On the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill
Mr Speaker, I support the intent of this Bill. The sporting landscape has evolved significantly since the Act was first passed in 1973, and it is only right that our legislative framework reflects modern realities. It is a pragmatic step forward to expand the definition of "sport" to include mind sports and e-sports and explicitly incorporate physical fitness activities.
However, as we expand the remit and powers of the Singapore Sports Council, which is now renamed Sport Singapore (SportSG), we must ensure that these changes are fiscally sustainable and do not inadvertently stifle the local private sector. I have two broad areas of clarification for the Minister: one related to funding dilution and alternative funding streams, the other to the manufacture of sporting and fitness equipments.
Funding Dilution and Alternative Funding Streams
The expansion of SportSG’s functions to include e-sports and mind sports is a significant undertaking. These are rapidly growing fields that require specialized infrastructure, coaching, and international participation. Does the Government plan to increase SportSG’s budget to account for these new categories?
My concern is that if SportSG’s budget remains stagnant, we risk diluting the financial support currently available to athletes involved in traditional sports. We must ensure that a "win" for e-sports does not come at the cost of a "loss" for other programmes, such as track and field or swimming.
In light of this, would it be prudent to expand the scope of Section 8(d) of the principal Act to explicitly allow SportSG to enter into strategic partnerships with commercial entities and other organisations? By leveraging private sector funding, SportSG can alleviate the burden on the public purse.
It goes without saying that athlete training is very expensive, as we can see from the experiences of our own Olympic medallists. To support Joseph Schooling's training in the United States, his parents — Colin and May Yim Schooling — had to spend more than $1 million, including selling a house in Perth and cashing out an endowment plan.
Maximilian Maeder estimated that the cost of training and competing at his level to be around €250,000 a year. He was supported by a three-year sponsorship agreement with local beverage company Yeo Hiap Seng (or better known as Yeo’s) and the Ng Teng Fong Charitable Foundation, demonstrating how corporate sponsors and external partners can help to chip in to groom more elite athletes for Singapore.
I hope that the Ministry and SportSG can develop comprehensive strategies to institutionalise the role of corporate sponsorship in funding athlete training and expand the spexSchemes to support high performing athletes. We need a sustainable model where the State is not the sole benefactor, but a facilitator for private-sector investment in our sporting talent.
In addition to the funding perspective, for e-sports specifically, the e-sport ecosystem is unique because the "arenas" (the games themselves) are intellectual property owned by private publishers. To run programs or tournaments, SportSG will necessitate a different level of commercial engagement than traditional sports. How does SportSG intend to navigate these proprietary hurdles?
Manufacturing sporting and fitness equipments
Mr Speaker, the Bill will retain Section 8(k) of the principal Act as Section 8(l), which allows SportSG to "to prepare, manufacture and supply any equipment and items used for sports or physical fitness activities".
I would like to ask the Minister to clarify whether SportSG has previously used these powers to manufacture equipment, and if not, what is the intention for SportSG to retain these powers?
Traditionally, the Government procures from the private sector to stimulate the economy and benefit from market competition. Is there a specific gap in the market that SportSG is trying to fill?
In addition, the new Section 8(m) will allow SportSG to “to establish and maintain codes of practice or conduct, guidelines or standards in relation to any equipment, items and facilities used for sports or physical fitness activities”.
This creates a potential conflict of interest. If SportSG is both the regulator (in setting the standards) and the supplier (in manufacturing the equipment), how do we ensure a level playing field with the private sector? How can we a situation where SportSG sets standards that unfairly disadvantage private competitors?
While I support the promotion of physical fitness, I believe the Government should be a "catalyst" rather than a "competitor." If SportSG begins manufacturing fitness equipment at scale, it could inadvertently crowd out local retailers and manufacturers who operate on thin margins.
I hope the Minister can provide assurances that these new powers will be used judiciously and only when the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide the necessary equipment.
Conclusion
In summary, while I welcome the modernization of SportSG’s remit, we must be wary of over-extension. I hope that the Minister can clarify how the Ministry will continue to increase support for our athletes and whether leveraging private sector resources is an active consideration, and explain how it intends to use SportSG’s powers to manufacture sports equipment.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
