A letter from the YOG organizers to the parents of a student:

Note what the letter says:

“Transport to and from the event will be provided for your son/ward. Please ensure that your son/ward brings sufficient money for his break as refreshment will not be provided. However, your son/ward is allowed to bring a water bottle provided the water bottle does not have either the “Nike” or “Adidas” logos. In addition, your son will be given an EZ Link card to commemorate YOG 2010.”

Note also: The event takes place on a Saturday.

[Emphasis ours]

Mr Brown has a few questions:

Let me see if I get this right.

1. The school has “volunteered” the boy to be a spectator for a Youth Olympic Games Track and Field event on a SATURDAY.

2. Then, tells the parents that the kid will not be given any refreshments so the parents have to bear the cost of pocket money. On a Saturday.

3. Then, tells the parents that the kid is ALLOWED to bring [sic] a water bottle (how FREAKIN’ KIND of you!). Presumably this is so that he doesn’t die of thirst and cause the school any administrative headache.

4. However, said water bottle must not have “Nike” or “Adidas” logos.

Since when did school children forced to be spectators at a sporting event have to adhere to branding guidelines? I understand if the athletes are covered by sponsor restrictions but SPECTATORS too?

Next you’ll be telling parents that the kids can only wear certain brands of UNDERWEAR to spectate YOG events too.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Bukit Merah Town Council’s negligence caused girl, 7, to fall through railings?

Gap in railing reported to TC in December. MP says town council will foot medical cost for girl.

Criminal Procedure Code: tilting the law in their own favour

Some of the proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) make…

S’pore a speedboat in a storm

‘Our total trade is 3.5 times our gross domestic product, one of…

Raising foreign worker levy will not solve problems, say critics

“In the past, whenever foreign worker levies were increased, a lot of employers simply just passed on the increases to their workers, either by cutting their pay or reducing their benefits.” – By Wong Chun Han