutive years.

Ultimately, the question should be: “Is a public-private partnership like the one at the Sports Hub the best way to build and operate a cluster of highly important, public sports facilities?”.

We should find an answer quickly, because like it or not, we’re stuck with the arrangement for the next quarter-century.

Source: https://sg.sports.yahoo.com

November 29, 2014
Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council Found Guilty Of Holding Festive Trade Fair Without Permit

The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), run by the opposition Workers’ Party, was on Friday (Nov 28) found guilty of holding a festive trade fair, without permit, earlier this year.

At the heart of the case, is whether the town council, flouted Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act, by holding a Chinese New Year fair, without a permit. The National Environment Agency, prosecuting the case, said it did.

The town council, represented by lawyer Peter Low, challenged the charge. Among the defence was the argument that the event was simply a “mini-fair” which does not require a permit. It also took issue with the need to get a letter of support to organise the fair, from the area’s Citizens’ Consultative Committee, which is chaired by a People’s Action Party grassroots leader.

The judge ruled on Friday that since Section 35 of the Act created a strict liability offence, this means prosecution does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that AHPETC deliberately did not intend to obtain a permit to hold its fair.

As for the defence’s argument that AHPETC can hold events without a permit in common areas that it manages, the judge said it seems the town council’s objection was related to the suitability of the application form and not the fact that a permit was required. He said the court is not an appropriate forum to examine conditions tied to the permit application form.

Commenting on the decision, AHPETC Vice Chairman Pritam Singh said: “We’re disappointed with the verdict. We will take advice from our lawyers as to the next course of action going forward. We won’t rule anything out.”

He added that no town council funds were used with respect to this case, saying: “The MPs are contributing to the lawyers’ fees.”

The court was adjourned until Dec 24 for mitigation and sentencing.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

November 29, 2014
Childcare Teacher Sentenced To 3-Weeks Jail

The childcare centre teacher who was filmed grabbing a two-year-old boy then dropping him onto the floor last July was jailed three weeks on Thursday (Nov 27).

Siti Hadijah Mohamed Sin, 52, who was a teacher with My First Skool childcare centre, at Block 192, Toa Payoh Lorong 4, had heaved the boy backward onto the floor twice, causing him to suffer a fractured leg.

About 20 of her family members turned up in court and gave her a teary send-off.

Source: www.tnp.sg

November 29, 2014
Little India Riot Instigator Gets 3-Strokes Of The Cane

A man who was involved in the Little India riot on Dec 8 last year was sentenced to receive three strokes of the cane on Friday (Nov 28), to add to a 25-month prison sentence he had earlier received.

Indian national Samiyappan Sellathurai was previously sentenced to 25 months imprisonment on Aug 14 for his involvement in the riot.

But Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo told the High Court before Justice Chan Seng Onn that Samiyappan’s imprisonment term was “manifestly inadequate”, given that the 42-year-old had not only participated in the riot, but had also instigated the crowd.

“The respondent instigated others to help him remove a concrete slab that was used to pave the ground. The Respondent had tried to do so on his own but failed, as the slab was heavy and stuck to the ground. After the crowd joined in — in response to the respondent’s instigation — the concrete slab was dislodged.

“During the time frame between 10.09pm and 10.19pm, the respondent threw a total of eight pieces of concrete in the direction of the public vehicles and public servants. The crowd, which prior to this was non-violent, followed the respondent’s lead and started to dislodge other concrete slabs, break them and used them as projectiles.

“The respondent then continued his streak of creating chaos and unrest by inciting others to help carry a small metal rack and ram it against a side wall of the Little India MRT station,” DPP Sellakumaran told the court while showing a video of CCTV footage taken at the time of the riot.

A total of 25 individuals have been charged in court since for their respective roles and involvement in the riot in Little India.

Before meting out the sentence on the grounds that Samiyappan had instigated the crowds and also vandalised public property, Justice Chan said that Samiyappan was “considered lucky” that the prosecution had not appealed for a longer prison term.

“Viewing the video, it is clear that the respondent was the ringleader and instigated the crowd. In this case of rioting, vandalism was involved. Not only vandalism but destruction of government property,” Justice Chan said.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

November 28, 2014