Hansard, Thursday, 6 July 2023

1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current per capita cost of running Day Activity Centre services for adults with disabilities with moderate to high needs; and (b) what is the current per capita grant provided by the Government for such Day Activity Centre services.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the per capita cost of running Day Activity Centre (DAC) services varies, depending on each centre’s programming and operational considerations.

Government funding to DACs is tiered according to the care needs of clients. Government funding to DACs is also means-tested, depending on each client’s income level. In FY2022, the average amount of Government grants provided to DACs was about $14,000 per client.

Besides funding from the Government, DACs also receive funding from the community, such as through Tote Board and their own fund-raising.

Ms Denise Phua.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for always helping this sector. There are issues on the ground. A lot of the charities that are running services for the moderate to high needs individuals with disabilities are facing a lot of challenges on the ground, based on this current funding model. I think the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has been trying to help, but the challenges remain.

May I request the Ministry to convene a workgroup that comprises MSF, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the disability agencies to deeply analyse what is the issue, what is the beef all about and why are there so much noise, so many worries and challenges? And then, to identify what are some alternate and more innovative financing models for DACs for disabled adults with moderate to high support needs.

Debating at a very general level and asking Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and replying to PQs at this level is not going to solve matters. The reason is that the costs are indeed high. Although the average grant is about $14,000, some of the costs can go up to about $30,000 per year.

There are also issues like fee cap and you cannot charge that much sometimes. The funding is completely means-tested and, therefore, average and higher-income households are often discouraged from using the services. They will then keep their children at home and that is not always the best quality of life. And later on, there will be more costs.

So, the Ministry should really study alternate models, such as providing a universal base subsidy, with additional means-testing subsidy. This is what, I think, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, when he was MSF Minister actually looked at. So, there are some models that can be considered. If we do not solve this problem, then, cohorts of graduates from the special schools with mid to high needs are really going to suffer. So, I hope the Ministry will look into this deeply with those of us who really want to solve this issue.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I share the passion of the Member and I really applaud the Member as we can see, from her very spirited delivery of her supplementary questions. I share that passion as well in doing more for the community, especially for those with moderate to severe needs. I totally agree with her that staying at home, not consuming any of these services, is not going to be the way to go.

She mentioned the point about fee caps. We introduced that in October 2021. That helped about half of the community with some of the fees. The fee cap is anywhere between $20 and $710. Of course, there is much more that can be done. This year, we will be piloting the Enabling Services Hub. We will be launching that by the second half of this year. We will provide learning, social activities as well as respite care at locations that are closer to where persons with disabilities, including those with moderate needs, as well as their caregivers, live.

We take the Member's points on board and we look forward to that continued engagement and exploration with the community and the Member herself to see what better we can do for the community.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo –

2 To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether he can provide an update on the SPH Media Trust committee’s review of overstated circulation numbers of its publications; and (b) what are the measures that SPH Media Trust and the Government will take to prevent similar incidents in the future.

3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information in respect of the SPH Media Holdings Board’s Audit and Risk Committee findings published on 16 June 2023 (a) what is the timeline for SPH Media Group to implement the recommendations; (b) whether the Ministry will impose additional obligations on the group to tighten accountability; and (c) whether all the overstated circulation figures and consequent financial impact have been corrected.

4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information with respect to SPH Media Group’s filing of a Police report over overstated circulation figures of SPH news publications after potential offences were flagged in an investigation by its audit committee (a) whether the Police has classified the Police report as one that discloses offences for investigation; (b) if so, what are the offences; and (c) how will the Police treat the key investigative findings by SPH Media Group’s audit committee, which include conclusions on the state of knowledge on the part of various SPH officers in relation to the inflated circulation numbers.

5 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information in respect of the investigation report issued by SPH Media Group’s audit and risk committee on overstated circulation numbers of SPH news publications (a) whether the steps that have been recommended to be undertaken by SPH Media Group in the report are assessed to be adequate; (b) whether regulatory action is being considered; and (c) whether any new regulation is being contemplated to tighten reporting standards by media groups on circulation numbers and other key information to ensure accountability for the same.

6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the findings and recommendations in the recent report by the Audit and Risk Committee of SPH Media Group, what are the lessons and safeguards that the Ministry will take on funding to SPH Media or other entities in the future.

7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the report released by the Audit and Risk Committee of SPH Media Holdings Pte Ltd (a) whether the Ministry still plans to continue its S$900 million funding support for SPH Media Trust over the next five years; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that such monies are spent prudently with good accountability and oversight.

8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether there is a need to set up a Committee of Inquiry to reveal the cause of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)’s overstatement of its daily circulation numbers; (b) whether the Ministry will consider revealing to the public the companies that are involved in assisting SPH to overstate the circulation numbers; and (c) what are the lessons learnt to prevent such occurrences.

9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government's funding agreement with SPH Media Trust has been concluded and if any funds have been disbursed; (b) if so, whether these funds will be re-assessed in light of the report of the Audit and Risk Committee of SPH Media released on 16 June 2023; and (c) whether the key performance indicators for the funding agreement will include evaluations of SPH Media Trust's risk culture and improvements to its risk management practices and internal controls and processes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 2 to 9 in today’s Order Paper?

Please proceed.

I will also address the Question filed by Ms Hany Soh1 for a future Sitting. Madam, Members have asked for updates on the SPH Media Trust (SMT)'s review of overstated circulation numbers, which covers the period of September 2020 to March 2022.

Madam, in the February 2023 Sitting of Parliament, Members had asked a range of questions on this matter. In response, I made three key points.

The first is that the events took place before SMT was formed, when the media business was under SPH Limited (SPHL), a privately listed company.

The second point is that whatever happened had no bearing on public funds, because the Government did not have a funding relationship with SMT before the end of 2022. For avoidance of doubt, the first tranche of funding was disbursed in March 2023. In other words, the events preceded the period of funding. No public funds had been involved. Correspondingly, the question of loss of public funds does not arise.

Third, I explained the Government’s reasons for funding SMT’s transformation, which had little to do with circulation. Nevertheless, the Government made it clear that it expected SMT to properly investigate the matter and to give the public a proper account.

SMT’s Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) has since concluded its investigations and its findings have been extensively reported.

My update to Members will, therefore, focus on three areas, namely, the ARC’s findings; what SMT will do to address the underlying issues; and what the Government will put in place to ensure public funding to SMT remains prudent and accountable.

Let me first deal with the ARC’s observations. As Members will have read in media reports, there were three noteworthy findings.

First, the overstatement of circulation numbers amounted to around 82,600 average daily copies at August 2021. This is around 10% of overall circulation of their main titles. The ARC did not find any evidence of the involvement of the journalism and editorial departments.

Second, the ARC found that the accounting impact was not deemed to be material to the financial statements of SPH Media Group for the financial year ending August 2022 taken as a whole. For the financial year ending August 2021, there was approximately S$110,000 in understatement of profits.

Third, there were possible offences committed, based on several findings. Circulation numbers had been reported in a manner inconsistent with established standards, there was improper accounting of revenue and there was a barter deal which was possibly a questionable arrangement, entered into for the sole purpose of inflating circulation numbers.

Consequently, the ARC has recommended that a Police report be filed and the Board has done so.

To Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Ang Wei Neng’s questions on the specific offences being considered, I am unable to give further details as this is now an ongoing Police investigation.

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked whether the overstated circulation figures and consequent financial impact have been corrected. After SMT was formed in December 2021, it began internally reviewing the data it took over and rectified the inconsistencies detected. Its accounts since its first financial year ending August 2022 no longer have these inconsistencies. As for the period before SMT was formed, these findings have been made public and further actions to deal with the erroneous figures are matters to be decided by the relevant parties involved then.

Ms Hany Soh filed a related question for a future Sitting. She asked if NLB had been a subscriber of SPH Media’s publications. The answer is yes. NLB’s subscription provides its members with access to various titles published by SPH Media. Neither the subscription rates nor members’ access are related to circulation numbers. There is, therefore, no impact of any kind.

Members Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked how SMT will take up the ARC’s recommendations. SMT has shared with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) that its follow-up is in three main areas.

One, they will benchmark their reporting to international standards. They are commissioning the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) to review and advise on their methods for measuring the reach of various titles. These are the metrics that the public, businesses and the Government will be concerned with, to know how many people come into contact with a title’s content.

Two, SMT will improve internal controls, including tightening deal structure and pricing approval procedures, such as requirements for approvals at the appropriate levels; strengthening guidelines and checks for revenue and cost recognition; improving separation of duties among staff to ensure data accuracy and accountability; and commissioning external parties to review its governance, control and compliance measures, with the aim of embedding the enhancements into a new enterprise resource planning system.

Three, SMT will enhance its risk management practices throughout the organisation and review its risk culture. SMT has assured MCI that they will implement these measures immediately and will provide us with regular status updates on a half-yearly basis.

This leads me to the third set of questions that Members have asked: whether this affects the Government’s funding to SMT.

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report is published annually and its 2023 edition released last month is a timely reminder why funding support for mainstream media remains necessary. Even with dozens of news sources easily available, audiences in Singapore consistently turn to our mainstream media when they need something they can trust.

Specifically, trust levels in all the SMT’s major titles remained much higher than the global average – 73% of respondents expressed trust in The Straits Times, up three percentage points from last year. This is against the backdrop of the erosion of trust in news globally, from an already modest 42% last year to 40% this year.

