Omissions leave doubts about athletes' place
Ten days before the 120-member list of participants for the Olympic torch relay was unveiled, veteran cyclist Hung Chung-yam told a forum that who carried the torch at the start and end of the relay would say a lot about the city's attitude towards athletes.
Mr Hung, chairman of the Hong Kong Elite Athletes' Association, publicly backed the city's first Olympic gold medallist, Lee Lai-shan, and world champion cyclist Wong Kam-po as the first and the last torch-bearer, respectively.
A few days before he spoke, government officials had indicated that Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen would not take part in the relay. Instead, he would officiate at the relay's opening ceremony.
Speculation, however, was rife at the time that Timothy Fok Tsun-ting, Hong Kong's Olympics chief, was still in the frame for the last leg.
It is an open secret that Mr Tsang and Mr Fok had been pencilled in for the first and last legs of the relay. Instead, Mr Fok ran the penultimate leg of the relay.
However, the apparent last-minute change of plan did little to pacify public dissatisfaction with the lineup.
Compared with some cities, Hong Kong had fewer athletes or members from the sporting community on its relay list. Criticism that athletes were under-represented was fuelled by the inclusion of some controversial names from the political and business sectors.
Worse still, the notable exclusion of some veteran athletes, in particular tenpin bowler Che Kuk-hung, sparked harsh words from some newspapers and commentators. Che, who became a household name after winning a gold medal at the Seoul Asian Games in 1986, was disappointed and unhappy with the lack of transparency in the selection process.
Critics also said the poor and underprivileged were not represented in the relay. True, the number of runners was limited, and it was not possible to please everyone. Some criticism of one name or another was unavoidable.
In view of the commercial and political aspects of the Games, people would have accepted a small number of political players and stars from the entertainment sector.
That being said, the consensual view of society is that runners should have come from all walks of life, with more than half being either past or present athletes.
That would have conveyed a powerful message that the Olympic Games is an event for people from different segments of society: rich and poor, big names and ordinary citizens - holding diverse views on social and political issues.
Star athletes like Lee and Wong aside, the inclusion of people like Che would have given a note of recognition to the efforts, contributions and achievements of former athletes to the whole of society. Doing so would have been the best way for youngsters, and society in general, to learn from athletes' fighting spirit and their 'go-for-gold' attitude towards sports and life.
When Lee won the city's first and only Olympic gold medal, in 1996, she expressed the depth of frustration among her colleagues by saying that 'Hong Kong athletes are not rubbish'.
Today, there is no denying that Hong Kong athletes have won more recognition and support from the government, corporations and society.
Yet, the omission of Che and prominent coaches from the list of torch-bearers - and the overall under-representation of athletes - raises questions about the importance attached to athletes by the government and sporting authorities.
The relay is now history. But concerns about political tinkering and a lack of awareness of the importance of putting such figures as Che on the runners' list will leave lingering doubts about the commitment of the powers that be to promoting sports.
