Mr Speaker, before I address the Bill itself, I wish to begin by congratulating our athletes who represented Singapore at the 2025 SEA Games. They competed with heart, dedication, and unwavering commitment to excellence. Every athlete who wore our national colours deserves our recognition and gratitude. They trained countless hours, made personal sacrifices, and gave their absolute best for Singapore. To them, I say, thank you. You have made us proud.
The Context: Excellence Requires Support
Yet, Mr Speaker, pride in our athletes' efforts must be accompanied by honest reflection on our sporting ecosystem. While our athletes competed admirably, our overall performance at the 2025 SEA Games raises important questions about whether we are providing them with the support, infrastructure, and strategic direction they need to succeed.
Singapore's medal tally and rankings demonstrate that despite investments over the years, we continue to face challenges in developing consistent sporting excellence across disciplines. When we compare our performance to regional neighbours, some with fewer resources but more strategic focus, it becomes clear that our current model requires serious examination.
This is the context in which we consider the Singapore Sports Council Amendment Bill 2025. This Bill represents a significant evolution in how Singapore approaches sport, competition, and athlete development. While I support the overall direction and intent of these reforms, I believe we must scrutinize the details carefully to ensure that good intentions translate into effective governance and tangible outcomes for our sporting community, outcomes that our athletes deserve.
Mind Sports: A Welcome Inclusion
Let me begin with what I welcome wholeheartedly, the formal recognition of mind sports. The Bill defines mind sports as "a competitive game based on intellectual skill rather than physical skill, such as chess or bridge."
This is an important and overdue recognition. For too long, we have conflated sport with purely physical activity. Yet the chess player who trains for hours daily, analysing positions and studying strategy, demonstrates the same dedication, discipline, and competitive spirit as any athlete. The bridge player who competes at international level exhibits mental stamina and strategic thinking that would challenge any sportsperson.
By bringing mind sports explicitly under SportSG's mandate, we create formal pathways for these athletes, access to coaching standards, and the possibility of structured support. This modernizes our understanding of competitive excellence and acknowledges that mastery takes many forms.
Governance Concerns: Council Size and Effectiveness
However, Mr Speaker, I have significant concerns about the proposed expansion of the Council from 15 to 25 members as outlined in Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill.
The expansion by ten additional members suggests the government recognizes the wider variety of sports and activities now falling under SportSG's purview. This is logical given we are adding mind sports and esports to the mix. But I must ask, what is the strategic purpose of such a large council?
From a governance perspective, larger councils are typically less effective, not more. Decision-making becomes slower, coordination more complex, and accountability more diffuse. There is nothing preventing SportSG from establishing sub-councils or sport-specific working groups with external experts co-opted on an ad-hoc basis. This would provide the specialized expertise needed without bloating the main governing body.
I therefore propose the following amendment:
That the maximum council size remains unchanged at 15 members, with provisions for establishing expert sub-committees as needed.
A lean, engaged council of 15 will serve Singapore's sporting community far better than a sprawling body of 25 where attendance is optional. Our SEA Games performance demonstrates that we need decisive, focused leadership, not a committee too large to be effective. Our athletes deserve better governance, not bigger committees.
Clause 6 : Institutional Responsibilities and Accountability
Clause 6 proposes to amend Section 8 to grant SportSG new powers to establish institutions for developing and training sportspersons. This appears to pave the way for significant institutional restructuring.
I would like to ask the Minister:
Is this amendment intended to move the Singapore Sports School from MCCY's purview to the SportSG's jurisdiction? Are there other sports excellence schools planned in the pipeline that would similarly fall under SportSG’s management?
If so, what is being done to beef up the capabilities of the SportSG to take on these substantial new responsibilities? Managing educational institutions requires expertise in pedagogy, student welfare, and academic administration, not just sports development.
Our performance at 2025 SEA Games provides a real-world benchmark. Despite years of investment and institutional development, what tangible improvements have we seen? Where are the success stories that justify continued investment in the current model? And where are the failures that demand course correction?
Without this accountability for past spending, how can we have confidence in the expanded mandate proposed under this Bill? And without understanding what worked and what did not, how can we allocate future resources wisely?
Our athletes who competed at SEA Games 2025 worked with the system we gave them. If that system underperformed, the responsibility lies not with them, but with us, with the structures, funding, and strategic direction we provided. We owe them answers before we ask them to trust a new, expanded system.
Educational and Career Support: A Commendable Step Forward
Mr Speaker, Clause 6 seeks to empower SportSG to provide educational and career support to athletes, both active and retired. This is genuinely welcome and represents a more holistic approach to athlete welfare.
For too long, talented young Singaporeans have hesitated to pursue sporting excellence because they feared an uncertain future after retirement. By providing structured educational pathways and career transition support, we make sport a viable life choice, not a risky gamble. This will unlock talent that currently goes untapped.
Perhaps if we had implemented such support earlier, we might have retained more athletes who could have contributed to stronger SEA Games performances. How many potential medallists chose safer career paths because the sporting pathway seemed too precarious?
However, I must ask: What about our past athletes?
Many former national athletes, including those who represented us at previous SEA Games, struggled after retirement, having sacrificed their peak earning years and educational opportunities for Singapore's sporting glory. Some face financial difficulties, struggle to enter the workforce, or lack the credentials for career advancement.
Will the government extend retroactive support to these past athletes who competed before such programs existed? They deserve consideration, not just those who benefit from future systems. These are the athletes who paved the way, who competed when support was even more limited than it is today.
I would also propose practical support mechanisms:
Could we provide additional CPF contributions for athletes who hit performance targets, including those who have represented Singapore at SEA Games and other regional competitions? Could SportSG support the healthcare needs of our past athletes, especially for conditions which were associated with their sporting careers, as brought up by Ms Sylvia Lim on 6 July 2023?
These are athletes who have represented Singapore with pride, who have stood on podiums wearing our flag. Our 2025 SEA Games athletes, and those who came before them, surely deserve more than career counselling, we can provide concrete financial instruments that secure their futures.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, this Bill contains much to support: the recognition of mind sports, the commitment to athlete welfare, and the modernization of SportSG's functions. These represent genuine progress.
But progress requires not just good intentions but sound governance and demonstrated accountability. A council of 25 is a recipe for inefficiency. Expanded institutional responsibilities without demonstrated capability and accountability for past spending is putting the cart before the horse.
Our performance at 2025 SEA Games should serve as a wake-up call. We cannot continue expanding mandates without first addressing the fundamental issues that have limited our sporting success. Our athletes gave everything at those Games. Now we must ensure that our institutions match their commitment with excellence of our own.
I urge the Minister to address these concerns directly. Show us the performance analysis from SEA Games. Explain what went wrong and what will change. Demonstrate that SportSG has the capability to take on these expanded responsibilities while also fixing the problems that led to disappointing results.
I also urge consideration of the amendments I have proposed: maintain the council size at 15, and extend meaningful support to past athletes who have already served Singapore. We continue to believe that those who have already given their best years to Singapore's sporting glory deserve the same consideration we now promise to future athletes.
Let us pass a Bill that is not just forward-looking, but also well-governed, adequately resourced, accountable, and fair to all who have contributed to Singapore's sporting legacy. Let us ensure that when we host or compete in future regional games, we can point to this legislation as the turning point that led to sustained sporting excellence.
Our athletes have done their part. Now it is time for us to do ours.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