Trusted news media made possible by quality journalism is a public good we cannot afford to compromise on. It is more important than ever when the environment is full of disinformation and sensationalised news.

However, SMT can only deliver quality journalism if they can continue to strengthen their capabilities and reach audiences in the digital age. Media consumption has moved online rapidly, disrupting the entire industry. In the same report by Reuters Institute, the share of respondents who consume print news has dropped to 22%, from 53% just six years ago.

SMT must move decisively into the online space. But the new competencies take time to build and the economics of news media in the digital era do not make it easy for newsrooms to survive, let alone fund new investments.

The costs of running a professional newsroom remain high, and data and technology infrastructure require substantial upfront costs. Yet, revenue streams are a fraction of what they were in the heyday of print media.

Advertising revenue has been squeezed, with a large share going to platforms run by Big Tech. Growing subscription revenue in a world of free news is also challenging – only 15% of Singapore readers surveyed by Reuters Institute are willing to pay for it.

The challenge is even more pronounced for vernacular publications, which have smaller readerships. Yet, it is critical to preserve them. They are an essential part of our multicultural society and unique identity and give voice to our ethnic communities.

The Government's funding is, ultimately, to fulfil a public good – that of trusted news media enabled through quality journalism.

MCI is committed to working with SMT to overcome the challenges of disruption and succeed in its transformation. Therefore, to Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Leong Mun Wai's questions, the Government will continue funding SMT at the amounts we committed to.

This does not, however, mean that we have no additional expectations of SMT in light of this incident. We acknowledge their seriousness in investigating the concerns and for making the findings public. As it is now a matter for the Police to consider, we should turn our focus to making sure SMT will discharge its public duties responsibly on an ongoing basis.

At the leadership level, the SMT management and board have demonstrated commitment to changing legacy practices. We expect SMT to persist in addressing internal weaknesses and systematically follow up on the required changes.

Members will recall that the circulation data issue emerged because SMT was conducting its own review and due diligence following the transfer of the media business from SPH Limited in December 2021. This point has often been overlooked. This whole set of findings arose out of SMT's own internal review, which no one in particular asked them to do. They themselves felt it was important to start on a clean slate.

SMT has assured us that it intends to follow up on the ARC's recommendations to ensure organisation-wide accountability and to bring the organisation forward. We welcome the plans SMT has set in motion, including instituting internationally accepted benchmarks and extensively reviewing its governance and control measures. This is an ongoing process and MCI will work closely with SMT to ensure these measures are implemented.

To Mr Murali's question on reporting standards, the key point is to ensure reports are consistent with international best practice. It is in SMT’s own interest to uphold reporting standards, with or without regulation.

Ms Tin and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if we will impose additional safeguards, and Mr Leong asked if we would put in key performance indicators (KPIs) evaluating SMT's improvements in risk management and controls. To assure Members, the funding agreement concluded in March this year already contains measures to ensure accountability, for example: (a) SMT is required to submit specific information on KPIs, including their methodologies and sources. These must be agreed upon and SMT is not allowed to change them without MCI's consent; (b) SMT's KPI performance and financial statements must also be audited by independent external auditors.

However, the evaluation of and improvements to internal processes are clearly the responsibility of SMT's executive team. The Government will intervene if there is a case of misconduct or mismanagement of public funding. In this regard, we have built in safeguards that allow the Government to conduct our own ad hoc audits. If serious wrongdoings are found, we have the right to terminate funding.

MCI will also be reviewing the terms of the funding agreement, including the KPIs and funding quantum, at the mid-term juncture. SMT's ability to address these management issues will be taken into consideration.

Madam, I have updated Members on what I can. The outstanding matter of the Police investigation should be allowed to take its course. At its conclusion, the follow-up actions will also be made public.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive reply. It must be painful for the journalists to report the wrongdoing of their colleagues, or sometimes it could be their supervisors in the newspapers. I have two supplementary questions.

The first question is, in the funding formula for SMT, will the circulation numbers be one of the KPIs or is there a KPI for them to increase the circulation because that will add pressure on them? Two, why is it that the names of the companies involved in helping to inflate the circulation numbers are not revealed? Is it because they are subject to Police investigation and the Minister cannot reveal that? In the public interest, we hope that the Ministry can get the papers to release them.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his two questions. Maybe I will take the second question first. Mr Ang had asked why were the names of the companies and the staff who were involved in the potential wrongdoing not made public. As Members will know, the matter has been referred to the Police for investigations. SMT has provided all the findings that the ARC submitted to the Board and this full set of findings would have already been made available to the Police. They include the names of the companies and the people involved.

So, as far as the ARC's findings were concerned, the Police have full view of it. Nothing that was provided to the Police was redacted.

Because it is an ongoing investigation, as to who will eventually have to be held liable under the law, these things will need to take their natural course. It is for the relevant authorities, after they have completed their investigations, to determine what information to publicly disclose and when to do so, so as to not affect the outcome of their investigations. That will be something that has to be left to a later date.

Mr Ang asked specifically whether circulation is part of the KPIs. As I explained to Members in February 2023 during the Parliament Sitting and in response to Members' questions, and as I have also alluded to earlier in my response, circulation is a metric that is no longer as relevant. A title that is being circulated in print today can be read by multiple people. And as media move more and more online, it is not so much the circulation that matters. It is the reach. The reach measures how often people come into contact with the contents of a particular title. So, it is reach that is more important.

The KPIs, therefore, that we have included in the funding arrangement include the total reach and engagement of SMT's full range of products, with a focus on their digital platforms, because we have to keep in mind that the whole purpose for funding SMT is to ensure that the digital transformation is successful. Therefore, the KPIs must be reached, and, in particular, digital reach.

We will, in fact, also ask for specific reach indicators for vernacular groups and youths, because the funding is directed mainly in three areas: the technology upgrade; the talent development, building up the newsrooms; and, very importantly, in terms of how vernacular media continue to be safeguarded. Therefore, the KPIs follow the thrusts of our funding objectives.

SMT is required to submit regular reports on their KPI performance, which must also be independently audited, as I mentioned earlier. And if the KPI targets are not met, the amount of funding will be impacted.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister for her reply. I just have a very short supplementary question. I am heartened to hear that SMT is committed to improve its accountability and its risk measures. I just want to ask the Minister whether the Ministry is prepared to consider ring-fencing an amount out of the $900 million funding support for SMT, to strengthen its internal accountability and to prevent incidents from happening in the future.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I explained in my response to the Member Mr Ang earlier, the thrust of the funding is directed towards talent development, technology upgrade and sustaining vernacular media. We expect that some of the funding will be needed for general purposes.

These measures that SMT needs to take obviously require some resource allocation on their part, both in terms of the manpower as well as the management bandwidth. We expect them to manage within the block of funding that is provided to them. As far as possible, we size the funding according to the needs that are most pertinent to successful transformation.

Strengthening governance is certainly a big part of it, but we also expect SMT to allocate its own resources accordingly. So, for the time being, there is no specific intention to ring-fence resources for improving governance, but to expect SMT to direct resources towards improving governance. That is part of the expectation.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Madam. Madam, the ARC report stated that the X Barter Deal was not a genuine arrangement. The corresponding revenue and expenses should not have been recognised and the corresponding circulation numbers should not have been counted. So, my question is, if it was found that the X Barter Deal was not a genuine arrangement, will there be any investigation into the other media company, which was named as "X" in the report, and whether they were also inflating their numbers?

Secondly, the Minister said that the question of loss of public funds does not arise. But what kind of accountability has been given to the donors and the clients who had contributed to the NIE Fund on the understanding that they were helping the underprivileged in society but were instead used to shore up the circulation figures for SPH?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, at this point, we will not be at liberty to disclose the full range of the Police's investigations. Are they specifically looking to establish liability in the context that Mr Giam described? That is for the Police to decide.

On the Member's second question on accountability to the donors and the other parties that made resources available to SPH Limited, the purpose of making full disclosure on the findings is precisely to allow these entities to decide if they want to take further action. So, they can, if they choose to. It is not for us to decide on their behalf.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.

First, when was the first tranche of the public funds paid out to SPH Media Trust? Was it before or after the completion of the audit committee report?

Two, can the Minister confirm that the Ministry is not pursuing the responsibility of the past top management of SPH Limited at the moment?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe Mr Leong may not have been in the Chamber when I addressed his first question. I can confirm that the Government started disbursing funds to SMT in March 2023. At the time, the ARC had not completed its findings. But the important point to note is that by March 2023, only then, funding arrangements with SMT started, whereas the events in question took place well before March 2023. So, I hope that answers the Member's question.

The second question is whether there will be further action taken against those who had been involved in this incident. That is a matter for the Police to decide. A Police report has been filed. The Police have commenced investigations. The investigations will have to take its full course and then a decision will be taken.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have just one supplementary question. Since the revelation of this incident, is MCI keeping track of whether the international standing and the local public's confidence in SMT's products have dipped subsequent to the announcements? And as what the Minister has shared earlier in response to Member Ang Wei Neng, are we seeing the trend of a drop in terms of the reach of their contents and their engagements with the general public at large as well?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Soh for her question. It is a very good one. In my engagements with SMT, they are themselves equally concerned if the level of trust that is ascribed to them by the public suffers a loss as a result of this incident. I believe this is a key consideration why SMT has taken great pains to ensure that it has undertaken a full and thorough investigation. It took pains to make the findings public; it took pains to be quite careful about whether there was a potential offence to have been committed and they decided not to take any chances but, instead, to file a Police report. So, the seriousness of this incident and its potential impact on the levels of trust that the public has in SMT and its titles, are not lost on its Board as well as the management.

