Several important points are being overlooked in discussions about the protest staged by the Philippine men’s national boxing team last week at the 24th Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games) at Nakhon Rachasima, Thailand. The usual (and justified) comment is that the walkout was an unsportsmanlike act.
The Filipinos decided to make the dramatic move after being allegedly victimized by unfair and biased judging in the women’s division a day earlier. Team officials had expected the same scenario in the men’s division and decided to stage the walkout right in the first gold medal bout.
Only one male fighter, the veteran Larry Semillano decided to fight till the end and lost to fellow Thai veteran Manus Boonjumnong, 4-10. The five other Filipino pugs left the ring after one round or retired after one round, on instructions of Amateur Boxing Association of the Philippines (ABAP) top officials. The Thais subsequently won all 10 golds in the men’s division and six of seven in the women’s division.
Filipino flyweight Annie Albania stopped Thailand’s Kadeewong Hansa in the first round. For the first time, boxing failed to contribute gold medals which could have averted what is the Philippines worst performance in the overall standings since it joined the SEA Games in 1977. The Philippines captured 41 gold medals, two shy of tiny Singapore’s 43 gold medals to take sixth spot in the overall standings.
The Games, held in Nakhon Rachasima, as part of the year long commemoration of the 80th birth anniversary of Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej, proved to be a nightmare for the Philippines and Philippine sports. The debacle comes just two years after a spectacular performance in the 2005 23rd SEA Games that saw the Philippine contingent capturing 112 gold medals before hometown crowds.
One important point that has been missed is that a substantial portion of the funds used for training and for actual Philippine participation in the 24th SEA Games came from the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), a government agency.
Athletes and officials who received these public funds and used them to participate in the SEA Games, are therefore accountable for the manner by which the funds were used. Obviously, the provider of the funds, the government (which includes the Executive branch that executes programs, both Houses of Congress that appropriated the funds, and the Commission on Audit, among others), would like to know how the funds were utilized. Obviously too, the funds were given to the teams of the Philippines, a member of good standing in the international community to help them give a good account of themselves and build goodwill among our ASEAN brothers.
It is therefore surprising that the chairman of the PSC seems not to have been consulted when the decision to stage the protest was made basically by private persons. This simple government financial assistance by direct appropriation is the first level of government intervention in sports, as stated in the book “Government and Sport – The Public Policy Issues.”
The second level is the supervision and development of the sector by an agency like the PSC and instruments funded by the government. The third level is the diplomatic exploitation of sports in the external affairs of the government. In short, because of the influence of sport across all countries and all sectors in these countries, sport must be regarded as an integral part of a country’s foreign policy. A country makes a political statement when it participates in international activities and anything its representatives do reflect on the country and the efficacy of its sports diplomacy.
What makes the 24th SEA Games more imbued with diplomatic nuances is they were being held to honor its revered monarch, King Bhumibol who was born on Dec. 5, 1927. There would probably have been no issue if the boxing team that walked out represented the people who decided to stage the high profile protest since no diplomatic relations between countries were to be involved.
If these officials had no accountability for public funds, there would be no need to explain to the Filipino people and to those who have oversight responsibilities over Philippine sports, why an extreme measure was resorted to. It is clear there is a great need for our sports officials to: 1) be more conscious of their role as diplomats-sportsmen and 2) do a paradigm shift, no matter how difficult, by thinking of sport with a wider perspective and not just a game to be won.