I understand the swimmer won four golds in last month's South-East Asian Games. Some officials of the SSA and the local sporting fraternity argue that Tao Li is ungrateful because she resents the 15 per cent deduction, which is said to be for the development of youth - I presume the nurturing of young sportspeople.

I believe altruism was one of the mainstays of the rebuttals. Let us look at it from this perspective.

When Tao Li was brought here, as foreign talent, to assist Singapore in accruing golds in swimmimg, what was in her contract?

Was there a condition, explicitly mentioned, that she had to give up 15 per cent of what she won, to a named sporting fraternity, to redistribute for youth development or some other cause?

Was there a clause which stated that her coach, or coaches, were entitled to a certain percentage of what was won? Was there a clause stating that she had to pay back a certain percentage, for food, housing, training, etc, to the SSA, or any other relevant body, in the event she accrued golds and was eligible for cash from the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme?

If there was, there is no argument involved. If there was no agreement (contract), then let's be forthright and go by the law. Let's not introduce arbitrary conditions, after the event, when the golds have come in and Tao Li is being paid cash. No court in the land will uphold a condition initiated after the contract is signed and without the knowledge of one signatory.

If, on the other hand, Tao Li is asked to donate, of her own free will, 15 per cent then there is still this problem. Donation must come without duress. There must be no pressure exerted to give, otherwise it becomes extortion. There can be no angry rebuttals or an arbitrary amount stated (15 per cent).

Tao Li has the option to accept or reject the plea, if plea it is, for a donation. It appears, however, that the SSA and some others see it as a command. If it is a command, from where does the command draw its legal authority? And, in continuity, on what legal basis does the name-calling 'greedy' and 'insincere' draw its strength? The sine qua non in such instances is the legal principle on what was agreed and only on this must we decide equity and its justification.

Dudley Au