There is another matter that MCI would be equally concerned with and SMT knows this. Henceforth, SMT is in receipt of public funding. Therefore, its ability to be held accountable will be carefully scrutinised, both by MCI as well as by the public. This accountability in relation to funding will include the extent to which SMT has been successful in its transformation, especially towards digital media. It will also be held accountable for maintaining trust. Therefore, the measures that the Member talked about, not only will MCI track, SMT itself will be interested. We will rely on independent reports, such as those carried out by Reuters Institute, but we will also have our own studies to confirm what these independent resources have established as findings.

Accountability to the public also extends to improving governance. If you look at the media reports and also in the ARC's findings, there is a significant portion of the reports that cover governance measures. In other words, SMT is well aware that it is one thing to tell people what the findings are; it is quite another to commit to making improvements. And the improvements in governance essentially are to do three things. It is to make sure that bad things do not happen again; it is to ensure that your systems for controls and contracting, pricing have to be cleaned up, made better; and the other aspect of governance that needs to be improved is also the culture – how people view these kinds of things and their willingness to tolerate them or to speak against them.

MCI takes all of these matters of accountability seriously. SMT knows it at the Board level as well as the management level. They know that in the reviews that we will be conducting as a part of this funding arrangement, this topic will consistently come up. And we will have to satisfy ourselves that the remedies have been implemented and effort is being made to sustain trust by the public.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Thank you, Madam. I think Members have asked various questions, including myself. I just want to remind Members of the critical role that SPH Media has played, particularly recently, in the COVID-19 fight, to dispel untruths and put the right messages out there and receive certificates of commendation as well. The level of trust, I thank the Minister for the assurance —

Mr Zhulkarnain, can you ask your question, please?

Yes. So, for the future findings and future commitments to accountability and building up trust, I hope that there can be periodical reports and disclosures to the public to ensure that the measures and safeguards are being put in place.

I thank the Member for his suggestion and we will certainly share it with SMT so that they can take it into account.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Given that there may be potential breaches of the Companies Act involved, is the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) looking at its own investigation and enforcement actions when it comes to not just the employees and ex-employees that were mentioned in the report but, potentially, also the directors of then-SPH for potential breach of fiduciary duties?

Similarly, given that it was a listed company back then, is SGX also looking at its own regulatory actions in relation to some of these misstatements of circulation and financial figures?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the findings have only been made available recently. As to whether the other agencies intend to take regulatory action, this is something for them to decide and I cannot answer on their behalf.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether ARC had looked into the failure of internal and external audit processes and the internal auditing that were done in the relevant years, because these relate to the governance aspect of the entire issue of the inflation of circulation numbers. And if they have not done so, will the Government be asking them to look into this?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the ARC's report is public except for the redaction of names of individuals as well as companies. I have no more information to offer to Mr Tan other than what he is able to access from the public records.

It was asked by the Board to meet a set of terms of reference. The intention of the Board was to establish the scale of the circulation numbers being overstated. I am not aware of the terms of reference asking for the ARC to investigate the matter before September 2020. I am not aware of them being asked to investigate the goings-on before that. So, therefore, myself, what I can share is that, from the report, I did not see them making conclusions. I did not see them drawing conclusions for the period before that.

Ms Nadia Samdin. Sorry, Minister Teo.

Sorry, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I did not answer one part of the question. Are we requiring them to do that? I think I have to remind Members that we did not have a funding relationship with them before the period that was being investigated by the ARC. What reason do we have to ask for an investigation of that nature? But going forward, henceforth, that is where the accountability has to be very clear.

10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in identifying a site for potential aquaculture activities (a) what are the considerations by the Government; and (b) what are the procedures in place for expert and public consultation.

and the Environment): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) works closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and other agencies to identify suitable sea space for aquaculture production. SFA conducts studies and surveys to assess the suitability of each site, such as the water quality, the carrying capacity, which is the amount of biological mass that the body of water can sustain and the presence of ecological receptors in the proximity of the area to balance between production requirements and environmental sustainability.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is done if the intended activity is expected to have an impact on the environment. The EIA process involves robust engagement with agencies, stakeholders and nature groups to review the proposed mitigating and monitoring measures.

But beyond the EIA process, SFA also regularly engages with the nature groups and the academics as well, to keep them apprised of aquaculture development plans and works closely with them to understand the impacts of sea-based farming on our local marine environment.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and also the recent SFA announcement that it will defer putting out a tender on sea spaces for fish farms around Pulau Satumu and Pulau Jong until further environmental studies are conducted in consultation. It is a great science-based approach.

Two follow-up supplementary questions. In terms of the types of aquaculture activities being planned, does the Ministry have a view as to whether (a) close-looped recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) farms which may have less impact on the surrounding ecosystems are preferred versus (b) an open-cage sea farming, which, on the other hand, may be more energy-intensive, is a better way forward for Singapore?

Second, while it is time-consuming, I do think that consultation is ultimately a trust-building exercise. But beyond experts, it is also really important to get the public involved and the buy-in from Singaporeans towards the Singapore Food Story and where Singapore food comes from. So, how can the Ministry better educate and consult with the public so that more are aware about Singapore local produce?

Madam, I thank the Member for her two clarification questions. The first one is a technical one on what type of sea farming systems, whether it is RAS, which is a closed containment type, or whether the Ministry would also support open-cage farming. As far as the position of SFA and the Ministry is concerned, we are quite agnostic to the different types of technology that can be used to perform aquaculture activities because different types of sea water and sea space could be conducive for different types of farming methodology. We leave it to the expertise of the various farm operators to decide which platform they are more comfortable with.

But, of course, we do take into consideration the nature of the sensitive receptacles in the region where farming has to take place, as well as the type of water quality, in advising the operators to choose an appropriate platform that can be used to sustain their operations in a way that is sustainable for the business but, importantly, also sustainable for the marine environment.

Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to each type of farming methodology and the Member has also pointed out that RAS, while it may have less impact on the environment, it is a lot more energy-intensive. Yet, at the same time, the advantage it affords is that it has a closed containment system that allows better oxygenation of water and a purer water quality, a more controlled environment that also has the advantage of allowing a more dense stocking of the biomass.

So, there are the pros and cons. I think the operator would need to make a business case to decide whether the pros and cons will pan out for them from a business consideration as well.

The open-cage sea farming method will allow for quite dense stocking if it can have a certain depth of water to support that. But the hydrology and the nature of the water in which the cage is to be situated will impact the ability of that method of farming to be viable because there will be a larger impact on the environment. On the other hand, I think it does mean that there are possibly less energy requirements using an open-cage method.

So, there are different considerations at play here. What we try to do is to encourage operators to practise good husbandry so that the fish can be kept safe and in a bio-secure manner. And at the same time, to ensure that their practice of growing the fish does not foul the water conditions, by using proper sustainable feeding methodology in their farming practices.

The second question is whether we can engage more with the public to encourage public support for local produce. The answer is yes. In fact, we have started a series of Alliance for Action discussions with stakeholders in the ecosystem, meaning the producers of local produce, together with the off-takers, such as hotels, restaurants, caterers, supermarkets, to come on board this Alliance for Action and talk about how we can integrate the entire value chain from producers to off-takers to help the industry to grow in a more sustainable, business-centric manner.

At the same time, the Alliance for Action also looks at how we can educate the public to raise consumer awareness of how they can support our local produce. And, not least, to make sure that there is less carbon footprint incurred in our food supplies by sourcing more locally but, importantly, also to build up the appetite for local produce to grow their market here and, in the process, build a more resilient supply chain for ourselves and food security for Singapore.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Madam. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that EIAs would be requested to be done if there is going to be impact on the environment. So, can I confirm, one, whether it is an environmental impact assessment or an environmental impact study that would be requested?

Second, to follow up on Member Ms Nadia Samdin's point, for open-cage farming, can I confirm as well that SFA will always require an EIA to be done?

Madam, as I explained in my main reply, if there is an anticipated impact on the ecology of the environment, an environmental impact assessment will be conducted. In the National Parks Board (NParks)'s methodology, they will also advise on some findings regarding marine ecological profiling exercise when assessing whether a site is suitable to be used for aquaculture activities.

So, it is a series of tools that we use to size up the potential impact before we decide whether a site is suitable for aquaculture activity.

But even as a site is selected for aquaculture activity, there will be environmental monitoring and impact mitigation requirements on the operator to make sure that even when the farm is established, there will be ongoing measures to make sure that the impact on the environment is mitigated as much as possible.

Sorry, can the Member repeat the last question again, on open-cage farming?

Whether we will always require an EIA done when it is open-cage farming.

As I said, I think it is in relation to the main reply. As long as we think there will be a significant impact on the environment, whether it is open or closed containment, an environmental impact assessment can be carried out.

