The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 05:05 PM PDT

JULY 19 —Over the weekend, both Brazil and Argentina crashed out of the Copa America quarter-finals after respective penalty shoot-out defeats against Paraguay and Uruguay, while Japan's ladies beat the United States on penalties to win the women's World Cup.

I have a problem with that; three of the most important games to be played anywhere in the world over the last few months have been decided by a method that is completely isolated from the preceding 120 minutes of action and bears little resemblance to anything else that happens on a football field.

In all three matches, the better team lost. The US women created the vast majority of chances against Japan and twice led before being pegged back; Brazil were the only team interested in winning their match and did everything but score but Paraguay somehow held out for an undeserved stalemate; and likewise Argentina were by far the more progressive side in their meeting with Uruguay, but a goal from a set-piece allowed the underdogs to snatch a 1-1 draw.

I can think of no other sport that has such an unsatisfactory method of deciding a winner than football's penalty shoot-out. Most sports don't need such a tie-breaker, of course; it's normally self-evident from the scoring system which competitor or team is faster, or stronger, or has scored the most number of points and therefore deserves to be the winner.

And there's the key phrase: "deserves to be the winner." Sport should, and nearly always does, contain a strong inherent element of natural justice. Luck, refereeing decisions, weather, tactics and so on all have their part to play, but as a general rule the honour of victory is bestowed upon the team or individual that deserves it.

"May the best man win" is one of sport's oldest truisms, reflecting our desire to see sporting events decided in a just manner. In sport, as in life, our natural inclination towards meritocracy means that we're prepared to accept disparities of wealth or success if we feel they are deserved.

If our neighbour has a big house, a nice car and a well-paid job and we know they are hard working, honest and talented, we can accept it. But if they earn their fortune through drug dealing, to choose an exaggerated example, it's much harder to take. In any walk of life, we want success to be deserved and we feel a sense of injustice when it isn't.

And when it comes to football's penalty shoot-outs, being the best team becomes absolutely irrelevant. In a game of chance from 12 yards, both teams have a more or less equal chance of winning — no matter how inferior one of them may have been over the course of the previous two hours of play.

In fact, the mentally-deflating effect — suffered by Argentina, Brazil and the United States this weekend — of being unable to turn clear superiority into victory may well mean that the better team actually has less chance of winning a penalty shoot-out than the worse team, who can conversely benefit from the psychological advantage of having achieved their objective by avoiding outright defeat.

Another problem with the penalty shoot-out is that it doesn't only provide an arbitrary, unjust system for deciding matches; its influence is also extended to normal time, when it encourages inferior teams to play negatively in the hope that their defence can hold out for penalties, where their chances of winning suddenly improve to at least 50 per cent.

If the penalty shoot-out wasn't an option, inferior teams would be forced to adopt a more positive attitude and at least attempt to win the game rather than focussing all their efforts on not losing.

On Sunday night in La Plata, for example, Paraguay showed no inclination whatsoever to attack, leaving Brazil to make all the running. It spoiled the game as a spectacle because only one team was trying to win, but Paraguay rode their luck, hung on for a goalless draw and took advantage of some freakishly poor penalty kicks by Brazil to steal a place in the semi-finals. Where's the justice in that? None, and it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

So what's the alternative? I don't have any specific suggestions in mind, but any number of possibilities would be far better, I feel, than a penalty shoot-out.

If scores are level after 120 minutes, for example, why not award victory to the team that had more shots on target or corners during the course of the match? Or the team that enjoyed the statistical territorial advantage? Or, if you want to be more imaginative, give both teams five minutes to score as many goals as they can in a four vs four, attack vs defence, format? Please... just anything more closely related to real football than the luck-driven penalty shoot-out.

It won't happen, of course, because contemporary professional sport is largely run by television, and television networks like penalty shoot-outs because they provide drama and a touch of melodramatic human tragedy. But wouldn't football be a more just, fairer, and simply a better sport if penalty shoot-outs didn't exist?

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Full Feed Generated by Get Full RSS, sponsored by USA Best Price.

Advice to the PM

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 04:58 PM PDT

JULY 19 — Dear Datuk Seri Najib Razak,

After your mishandling of the Bersih demonstration, I thought it only right that I offer you some advice. Of course, I am nothing more than just a citizen — one who lives abroad, to boot. Still, hopefully you'll find my advice useful.

First of all, did any of your many advisers try to stop you from unleashing tear gas on those demonstrators? No? Well, my advice to you would be to sack the whole lot of them. You see Datuk Seri Najib, there's one thing many people in Malaysia just don't seem able to understand (especially those in government!): demonstrations, in themselves, won't tarnish the reputation of a country.

No, it's how the authorities respond to demonstrations that could hurt a country's image.

