Search the Community

By Bryna Sim THE e-mail accused a bowling coach at a top boys' school of showing favouritism to some of his students. It also alleged that he breached codes of professional conduct by taking a personal loan of $10,000 from a student's parent. The e-mail writer admitted that his own child had not made it to a top team and the student who did was a good bowler. And the school said there was no favouritism. But it seems a parent did give a loan to the coach, "a family friend". The coach was then counselled by the school. It is not certain if the loan was a one-off matter. The coach had been unaware of the accusations until The New Paper alerted him to them last Wednesday. The e-mail had come on April 4 from a "John Tan". The writer claimed to be a parent, an old boy of the school, and a passionate advocate of sports. When we asked if John Tan is his real name, he did not reply. Responding to The New Paper's queries, the school said it found the allegations about favouritism to be "unfounded". However, the school confirmed that the coach did approach a parent for a personal loan. The school "does not condone such behaviour", but did not say if it would terminate the services of the coach. The coach had not declared the loan to the school. Mr Tan sent his e-mail to the school principal and copied it to various others, including some in the Education Ministry. The external coach, employed by the school, was not one of the addressees. The Singapore Bowling Federation website lists him as a "Certified Level II Coach" on their registry of active coaches. This means that he is "recommended as a head coach for schools, colleges and clubs", the website said. Personal favour In his e-mail,Mr Tan wrote that the coach had taken personal "loans" from a student's parent. He gave the parent's surname in his e-mail. He claimed that with the help of a private investigator whom he had hired, he had "found out that the money (loaned) was used to repay credit card bills amounting to $40,000". Mr Tan then suggested that because of this personal favour, the lender's son was placed in the first team for the school's 'B' division bowling championships, for upper secondary students. "I'm not denying that her son is a good bowler," Mr Tan wrote, "but isn't this all too coincidental?" Mr Tan felt that the man had "breached the code of conduct as a professional coach" by his actions. In a second e-mail to the school, dated April 8, Mr Tan highlighted another incident. He claimed that the coach had "borrowed a brand new red Mercedes" belonging to another student's parent. This time round, he named the student in his e-mail. "The car was on loan to (the coach) when he conveniently forgot to drive his car to the bowling centre," wrote Mr Tan. The school said it cannot confirm the details of this particular incident as investigations are still pending. Mr Tan claimed that soon after the coach borrowed the car, that owner's son was also placed in the school's first team. Mr Tan declined to allow The New Paper to contact him by phone and kept his correspondences with us only via e-mail. "My son is still in the school team," he wrote by way of explanation. When this reporter wrote back asking him why he was choosing to expose the coach in this way, Mr Tan said he was "disgusted that such injustice was happening in the school". "It is my moral obligation to ensure that it comes to a stop. The issues I brought up are not allegations, but facts that (the coach) cannot deny," he wrote. Did he have other personal motives for doing so? Does he feel that his son had been unfairly treated? In his e-mail reply to this reporter, Mr Tan said he was "very disappointed" when his son did not make it to first team. The New Paper understands that there are several bowling teams in the school, each comprising four members. Mr Tan added that his son, like him, was "very disappointed" and might give up the sport to concentrate on school work. "I hope my child has a fair shot in making the team, and does not have to resort to underhanded methods in order to be noticed by the coach", wrote Mr Tan. Upon investigating the matter, the school spokesman said the allegations about the coach showing favouritism towards some of the bowling students were unfounded. "A fair and objective set of criteria was used to select students for the first team for bowling. This is practised by all sports groups in the school when selecting students for the first team," he said. As for the coach's decision to approach a parent for a personal loan, the spokesman said that the school "does not condone such behaviour" and has "counselled (the coach) accordingly". When contacted, the parent who had given the $10,000 loan said her son was a good bowler, and she "did not have to resort to doing (the coach) personal favours" to ensure that he got into the first team. She also emphasised that the loan was made only because the coach was "a family friend". An ex-bowling team captain of the school who declined to be named said that the man started coaching the team at the end of 2008. On the calibre of the children of both parents mentioned in the e-mails, he said: "They deserve to be in the first team. They were bowling very well even before he started coaching and have been winning many tournaments." The coach declined to discuss the allegations made against him when The New Paper called him on Monday. He is still coaching at the school. He said he did not know any parent by the name of John Tan. "I'm not aware that any parent is unhappy with me,"he said. "I don't think I've any enemies either." The spokesman said the school has invited the e-mail sender to speak to them so that they can share with him the findings of their investigations and ascertain the basis of his allegations. However, despite the school's "repeated attempts to get in touch with him", the e-mail sender had not responded to them. Although Mr Tan had seemed comfortable corresponding with this reporter via e-mail, since being told on Tuesday of the school comments, he stopped replying to our e-mails. Schools say coaches should pass on right values HIGHLY inappropriate. A breach of integrity and professionalism. That was the view of educators. It doesn't matter even if the transaction was made between the two parties on the basis of them being "family friends", said the educators we spoke to. It was still not right, and some would even consider terminating the coach's services. "Highly inappropriate," Madam Liew Wei Li, principal of Xinmin Secondary School, said of his actions. "Coaches are not only supposed to help our students achieve good results. They're supposed to convey the right values," she said. Mrs Tan Chen Kee, vice-principal of Gongshang Primary School, felt that the coach's taking of personal loans could cloud his professionalism. Even if the case in itself was a "personal affair", Yuying Secondary School vice-principal Tonnine Chua felt that it could still have "some complications", as it indirectly concerns the student. All educators The New Paper spoke to felt that counselling the coach was a good way of handling the situation. Mrs Tan and and Mrs Chua also said that they would also consider terminating the coach's services. However, Punggol Secondary School principal Lee Eet Fong said she would not be so quick as to "just dismiss the coach after one such incident". "We have to consider the impact of that decision upon the students, and the coach's personal track record," said Madam Lee. Madam Liew agreed that one such incident might not result in the coach's termination.