Having said that, we must also make sure that the requirement for environmental impact assessment is not made overly onerous for operators. I think in more advanced aquaculture countries – for example, on a recent study trip that we had undertaken with our stakeholders to Australia, we did come across this framework which the Australians used to manage aquaculture sector growth in Australia, to also help manage environmental impact. One of the measures they have adopted is that in a region where aquaculture is deemed to be suitable, a broader environmental impact assessment is done on the overall site, but the individual operators within the site are not required to do a very onerous large-scale environmental impact study. Instead, they can have a scoped-down version to make sure that there is still some assessment of the extent of the impact and they complement that with a series of more intensive environmental monitoring measures.

So, it is an approach to make sure that while we want to ensure the process is not overly onerous, a suitable and comprehensive one is done for the overall site; yet, at the same time, post-implementation, there is a series of monitoring to make sure that the ongoing activities are also sustainable for the environment.

11 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many HDB flats currently have an Annual Value (AV) of $13,000 or more; (b) of these, how many have zero per capita household income; (c) what were these two figures in 2022 before the AVs were increased on 1 January 2023 to reflect the rise in market rents.

Madam, all HDB flats had an Annual Value (AV) of below $13,000 in 2022, as their AVs are set based on market rents in the preceding year.

Market rentals rose sharply in 2022. As a result, there are now about 430,000 or about 40% of HDB flats with AV of $13,000 or more. Based on estimates from the Department of Statistics, about 36,000 resident households with zero monthly household income from work, live in HDB flats with AV of $13,000 or more.

Madam, as the Ministry of Finance (MOF) announced previously, the AVs of 2022 are still being used to determine eligibility for social support schemes. MOF had also mentioned that we are reviewing the AV thresholds to ensure that Singaporeans in need are able to receive the appropriate support. We will provide an update on the revised AV thresholds for social support schemes when ready.

12 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to increase the means-testing thresholds for annual values of properties (AVs) given that IRAS has revised the AVs upwards on 1 January 2023 to reflect the rise in market rents; and (b) why is the Ministry not using the AVs as of 2022 for the purpose of means-tested healthcare subsidies for households with zero per capita household income (PCHI).

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has just revised the annual values (AVs) of properties upwards from 1 January 2023, agencies, such as the Ministry of Health (MOH), continue to use AVs as at 31 December 2022 to conduct means-testing for healthcare subsidies in 2023.

Given the 2023 increase in AVs, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had previously informed that social support schemes, including the AV thresholds, will be reviewed. An update will be provided later this year. Individuals who face difficulties in paying for their healthcare expenses due to a change in their AV under such circumstances, may approach their respective healthcare institution or provider for assistance.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply as well as the Senior Minister of State for Finance for his reply earlier. Can I confirm with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that MOH has not been using the 2023 AVs for all its social support and means-testing?

Secondly, will MOH consider removing the AV component for households with no income, since these are retiree households, often with a family member who is severely unwell and is seeking medical treatment?

Alternatively, can MOH consider raising the AV threshold beyond $13,000 so that more Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat dwellers will not be excluded from the means-testing subsidies? Lastly, can I confirm that as long as a household is earning $1.00 or more, they are not subject to the AV criteria for the purpose of means-testing?

There are quite a few questions. My response may not be in order. But I just wanted to confirm a few things.

Firstly, the Member had asked about whether we are still using the AV as at 31 December 2022, I confirm that. But I note there may be applicants who are living in new residences which do not have an AV for 2022. So, the benchmark is 2023. But there are processes in place to ensure that they will not be shortchanged and all those HDB households with zero per capita household income will not be made worse off because of this discrepancy in the AV; they will continue to receive the same amount of subsidies.

On the Member's point of considering to remove this, this is a broader point that we are looking at. The AV still remains a proxy of the means for the households and it is something that we still use to assess the support required.

As the Member would know, actually, there are also other subsidies and support which we offer to others who may be asset-rich but cash-poor, including non-means tested support in other schemes. For instance, those who are aged 65 and above receive higher subsidies of 75% at polyclinics, regardless of means; and for those who are in the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation, these seniors also receive benefits, regardless of their per capita household income or the AV of their residence, such as subsidies for MediShield Life premiums, MediSave top-ups and higher subsidies at outpatient care.

So, these are things in place. And as I have mentioned earlier, if any of them are facing difficulties, they can always approach their healthcare providers and we will do our best to assist.

Mr Gerald Giam.

So, can I just confirm with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for those residents who do not have a 2022 AV, how does MOH ensure that they are not worse off? Can they appeal on the basis of their previous AV or something else that can be used as a proxy?

Secondly, I am not sure if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has answered the question about the households that have $1.00 of income. Will they still be subject to the AV criterion?

I think on the second question, there is going to be a cut-off somewhere. But how we apply it is really about trying to assess and see if they do have needs. I do not think it is done in a manner that is unfair and draconian to the recipients.

On the first point, there are back-end processes that make sure that they are supported. But if there are appeals, they will definitely be looked at. If it is zero per capita household income, we will definitely provide the same subsidies as per the others.

13 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government will be studying the feasibility of establishing a new body to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in Singapore; and (b) what are the efforts made in working with other governments to coordinate responsible development and deployment of AI.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Tin for her question. Singapore supports the responsible development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) to unlock its transformative potential on our economy and society. Our governance approach is a practical and risk-based one, as explained at the Sittings of 21 April 2023 and 9 May 2023.

AI is fast becoming a general-purpose technology that is applied across many sectors and use cases. We cannot and should not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to regulate it, nor is it realistic to address in advance every risk out there.

Nonetheless, the Government hopes to see AI deployed in a responsible and ethical way, aligned with international norms. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) have several initiatives to guide the development and deployment of AI.

In 2019, PDPC published the Model AI Governance Framework to turn AI ethical principles into implementable business practices for companies to safely deploy AI solutions.

IMDA has open-sourced AI Verify, an AI governance testing framework and software toolkit. It strengthens trust by enabling objective validation of a company’s implementation of responsible AI. It is, however, a minimum viable product that we hope will grow over time.

Later this year, PDPC will be issuing Advisory Guidelines on the Use of Personal Data in AI Systems to provide guidance on how the Personal Data Protection Act will apply to the collection and use of personal data in AI systems for decision-making, predictions or recommendations.

These initiatives have been noticed and commended by our international and industry partners as practical steps for thinking about how responsible AI developments can be implemented. We will continue to monitor developments and are prepared to adjust our implementation approach as knowledge and understanding evolves.

AI governance is also an area that benefits from more international cooperation. In this regard, Singapore is engaging widely with our international partners through multilateral platforms, such as the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). As the upcoming Chair of the Fourth ASEAN Digital Ministers Meeting (ADGMIN), Singapore hopes to work with fellow ASEAN member states to develop an ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics.

In addition, we are engaging other like-minded partners, such as Israel, the Republic of Korea and the UK, with whom we have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to cooperate on AI and emerging technologies. With the US, we have been partnering their National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to advance our alignment on AI governance.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

I thank the Minister for the reply and also addressing my question on AI a few times. I would like to ask, given that AI has been progressing at a speed that was even faster than expected – now it is artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the next one, we do not know when, may be super intelligence – and the impact on ordinary citizens' lives have been far-reaching and wide-ranging – economic, social, legal and so on – can I ask how is the Ministry working with other agencies to look at the impact of AI on a more comprehensive approach?

I understand that it may be quite difficult to legislate AI altogether, especially as it might inevitably hamper innovation. But I am wondering whether there would be continuous effort to look at more upstream factors so that we can better control and mitigate any impact there may be in generations to come.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think Ms Tin hit the nail on the head when she talked about working with other agencies to understand how AI is being deployed in their respective sectors and also the industries that they oversee and then to identify what should be the right approach in regulating them.

If I can give an analogy, when I am asked this question about AI governance, there is no doubt it is happening very quickly and we will see accelerated deployments potentially across many different sectors, but it still takes time to understand fully how the risks present themselves and what to do about moderating these risks.

The automobile industry is a very good example. When cars were first made available, their reach was not very wide. People could not afford to buy automotives. Those came a little later. It would probably be the same for AI deployment, too. AI, for example, takes a lot of compute power, so, it is not cheap to implement AI systems. As such, the early implementations will still take time to present themselves.

But going back to the example of automotives, it was not immediately obvious to people that what helps to prevent deaths and injuries in a motor vehicle accident would be something like a seat belt. Seat belts came much later. And subsequent to seat belts, then people figured out that having an air bag is quite useful, too. But these kinds of measures, they do not present themselves at the outset. We do not really know what will work. It takes research, it takes a lot of exchange of knowledge and understanding. And then, after a while, we figured out that maybe, seat belts should be made a requirement; maybe air bags should be required as well.

I would also say that using automotives as an example, it is not just the thing itself, the device itself, the equipment itself, that can have safety features built in. In order to promote road safety, actually, human society figured out that traffic lights are important. We figured out that speed limits are important. But you do not need the same speed limits on highways versus country roads. And then, we figured out that, okay, if you had an ageing population, vulnerable segments of the population, you can do a Silver Zone – well, that is what we do.

So, my own sense of it is that, in AI, the equivalent of the seat belts, the air bags, the equivalent of the traffic lights, the speed limits, all these things will have to be built up.

And back to the Member's question then about whether there will be a central agency that can be effective in regulating AI, it remains to be seen because we have to understand what the useful regulatory measures are in the first place. Keep in mind that we cannot operate only on the basis of domestic interests. All of these regulations have to inter-operate with our counterparts overseas. Otherwise, our businesses will find it very difficult to meet the requirements when they operate in different jurisdictions. So, international standards, what will be useful, these things will be developed. We will see the emergence of new standards, new certifications and new regulatory frameworks.