How would I know? Easy. I've seen many a demonstration in Britain. People protesting against meddling in the countryside; people protesting against the war in Iraq; people protesting against student fees. Yes, there was public disorder during some of these demonstrations and allegations of police brutality, but you know what, none of it tarnished Britain's reputation. Why? Because the authorities here are accountable for their actions, and the police would be, and have been, called to account if there was even a whiff of impropriety.

Contrast this with the reputation of countries like Bahrain and Syria. Meeting demonstrators with violence is a recipe for disaster, and both countries have rightfully been condemned for the way they treat their own citizens.

And so, back to our own country. You claim that demonstrations are not part of our culture. Actually, whether demonstrations are our culture or not doesn't really matter, does it? What matters is the fact that there are Malaysians who are unhappy enough about the state of things to partake in a rally. Whether it was 6,000 or 50,000 is also a moot point — forgive me for stating the obvious, but isn't it your job to serve all Malaysians, whether you agree with their views or not?

In any case, if you really want those foreign companies to invest in our country, threatening your own citizens is not the way to entice them in. Far better to show that we are a country that's mature enough to embrace a whole host of diverse views, and that you yourself lead a government that is open to dialogue and discussion.

In fact, that was what you should have done from the outset. Great statesmen don't send in the FRU against demonstrators. Great statesmen listen to what people have to say, and are courageous enough to lead against popular opinion. A majority of Malaysians were against the demonstrators? So what? The acid test for a democracy is how it treats its minority: that minority isn't just those who are of a different race or religion, but also those who hold a different view from the majority. On that basis, unfortunately, if anyone was grading our country, we'd have failed miserably.

After all, what was the harm in starting a dialogue with Bersih? Their demands don't seem that outlandish to me. In fact, those demands would form the cornerstone of any electoral rule for a mature democracy. If the government still disagrees with Bersih's stand after discussions, then fine, come out and explain why. We're all adults, aren't we?

Following the demonstration, there have been plenty of accusations that Bersih is partisan. Again I ask: so what? What does it matter if an NGO is supported by the opposition? If what is being fought for is for the good of all Malaysians, then what does it matter whether that particular cause is supported by the opposition or not?

The Malays have a saying: buang yang keruh, ambil yang jernih. Not everyone who disagrees with the government is out to destabilise the country; some of us genuinely want to better ourselves and our country. In Britain the political parties are not above copying each other's ideas (and anyone else's, for that matter) if they think the ideas are good; in Malaysia unfortunately we seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that anything that doesn't emanate from the government must be bad. In this, the path towards mediocrity and stagnation lies: how can we innovate and move forward if we don't question ourselves and embrace change where it is needed?

Holding a proper, independent inquiry would also help. I note that the Health Ministry will be investigating allegations that tear gas and water cannons were fired into Tung Shin Hospital. Well, that's a step in the right direction, but even better would be an inquiry led by an independent body, not a governmental one.

As you were only just recently in the UK, you can do no worse than to see how the UK handles such things (not perfectly, but still better than Malaysia). If you read the news, you might even have noticed that Rupert Murdoch will be facing a UK House of Commons Culture Committee to answer questions on the phone-hacking scandal. The Commons Committee, in case you weren't aware, is made up of MPs from different political parties. Why not, as a first step to restore your credibility, establish a similar parliamentary body to investigate the Tung Shin allegations?

Alternatively, you could emulate David Cameron and establish a public inquiry into what went wrong. Did the police act without provocation, as some allege? Or did protestors instigate the violence, as others allege? Were people prevented from reaching medical help? Were the tear gas and water cannons necessary, or were there other things that could have been done to disperse people peacefully? Was it lawful to declare the demonstration unlawful, given that our constitution gives us the right to "assemble peaceably"?

These are all important questions that need answering. In the UK the judge leading the phone-hacking inquiry has the power to summon media owners, editors and politicians to give evidence under oath. Believe me, the reputation of our country would be enhanced, not tarnished, if we had a similar inquiry.

Finally, I would end my advice by quoting another Malay saying: Berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah. My advice would probably be highly unpopular in many quarters, and there will be those who say to do these things would be to invite questions on "sensitive" matters. I say, a true leader is one who convinces people to go along with him, even when many don't agree. So, forget the past and think about the future. Malaysians of today are not the same as Malaysians of 1969. Transparency, accountability and openness are things to be embraced, not feared.

Well, as I said, I'm only a citizen. Doubtless you will have plenty of advice, Datuk Najib. I only hope some of mine is of use to you, for the sake of our country.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Full Feed Generated by Get Full RSS, sponsored by USA Best Price.

Kredit: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

Selasa, 19 Julai 2011

The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion

The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan