The initial sentence of a one-year ban and a $2,000 fine was meted out for the player's despicably wild physical aggression against his team mate, a referee and even a photographer. According to the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) Disciplinary Committee, all mitigation from Alam Shah had been presented and taken into consideration.

However, the FAS Appeals Committee now deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence, on account of further mitigation, after Alam Shah returned from an unsuccessful bid to play in Malaysia during the ban.

The FAS had also initially denied the applicability of Article 12 of Fifa's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which disallowed Alam Shah from playing anywhere in the world during the effective period of his ban.

It is obvious the FAS has decided to relieve the burden of punishment on Alam Shah by reducing his sentence to allow him to get back into his profession as soon as possible.

This is merely trying to right a wrong resulting from the FAS' faulty interpretation of the Fifa rule by introducing another factor of error. One should think about the implications:

The decision creates the inescapable conclusion that a disciplinary sentence from the FAS is not commensurate with the offence in question, by virtue of the mutability and arbitrariness of the sentence;

A man of talent with financial commitments to his family is pre-endowed with acceptable mitigation to commit acts of violence against another, and thus can expect to be successful in his eventual appeals;

A man of talent afflicted by 'personal problems' which are adjudged to have 'impaired his judgment and frame of mind' is inherently entitled to a measure of pardon through a lighter sentence for an irreversible act of violence. Is intemperance ever a good excuse?; and

A man of talent who thinks nothing of appealing against a sentence at an initial instance, and who, after failing to secure employment overseas, returns to Singapore and finally decides to humbly appeal to be seen to be repentant, is entitled to sympathy and thus the gift of a reduced sentence.

Is the FAS aware of the self-mockery it is perpetrating?

Law Sin Ling