The approach that we take in Singapore is to try our best to be plugged into as many of these conversations as possible. We will not be the only ones thinking about governance. We are not the only ones. The more we share with our international counterparts, the more we are able to look over the horizon and take steps to raise our own regulatory measures in accordance.

The way in which we have introduced regulations for online media, for example, how do we look after safety issues, how do we tackle criminal harms that are being carried out online – and yesterday's new legislation is a good example of this. When it has become clearer what is necessary and useful, I think Singapore's advantage is in being able to move quite fast and that is the advantage that we should try and sustain over time.

14 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider implementing regulations for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services to address concerns related to privacy, accuracy and consumer protection; (b) what is the Ministry doing to enhance public awareness about the potential sharing and commercial use of genetic data obtained from DTC tests by third parties; and (c) how will individuals have access to accurate information, genetic counselling and guidance in interpreting test results to mitigate any risks of misinterpretation and unnecessary anxiety.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) takes a risk-based approach to the regulation of genetic testing. Aligned to this approach, we regulate clinical genetic testing but not direct-to-consumer (DTC) tests used for general wellness, ancestry and nutrigenomic purposes.

Nevertheless, MOH has issued a guidance document in May 2021 which outlines good practices for providers offering non-clinical genetic testing and educates consumers on the risks of such testing. These risks include exaggerated claims, the possible sharing and commercial use of genetic data obtained from DTC tests by third parties and the lack of proper medical interpretation of test results.

Consumers should exercise care to assess for themselves the suitability and quality of such non-clinical tests. Consumers need to read the test provider's terms and conditions carefully before using such tests and contact the provider or approach their doctors when in doubt.

MOH will continue to monitor the development of DTC genetic testing and review our regulatory initiatives and consumer education efforts to ensure the safety, privacy and welfare of the public.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Madam, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. I have two supplementary questions.

First, can the Ministry elaborate why are non-clinical genetic tests allowed to be provided directly to the consumer but not clinical genetic tests?

Second, for users of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, how can they be assured that their data will not be sold to third parties, especially in cases where the tests are sold online but processed overseas?

I thank the Member for the questions. With regard to non-clinical genetic tests, these are typically those that do not address medical conditions or disorders and are usually used for general wellness or recreational purposes. So, they are assessed to be of lower risk and may be offered directly to consumers.

Nonetheless, it is important for consumers of non-clinical genetic tests to be informed and take precautions for themselves in looking after their own interests. So, that is why we have developed the guidance document and enhanced consumer education to raise awareness on genetic testing.

In contrast, the clinical genetic tests are used to assess, diagnose, prevent, alleviate and predict risks or treat a medical condition or disorder. So, they should be administered by medical practitioners with the appropriate knowledge and training. So, we make sure that the medical practitioner is involved in order to actually look at the test results properly and provide the necessary management to the individual. That responds to the first question.

In respect of the second question, because of this difference with the DTC tests, we take a risk-based approach, as I had explained. We use a caveat emptor approach. It means that the consumer has to be responsible, has to be aware that they have to protect themselves. Having said that, as I mentioned, we have guidelines in place. Moving forward, we are also looking at the development of the Health Information Bill. And these are also ways in which we can enhance protection further. But we will watch and see whether there is any need for further regulatory enhancements in this space.

15 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education regarding Singaporeans who are based overseas and have been recognised for outstanding work in research through prestigious awards, such as the Sloan Research Fellowship (a) whether the Minister will consider inviting them to return to Singapore to work in our academic or research institutions; (b) whether our institutions will be open to collaborating with their organisations; and (c) what efforts are being undertaken to enhance ties with Singaporeans doing outstanding work in research institutions overseas.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we are proud of Singaporeans who have been recognised internationally for their outstanding research, regardless of whether they are based in Singapore or overseas. For those who are based overseas and are inclined to return to Singapore to contribute, the Government and Autonomous Universities (AUs) have various schemes in place to facilitate their transition, such as National Research Foundation (NRF)'s Returning Singaporean Scientist Scheme (RSSS).

We are mindful, however, that attracting overseas-based Singaporean researchers back to the local AUs depends on a convergence of different factors. The researcher must have preference to relocate to Singapore, even after having established a presence overseas. At the same time, there must be a match between the research priorities of the AU and the research interests of the overseas-based Singaporean researcher.

Even if the Singaporean researcher prefers to remain overseas, there are opportunities for collaborations with the local AUs or our A*STAR Research Institutes (RIs) if there are common research interests. All collaborations are assessed on their merit.

Overseas Singaporeans, including researchers, can also link up with the Singapore Global Network (SGN) within the Economic Development Board (EDB). SGN organises digital engagement and community events to keep overseas Singaporeans connected to home, so that they can make an informed decision about whether and when to return to Singapore.

16 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will review the current migrant domestic worker hiring policies and rules to allow for more diverse care arrangements of the elderly, such as those in the private co-living care format; and (b) what are the Ministry's concerns and constraints preventing more flexibility in such employment rules and what are the statistics or data that give rise to these concerns.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the migrant domestic worker (MDW) scheme was introduced to support families in their domestic and caregiving needs. Employment protection policies designed for MDWs are premised on the MDW providing only non-commercial domestic services to her employer's household at the employer's place of residence. To take into account the flexibility around work hours and rest patterns that may be needed for their nature of work, MDWs are not covered by the Employment Act.

MDWs are instead protected under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). To protect the well-being of MDWs, the scope of domestic work and the employment of MDWs are tightly circumscribed under the EFMA.

The well-being of MDWs and the conditions of their engagement are important priorities for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). An employer has obligations under the EFMA in ensuring the safety and well-being of the MDW, providing adequate food and rest time, paying their salary on time and covering the MDW's medical expenses. The balancing of flexibilities in employment rules for the care of the elderly should not result in the delegating of the primary responsibilities of the employer in the EFMA. For example, MOM cannot allow MDWs to be deployed in a business operation that could subject MDWs to overwork.

The Government recognises the diverse needs of the elderly and their caregivers and has introduced a wide range of eldercare services to support households. These include home personal and nursing care, day care and community rehabilitation services. The Ministry of National Development (MND), Ministry of Health (MOH) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) are also piloting assisted living in the Community Care Apartments, which integrates senior-friendly design features with services that can be scaled according to the care needs. There are also a number of private assisted living models for seniors to age in the community. These options complement MDW and family caregiving.

MOM has been and will continue to work closely with MOH and industry partners to explore new and holistic caregiving models to better support eldercare needs.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive response to help us understand that there were, indeed, some workings within how this business was operating that could have been quite exploitative of the people they purport to care for and care workers.

Despite that, is MOM open to looking at new regulatory frameworks and provisions for different kinds of employment models such that the gap that the residents and citizens currently face in elderly care options can be plugged in a way that ensures that business costs, cost to consumers and all that are made accessible and viable?

The short answer is yes. In fact, MOM is working with MOH to develop new care models for the elderly. We recognise that there are evolving needs and there are opportunities for us to work with private partners to develop new models.

17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has studied the importance of economic connectedness through cross-class interaction between families of low and high socio-economic status in uplifting children from lower-income families; and (b) what specific changes in policies have been adopted to take into account such economic connectedness.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, social mobility has been a key long-term outcome in the Government’s programme to address inequality since Independence. As more in our society progress, the Government endeavours for society to continue progressing together.

Various studies, including the ones cited by the Member in a past Parliamentary Question (PQ), suggest that “economic connectedness” supports social mobility. In our public policy design, we also consider how best to promote social interaction, including among different income groups of our society.

In our residential estates, we have actively sought to foster a good mix of socio-economic groups. We provide common spaces where Singaporeans from all walks of life congregate, such as parks, hawker centres, playgrounds and sporting facilities. We have actively integrated public rental flats with sold flats in the same Build-To-Order (BTO) projects and within the same blocks where possible, including in Prime Location Housing areas, to enable social mixing.

We work to ensure that our schools remain open and accessible to students from different backgrounds. In addition, there are opportunities for students from different schools to interact with one another and with the larger community, such as through co-curricular activities (CCAs), values-in-action projects and cluster-based activities and competitions.

We have also sought to increase the social capital of those from lower-income backgrounds through volunteering and mentoring opportunities.

Many community partners and volunteers from diverse backgrounds provide services and programmes to lower-income families under our "Many Helping Hands" approach. Through Community Link, or ComLink, volunteers are matched to families as befrienders to better understand the families’ needs and aspirations, co-create individualised action plans with them and match them to relevant schemes, services and programmes.

More recently, we launched Mentoring SG, a national movement to support youth development through mentoring opportunities. Youths, including those from lower-income backgrounds, can be connected to mentors to build their tenacity, soft skills and knowledge. The close bonds fostered allow for useful information and opportunities to be shared with youths and families.

With targeted programming, connections across socioeconomic backgrounds offer information exchange, mentorship and job referrals that could shape aspirations and expand opportunities for material improvement.

