Not too long ago, Malaysia’s Road To Gold committee made a preliminary announcement of athletes who would receive assistance from the committee, which included removing ‘roadblocks’ and facilitating their paths to securing Malaysia’s elusive Olympic gold.
Little was mentioned about what the assistance would look like, as talks between the committee and the athletes have yet to be concluded, or how much more of taxpayers’ money would be going into this programme.
It was, however, stressed that the athletes would continue their current training programmes, and that the role of the committee was to strengthen these programmes.
Those cheering and waving their arms like walruses would be well advised to keep at least one hand in their pocket, as efforts to prepare Malaysia’s gladiators are not cheap.
Based on last year’s allocation, the Cabinet approved a four-year budget of RM240 million to revive the Podium Programme, which works out to an average of RM60 million per year, approximately the cost of building two new secondary schools.
The allocation may sound excessive, but in an international competition where other nations are similarly pouring their state funds towards their Olympic heroes, our investment seems pocket-sized.
The United Kingdom outspends every other nation in the world on elite sports – with the exception of China, the United States, and possibly Russia. In the build-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the UK spent approximately £235 million (RM1.3 billion), which implies that the actual cost per Olympic gold back then was somewhere above £12 million (RM67 million).
Nevertheless, many will continue to look upon this programme with delight and hail the government for having spent abundantly on the road to gold.
But this is public money. We all agree that the athletes are talented, hard-working, and deserving of huge admiration, but is it right for taxpayers – many with little or no interest in elite sports – to fund athletes’ allowances, on top of the dedicated facilities, coaching, and science support already provided, without getting any returns, especially when they start racking up huge endorsement contracts?
Call me bitter and resentful, but the truth is, this spending exercise makes me feel troubled. Why does the success of our athletes in an ancient sporting competition continue to have such significant merit to our national self-esteem?
Shouldn’t we respond similarly to the success of our economists, medical experts, or even scientists? Why don’t we spend public funds towards producing Nobel Prize winners? Have we ever had one? No? And isn’t that something to anguish and worry about more?
This is very odd when you consider that the success of a scientist has far-reaching value when compared to, say a badminton player. When a Malaysian scientist wins the Nobel Prize, not only does he or she walk away with a gold medal, but he or she is also recognised worldwide to have presented the greatest benefit not just to the nation, but to humankind.
Public funds should go to public commodities.
And that is exactly why you now see Australia, which used to spend extravagantly on elite sports, now spending more on public sporting commodities, and driving public participation in sports.
That’s certainly a country that the committee can actually learn from.
This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Twentytwo13.
