Commentary on an article

I am commenting on this article.

Pub Date: 01/02/2007
Pub: ST
Page: 1
Day: Thursday
Edition: FIRST
Headline: Controversial penalty gives Lions win, sparks Thai walkout
By: PETER SIOW and NIRMAL GHOSH

Link of the article.

http://enewslink.asia1.com.sg/brsweb/read_10.brsw?this=result&QDT=1&QFLST=HD%3AHG%3APD&DB=ST%3ABT%4007-07&QSTR=%28%28Lions%29%29.HD.&DTSTR=%28%28PD+%3E=+20070101%29+and+%28PD+%3C=+20070211%29%29&PSZ=10&MAXL=200&SUMY=2&HLT=0&LSTN=0&ID=000005045@ST07

Summary of the article.

"After much persuasion, the Thai side returned, and Singapore’s Mustafic Fahrudin converted the spot-kick as the match clock read 97 minutes to put Singapore ahead, prompting wild cheers from the mostly partisan 55,000 fans packed into the National Stadium for the last game to be staged there."


In this article, it states that the referee gave Singapore a controversial penalty to allow Singapore to gain a score line of 2-1 in the first leg of the Asean Football Championship. Noh Alam Shah had fallen down in the penalty area, and the referee pointed to the spot which Singapore converted .At the 82nd minute, it seems that Niweat Siriwong, a Thai defender, pulled down Alam Shah’s shirt and caused him to fall down on his back. Immediately, the referee called for a penalty.

However, by using TV replays, it seems that Alam Shah was backing into Niweat Siriwong and he fell down on his own accord and not that Niweat Siriwiong was pulling him down. In short, it seems to the Thais, the referee had given a penalty to Singapore which should not have been given as the Thai defender had not fouled Alam Shah. Thus, the Thai players protested by surrounding the referee and walked off the pitch for 15 minutes.

Even though the Thai players returned to play the match, there are a whole lot of questions surrounding this walking-off. Should the Thai players have done so in the first place? Did they consider the implications that may arise from this walk-off? Should they have protested in such a manner? I shall attempt to answer them.

I do not agree that the Thai players should have walked off for a simple reason. It brings a bad image to the Thai players. It damages the reputation of Thai players, that they have no sportsmanship and could not take the referee’s decision in their stride. When they stepped into the pitch, they must realize that the referee’s decision would be final, that they have no right to protest over a decision that did not aid them in their cause for glory. It is as if a student boycotting the school, just because the school penalised him for breaking the rules. It is extremely childish and should not have occurred to footballers that have years of experience in the football world and deemed good enough to compete in a regional competition. They ought to have taken it in their stride and strove to capitalise on the second leg which would be held in their home stadium.

At this point in the competition, Singapore and Thailand’s diplomatic ties were strained due to the arrival of deposed Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who made a public interview here in Singapore about his opinions of Thailand while on a private visit. This strained the relations between Singapore and Thailand, to the point where Thailand cancelled Minister of foreign affairs, George Yeo’s visit to Thailand. At this point of time, the Thai players protested in such an obvious manner that the some Thai fans might use this chance to send a political message, to inspire the Thai people to hate Singapore, to protest against Singapore. It is because it might seem that Alam Shah dived in the penalty area to gain a penalty and since Thailand are known for being a football-crazed country, the protest of the Thai players might invoke the anger against Singapore in the hearts of the Thai fans, and some “anti-Singapore” parties might make use of this chance to raise anti-Singapore sentiments, in order to further strain the relations between Singapore and Thailand. As such, the Thai players should have thought carefully about the political implications their actions might cause before enacting their protests.


The social implications of their action would be that they might influence boys of a younger age to think it is acceptable to protest against decisions that they are not happy about and just boycott the institution that enforces these rules. For example, a boy watched the Thailand-Singapore first leg final. Thus, the next day he went to school and the teacher penalized him for having a long hair. The next day, he boycotted the school since the Thai players could walk off the pitch, why could I not boycott school? This may be an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate my point that the Thai players are heroes to many Thai boys out there. Their actions would be noted to be emulated by these impressionable Thai boys. If these boys decided to emulate these players’ walking-off and their poor attitude and disrespect towards the referee and the competitions, Thailand would have boys who would adopt this poor attitude and not have respect for the authorities. Thus, the Thai players ought to consider their actions, as these actions may have an impact in a lot of other people’s lives.

Lastly, I personally feel that the Thai players should have adopted a less obvious way to protest against the decision. Yes, I admit, in the heat of the moment, perhaps the players felt that the best way to display their anger would be to walk off the pitch. However, they are professionals. They ought to know that walking off the pitch would have many implications involved such as political or social implications. They should have adopted a softer method such as using the power of the media to lambaste the referee after the competition and not involve soccer in political agendas. By using this method, they would also be able to maintain their reputation as professional footballers and show respect to the competition.

In conclusion, I hope that the Thai players would be punished for their unprofessional behavior and disrespect towards the competition.