While the Government can shape diverse environments and channels for interactions between different socio-economic groups, all of us must play our part to reach across the lines of status and class. In particular, those who are more privileged and better-connected should realise that their success in life is also because of the kind of society we have built over time. So, we hope they will always step forward to contribute their time, networks and effort to uplift those with less. We need a whole-of-society effort to help lower-income families as they work towards stability, self-reliance and social mobility.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think he mentioned there is some peer-to-peer social mixing in CCAs and then, peer-to-mentor social mixing in some of the programmes through ComLink.

Could I ask whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is rolling out new programmes that will have peer-to-peer social mixing within the community? So, making friends with the same age group and not just the peer-to-mentor.

Secondly, I think the study that we are talking about was done in the US, where it showed that economic connectedness – or basically, social mixing – is probably the most important factor, more than family structure, school or job availability. Could I ask whether MSF can conduct a similar study in Singapore to see whether it holds true that social mixing is the most important factor so that we can tailor our programmes and have a more targeted impact on the ground?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. His points are well-noted. In today's programmes – not within the ambit of MSF but me wearing my Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) hat – we do have programmes where peer-to-peer interaction across different socio-economic groups is already taking place. For instance, under Sport Singapore (SportSG), there is SportCares, which reaches out to youths from low-income families through sports. Young talents who are good with their fundamental movement skills are recruited and scouted for their abilities at sports and then, placed in Junior Sports Academy or centres where talents from across different socio-economic groups are placed together. That is where the interaction across socio-economic groups already takes place.

I cite this as one of many other examples across the different agencies' programmes and services that we provide.

I do note the Member's suggestion to replicate some of these studies in our context here in Singapore. I will take that back to the Ministry, but I do want to put forth a note that we might not want to replicate every study that is out there, because that would not be a judicious use of our resources.

I also want to draw some reference from the study which points to a finding, such as the stickiness with respect to how members of each socio-economic status group are having a resistance to mixing with members from a different socio-economic status group. A finding, such as this, is somewhat confirmatory of what we know intuitively – we do not really need additional research in order to confirm or conclude as such. But I do note the Member's suggestion for such studies to be conducted in the local context, so that it can better appreciate the nuances or the different nuances.

18 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the progress of Traffic Police’s planning on the initiative to require speed-management devices on lorries that are used to ferry migrant workers; and (b) what is the expected timeline for the adoption of such devices on all such lorries.

In March 2022, we announced that the Government would mandate lorries with Maximum Laden Weight between 3,500 kilogrammes and 12,000 kilogrammes to be fitted with speed management devices or speed limiters.

The Traffic Police has since been working with industry stakeholders to evaluate the different types of speed limiter and to develop the implementation plan.

Industry stakeholders have given feedback that they would require some time to reconfigure their products to meet our requirements and conduct technical tests to ensure safety and roadworthiness. The industry will also need time to ramp up the supply and to ensure that there are sufficient authorised agents to install these devices. We aim to announce the details later this year.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. My supplementary question would be that I believe the earlier timeline that had been announced, if I am not wrong, was the first half of this year. Given that there is a safety issue here at stake, would the Minister of State be able to commit to a timeline for the adoption of these speed limiters, going forward? I hope that it would be a short timeline, given that we have worked on it for quite some time now.

Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I shared earlier, we have been actively engaging the industry. As you can see, it is a wide range of fleets of lorries, from the older ones to the newer ones. We are grateful that the industry players have come forward to share with us frankly and they also shared with us some of the supply chain constraints that the world is facing today.

On our part, we are doing our best to work with them to make sure that what we do and finally roll out will have considerations with regard to the costs, availability, effectiveness and the installation process. I assure the Member that we will do our best in a timely manner.

19 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what procedures and safeguards are being put in place before Temporary Occupation Licences are granted over sea spaces; and (b) what is the long-term plan for the governance and planning of sea spaces by URA.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, under the Foreshores Act, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) may grant Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) for the temporary occupation of the foreshore and seabed in Singapore for any period not exceeding one year.

If there are development works intended in the TOL area, the applicant will need to carry out in-depth consultation with agencies, such as the National Parks Board (NParks), National Environmental Agency (NEA), Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and Singapore Food Agency (SFA). Through the consultation, agencies will consider the impact of the development, determine if an environmental study needs to be conducted and require the necessary mitigation measures to be put in place. SLA will only issue the TOL after the necessary clearances from the technical agencies and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) have been obtained.

As part of the planning process, URA works closely with agencies to coordinate our plans in our sea spaces, such as through the Long-Term Plan Review. In the long term, most of the sea space within our port limits will continue to be used by the maritime industry and for port activities, which are important enablers of our economy.

URA will continue to work with MPA and other relevant agencies, such as NParks, SFA and SportSG, to plan for other important uses and activities within our sea space, such as aquaculture, industries, utilities and recreation, and ensure that these uses are carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner to minimise any impact on the marine ecosystem and biodiversity.

During the Adjournment Motion on protecting our marine spaces and Southern Islands earlier this year, the Minister for National Development also shared how agencies coordinate our plans from planning to implementation and engage nature groups and other stakeholders, so that their inputs can be considered. URA, MPA and the relevant agencies will continue to engage the community on plans for our sea spaces.

Ms Nadia Samdin, I will allow a supplementary question, but please make it brief.

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Ministry for the efforts in blue conservation. I understand that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) will only be conducted if the technical agencies consider that the impact may be significant. Could the Senior Minister of State please elaborate on what is the threshold of impact or some of the criteria that are considered significant? And what is the required frequency of ongoing environmental monitoring which is in place for such sea spaces?

Madam, the broad strategies for the use of sea space can be found in the Long-Term Plan Review. The specific use will be guided by more detailed plans worked out by the respective agencies with URA and those plans will have to consider the environmental impact. And as shared by the Member Ms Nadia Samdin, we are guided by the ecological profiling exercise (EPE), which is an ongoing, iterative effort to look at the impact on the environment, the marine ecosystem, biodiversity. In fact, we just completed a major one for the marine and sea spaces. It is a continual process.

For example, the EPE, from when we last completed it, had given us inputs for the Long-Term Plan Review. Those assessments will guide the agencies in the use of sea space.

Earlier in the session, we had a discussion on the use of sea spaces for aquaculture and fish farming where Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon had given answers to Ms Nadia Samdin and Mr Louis Ng. So, this is a real-life example of how we use the EPE and how the agencies use the EPE to guide some of the environmental impact assessments for the use of those spaces. So, it will be case-by-case, for the specific use.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Madam, I beg to move*, "That this House celebrates the accomplishments of our athletes and para-athletes at the 32nd Southeast Asian Games and the 12th ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia, and calls on the Government to undertake a thorough evaluation of the areas of improvement in Singapore's sporting ecosystem, and commit to realising clear, achievable goals for sporting success over the coming decade."

[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. (proc text)]

In November last year, I attended a concert by a band I loved as a teenager – Guns N' Roses. Besides reliving part of my formative years, among thousands of other middle-aged fans doing the same, I got a chance to see ageing rockers put on a spectacular show.

More recently, my sister joined another 50,000 Singaporeans at the concert more aligned to her musical tastes – the Korean girl band, Blackpink.

Both concerts were held at a stunning venue – the modern National Stadium nestled in the Singapore Sports Hub, the facility and engineering marvel that can seat as many as 55,000 was meant to host, first and foremost, world-class sporting competitions and other community events. So, as much as both my sister and I enjoyed our outings, the shadow of the failed Sports Hub's public-private partnership (PPP) hung over the scene.

We were left to wonder the future of this crowning jewel of our local sporting scene, left to hosting concerts by foreign musical acts. After all, I am old enough to recall a time when the stadium hosted the Kallang Roar. It was a time when a deep sense of nationalism welled up as we supported, especially, the football team. My mother still relates a story of me falling off the bed as a baby after being startled by a roar following Quah Kim Song's winning goal in the 1977 Malaysia Cup final.

The stars of my time, Fandi Ahmad, V Sundramoorthy and David Lee, united Singaporeans across ethnic lines in a way that top-down policies can only dream of inspiring.

But the Roar has fallen silent, as has the facility that was meant to revitalise local sports.

In today's Motion filed by myself and my fellow friend and sports fan, Faisal Manap from Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), we hope to provoke an earnest debate on the challenges faced by our national sportsmen and women, whether they represent the country at the highest levels or if they are young aspirants seeking a healthy outlet for their time and energy.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as much as I love sports, my domain of expertise is in economics. Hence, my opening speech will focus on the economic challenges faced in bringing Singapore sport to the next level, using, in particular, the Sports Hub episode as a foil. Mr Faisal will tackle what he and the Workers' Party believe are the non-economic challenges, using the example of football – the closest that we have to a national sport – to illustrate his points.

But we also hope that the discussion will go beyond just sports alone, because an eye to looking at our relative weaknesses on this front can offer insight into other areas of policy in Singapore, where we have been far less successful on the global stage despite our outpouring of blood and treasure to stoke greater success.

Let me begin, in the spirit of the Motion, by first congratulating our national athletes in the recently concluded 32nd Southeast Asian (SEA) Games and 12th ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia. Team Singapore fought hard and secured 157 medals in the SEA games and 44 in the Para Games. Every medal took sweat and tears and I ask this House to join me in a round of applause to all our athletes whether they medalled or not. [Applause.]

It is worth mentioning a few highlights. Sprint queen Shanti Pereira set a new national record for the 200 metres on her way to a double gold for the 100 metres and 200 metres. We should not forget, however, that she did so amidst a continuing battle with the burden of injuries and the pressure of immensely high expectations.

Fencer Tay Yu Ling returned to the top of the podium in fencing after retiring in 2010, proving that even in sport, age can just be a number that should not limit the boldness of our dreams.

Runner Soh Rui Yong, who had been excluded in the 2021 Games, earned a silver medal in the 10,000 metres. During the event, Soh had offered Indonesian rival Rikki Simbolon a drink after the latter had missed his in a striking mark of sportsmanship.

Our para-athletes, despite the physical odds that they face, once again did us proud. They brought home 44 medals in total, with Colin and Sophie Soon contributing a fifth of the total haul.

As much as we celebrate the achievements of these athletes, we should also be aware of where we have fallen short. Let me be clear: this does not diminish their sporting accomplishments. But unless we can candidly look at both the wins and losses, we cannot fully understand what we must do to get better.

After all, every successful sportsperson or team goes through the very same post-mortem after a competition. We need to do the same here.

Our SEA Games and Para Games performance placed us seventh among the 11 nations in total medal count for both. Given that we rank ninth in terms of population in the region, perhaps one could credibly argue that we outperformed our small size. But population is only one factor in determining cross-country sports outcomes – and not even the most important one.

If anything, systematic analysis suggests that it is countries' income that is far more influential, whether in specific sports like soccer or across sports more generally. Indeed, some have even gone as far as to argue that the same socio-economic determinants, especially wealth and development, drive sporting success.

There is a simple reason why incomes matter. Richer countries are better able to channel significant public and private resources towards sporting achievements. Hence, it is unsurprising that the quality of supporting infrastructure matters, too.

This is a prima facie reason why we might wish to promote infrastructure, such as the Sports Hub, as a catalyst to elevate local sport. It also underscores the need to prioritise soft infrastructure, such as athlete support and coach development. In that regard, Singapore has, unfortunately, not only punched below our weight but has actually consistently gotten worse.

With your permission, Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I have the Clerks distribute a handout that illustrates this under-performance in vivid detail.

Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Thank you. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL Parliament app.

I apologise in advance. I am an economist. I traffic in charts and figures, but I will walk us through this. The top panel shows a plot where the logarithm of the total medal count in the Summer Olympics is set against per capita incomes, measured in a common currency that is corrected for inflation. The small blue dots are other countries across the different competitions since 1976. Singapore is shown apropos in red.

The green line is the best-fit line from a simple linear regression. The way to read it is that observations above the line are over-achievements for their level of per capita income and vice versa for those below.

We are far below, consistent with clearly falling short. While our lack of Olympic success turns out to be not that unusual among ASEAN nations, we remain unambiguously an outlier.

A similar story can be told for our lack of football success, which is shown in the bottom panel. But here, we are now talking about a ranking, where a low number is better and so the line is inverted.

Yet, here, our story is even more disappointing. Our FIFA ranking back in 1993 is right smack on that green line, which means that we were at least consistent with our level of development. But as we have gotten richer, our ranking has, paradoxically, slid further away from where we would otherwise expect.

What explains our nation's anomalous outcomes is that it turns out money alone is not enough. Countries that have prioritised sporting achievement, including at the highest level, note that this prioritisation is what is important. This is why tiny Uruguay can win the World Cup twice and still consistently send competitive teams to the tournament. It is why Iceland's 330,000 people can qualify for international basketball and football tournaments and why Australia is a powerhouse in swimming, Jamaica keeps tearing up the tracks and the All Blacks represent New Zealand.

Part of the grand plan to revitalise our local sporting scene was the Singapore Sports Hub. The Sports Hub was conceived as a PPP that was meant to go far beyond infrastructure provision. Its bid evaluation placed a weight of two-fifths on appeal of sports, leisure and entertainment programming – more than any other criteria – reflecting the importance that the Government placed on operational considerations.

Yet, after launching to much fanfare in 2014 and as the then largest PPP project in the world, the Sports Hub would last only about a dozen years as a PPP. Around mid-June last year, the Government announced that SportSG would take over the ownership and management of the Sports Hub, stating that this would serve the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans better. This came after a "detailed financial, legal and operational due diligence" effort.

But it is notable that symptoms of underlying problems were already presenting themselves right from the start. Some of these, such as the delayed construction and launch due to the global financial crisis of 2008, were plausibly due to external factors, beyond the control of the consortium. But costs significantly overran the original estimate of $650 million to $800 million, eventually clocking in at $1.3 billion – twice the low-end estimate.

Even after construction, operational issues plagued the project. A football friendly between Brazil and Japan held in 2014 received criticism that the pitch was "more sand than grass." Just two months later, a Jay Chou concert held at the Hub was plagued by a leaky roof.

In 2016, rumours swirled about how one of the consortium partners was at risk of being ejected and a fiasco for that year's National Day Parade, which included a proposed upcharge for extra rehearsal days, poor reviews of the venue and a final price tag around twice the cost of that of the Floating Platform or the Padang.

Throughout, the facility had gone through Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) like hot potatoes, averaging one every other year, not to mention others in the c-suite.

But if these fundamental problems were known to the Government, it did not telegraph much of this to the rest of us. In a response to a Parliamentary Question posed in 2017 expressing concerns about the project, then-Minister for Community, Culture and Youth Grace Fu only revealed that SportSG was "in constant communication with Sports Hub Private Limited (SHPL)… [and] has a dedicated team of officers who monitor SHPL's performance closely and holistically."

When I asked in 2019 if there were lessons to be learnt from the episode, she declined to answer in detail, merely offering that being the "first major PPP that the Government has done, we can all learn from the process".

But we should be clear about why we pursued a PPP in the first place. Beyond the simple-minded desire to flow with a public policy fad, in principle, there are three reasons why one may pursue a PPP for a given project.

First, it is because the public sector does not have sufficient funds, and a partnership with the private sector becomes a means of unlocking necessary financing. This is often the case with infrastructure projects. Governments grant the rights of levying usage charges for, say, a road or bridge, to a private developer in exchange for their delivering the said construction project.

Second is because the desire to share the risks of the project between two parties. For projects with uncertain economic prospects, such as those who wish to build power or water treatment plants, especially in the still-developing area, roping in private partners can diversify the risks of potential losses among those with the ability and the willingness to bear such risks.

There is potentially a third area where PPP may appear to make sense but, in reality, warrants much more careful consideration. This is when the private sector may appear to possess the necessary expertise in the area, perhaps due to superior knowledge of the technology or the market.

But is it truly necessary to adopt a partnership structure where the upside from risks undertaken are mutually shared? What does the private sector contribute to the endeavour beyond their skills? Do the partners expand the market, develop the business? After all, if it is expertise alone, a superior model would be to simply hire the necessary human resources, project by project. You can think of the same thing when a firm decides on hiring workers, it takes a special contributor to be conferred the benefits of partnership.

For those unfamiliar with the model, it is easy to lay a criticism on it, but this is, to be fair, misguided. It is like blaming the tools on the poor workman. Moreover, we have extensive empirical evidence documenting the success of PPP projects in infrastructure, health and education across a wide variety of performance indicators both at home as well as worldwide.

The prototypical template is a design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) one, where all aspects of the DBFO fall on the private sector with the Government dealing with political and regulatory risks. Such projects include desalination and NeWater plants here and incineration plants, residential and university accommodation and even a whole tertiary campus – ITE College West.

But there have also been notable failures. In addition to the Sports Hub, the tender for Changi Motorsports Hub was investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in 2011. SMRT was returned to direct Government management in 2016 after repeated service disruptions and the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant had to undergo debt restructuring in 2019.

But the path not taken may perhaps be just as revealing.

In 2016, the Government ruled out a PPP for Changi Terminal 3 because it did not wish to focus on profits at the expense of service standards. A similar motivation appeared to be behind the abandonment of the PPP for NUS University Town where the ability to price services would be severely constrained by the overall desire to ensure subsidised higher education.

Such sentiments are instructive because they underscore the importance of looking beyond purely financial considerations to the ultimate purpose of any given project.

As Minister Edwin Tong explained in his Statement to Parliament following the takeover announcement, the Government was aware of the options available but it chose a PPP over the traditional procurement route anyway.

We can probably rule out the first of the major justifications I outlined earlier for adopting a PPP, which is that there were financing constraints. After all, this Government – unlike, say, one of our higher education institutions – would generally have no difficulties raising the necessary funds for a major infrastructure project, especially one that contributes to key national objectives.

As proof of the pudding, this Government routinely raises amounts for key infrastructure projects that are far larger than just $1.3 billion.

The reason seems more aligned with the third justification, which is that the partnership might have availed of specialised expertise, presumably for operating the Hub. Minister Tong alluded to this, stating that the PPP model was ultimately chosen because of the "unprecedented scale and complexity of such a major sports infrastructural project and the limitations at the time of not sufficient depth and breadth of such expertise in Singapore, including in the private sector".

But as I explained, we wish to tread carefully when deciding on a partnership to leverage expertise. While such skills may well be lacking at home, it remains unclear why we did not simply put such foreign talents on the payroll. We routinely bring in consultants, experts and managers even in areas where we have some expertise in, such as in finance or technology. Besides, the all-important operational partners of the SportsHub PPP were either local or had been based here for an extended period: venue operations fell under Global Spectrum Pico, a tie-up that includes a local company, and its facilities management was overseen by DTZ, whose presence in Asia is due to another Singaporean firm, Edmund Tie.

Perhaps, then, it comes down to the second justification, which is a desire to share risks. My best guess is that this was, indeed, a prime motivator. Minister Tong proudly declared that the “entire project design, planning and construction were borne by the PPP partners and the structure also allowed the Government to mitigate the risks of such a major project undertaking".

But perhaps therein lies the problem. In trying to offload risks, but still retaining its non-pecuniary objectives, the Government was trying to have its cake and eat it, too. But is this coherent? Was the Government trying to get the private sector to bear the financial risks, and then turning around and insisting that it also accommodates social objectives, instead of just concentrating on the bottom line? And imposing fines for unmet standards that it cannot be expected to meet, would that not further sour the partnership?

Such an approach where the Government can shift risks to the private sector while reaping benefits without active management is, I am afraid, naïve optimism. It is well understood that PPPs are ill-suited for social infrastructure since profit-making and social objectives may frequently diverge. In fact, a study reveals that appropriate risk allocation and sharing is one of the top three critical success factors behind PPP projects in Singapore.

This disconnect was recognised by those involved in the running of the SportsHub. Insiders shared about problems, such as too many potentially conflicting KPIs and stakeholders, excessive top-down oversight with little agency offered to SportsHub management and possibly misaligned goals even among key Government agencies, such as SportsSG, the Singapore Tourism Board and the Economic Development Board.

And since we do want our country's sports jewel to ignore our nation's sports promotion and community-building activities, having the Government assume both the role of client and controller means that the PPP arrangement was arguably fundamentally untenable to begin with.

Now that the Government has entirely taken over the Sports Hub, it is valuable for us to ask if it plans to ensure that the facility fulfils the aspirations for catalysing Singapore Sport, as we had truly hoped it would, close to a decade and a half ago.

Here, I will pose a series of questions, which I hope the Minister could offer more insight into.

First, how will Government management differ in practice from the PPP model? One reason that the Government offered for pursuing the PPP approach in the first place was that it did not have the expertise. What assures us that it has the expertise now to successfully run a world-class sports and events venue? If it does not – and I am sympathetic to how we should not necessarily expect civil servants to possess such talent – will we then go the route of hiring external experts and, if so, why was this not done in 2008?

More generally, will the Government commit to clear objectives that are aligned in advance among stakeholders?

It strikes me that a consultation process can help us better understand what the public has with regard to a proper and ideal use of the facility since it is meant to inspire local sports participation after all.

Second, how does the Government plan to balance community uses with profitable enterprises? For example, will there be a revision to venue rentals now that the Government has taken over the Sports Hub? In particular, will there be a distinction between commercial rental and community ones? After all, one reason why the substantial takeover fees were paid was ostensibly to remove commercial barriers for local sports promotion.

Minister Tong has already alluded to some of these in his earlier speech under the rubric of ActiveSG and Kallang Alive, including "National School Games, Singapore Youth Festival performances", and possibly even the "National Day Parade". He even hoped for a "return of the casual stroller or jogger to the stadium".

If the concern is understandably the crowding out of commercial returns due to the latter, we could perhaps consider scheduling community use events during clear downtimes when the facilities are not being used. But if, indeed, the Government will not operate the Sports Hub under the same assumptions as SHPL, how much does it expect to incur on an annual basis for operation in the years ahead and how will this differ from the original sums paid to SHPL?

This discussion of numbers naturally leads us to a more careful discussion of sport expenditures in Singapore. To do this, we must step back and scrutinise the budget just a little bit, so that we are working off a common context.

I promise I am not going to circulate any more handouts, but I will quickly summarise. In the latest Budget estimates, SportSG currently accounts for the ongoing expenditures of a little less than $391 million, with development expenditures of close to $123 million. This comes to $514 million. There is a separate budget line for sports programmes, with an operating expenditure of $41 million and development expenditure of $470,000. Taken together, we devote just about $556 million, or half a percent of total fiscal expenditures, to sport.

Of this, the Sports Hub consumed around $57 million in fiscal 2022, in the form of capital grants. There was an extraordinary development expenditure charge of close to $1.4 billion in fiscal 2022, which, presumably, was the upfront termination fee. But there are additional operational costs of $800 million which will have to be incurred through till 2035. I am assuming that these will be accounted for on an annual basis and will show up in the Budget Statements in future, but I am happy to stand corrected if I am incorrect.

If we agree with these numbers, then the next step is to ask if such expenditures should be giving us more bang for the buck.

As it turns out, the general expenditure on recreational and sporting services for the EU as a whole amounted to 0.7% of all general government expenditure, a share very similar to ours. Japan spends a mere 0.02%, and yes, you heard that right, of its government budget on sport. And in Korea, the entire Ministry of Culture, Sport and Tourism, which notably includes massive expenditures on promoting Korean culture via Hallyu, comes to only 1.3% of the national budget, with sports accounting for just 0.3%.

Yet, these countries have performed more admirably on the international sporting stage than we have, even taking into account their larger populations. Ironically, we are ranked the best in the world for a sport, tchoukball, that does not have a national association. For another sport without a recognised national association, dodgeball, Singapore is sixth or seventh.

But all this applies at the micro level as well, which is why the Sports Hub example is illuminating. The poor management of sports facilities is merely symptomatic of a more general inefficiency of public spending in sports, which, in turn, not only contributed to a failure of the PPP, but spills over into poorer sporting outcomes as well.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the remainder of the Workers' Party Members will speak to different elements to help flesh out this debate. Both Dennis Tan and Faisal Manap will speak about football. This is not quite the overkill that it seems to be since, as mentioned earlier, football is a sport that almost every Singaporean connects with.

They will also deal with different aspects: Mr Tan on how we can revitalise our Singapore Premier League, starting from the grassroots level; and Mr Faisal on how we can help our Singapore National team recover from its current malaise.

But sport goes beyond soccer. So, Mr Leon Perera will go on to highlight some less celebrated sports, although along the way, he will also speak more generally about how our sports ecosystem may be strengthened. Mr Gerald Giam will do likewise, offering ideas on tweaking the local youth ecosystem to help improve our odds of sporting success in the international arena. And Ms He Ting Ru will, similar to Leon, speak about inclusion in our sporting system, including the disabled and those who are not necessarily participating at the highest levels of sporting competition.

Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim will speak about how, to do well in sport, we must also take care of our ex-athletes even after they retire. In doing so, we not only provide them with the security of knowing that our country has their back when they compete, but even after they do, which, in turn, allows them to push themselves before they even start. It also speaks to how, as a society, we should be taking care of all segments of our society, even when those segments may have faded away from the public limelight.

I look forward as well to all the other contributions from Members of this House, in what I expect to be a lively debate on how we can take Singapore sports to its next level.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Faisal Manap.

Madam, I second and support the Motion moved by my hon colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, "That this House celebrates the accomplishments of our athletes and para-athletes at the recent 32nd SEA Games and the 12th ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia, and calls on the Government to undertake a thorough evaluation of the areas of improvement in Singapore's sporting ecosystem, and commit to realising clear, achievable goals for sporting success over the coming decade."

The recent 32nd SEA Games and 12th ASEAN Para Games which were held in Cambodia saw the participation of Singapore's contingent, with a strength of 558 athletes competing in 30 sports and 26 athletes in six sports, respectively. At the SEA Games, our Team Singapore had bagged a total of 158 medals: 51 golds, 43 silvers and 64 bronzes. Meanwhile, at the ASEAN Para Games, our Team Singapore had brought back 12 golds, 15 silvers and 17 bronzes, totalling 44 medals.

I salute all our Team Singapore athletes for giving their best, sacrificing time and energy, and for their resilience and endurance in overcoming challenges and obstacles in flying our Singapore flag high. My heartiest congratulations go out to our medal winners for their triumph and bringing pride to our country, also to our national athletes who had bettered their personal bests at the Games as well as those who fought hard against formidable opponents. A big thanks to our Team Singapore's coaches and officials and a deep appreciation to our athletes' families, loved ones and friends for their great support and encouragement in spurring and motivating our athletes.

Madam, in any sporting event, there will be triumphs and defeats. For the 32nd SEA Games and 12th ASEAN Para Games, we celebrated the continued success of our swimmers both at the SEA Games and the Para Games and we rejoiced at the resurgence of runner Shanti Pereira – among other wonderful wins. But there were also moments of despair, in particular, when we saw our football team suffer their heaviest SEA Games loss in decades when they lost 7-0 to Malaysia.

Our footballers' dismal showing at the SEA Games came not long after another crushing disappointment when we limped out of the ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) Championships 2022 tournament. It felt like rubbing salt to the wound or, in Malay, "sudah jatuh ditimpa tangga", or a double whammy.

Madam, in this speech of mine, I will focus on the circumstances of Singapore Football. I can confidently say that football has the strongest following among Singaporeans as compared to any other sport. Football is also known to be a unifying sport as it brings together the different segments of society, regardless of socio-economic status, race, language and religion. While this is not unique to Singapore, our football culture has its unique characteristics. We have our Kallang Roar and Kallang Wave, named for the location of our former National Stadium, where fans always turned out in droves to support our Lions in every home match when they competed in the Malaysian League and Cup competitions. That experience fostered a sense of our shared bonds and a feeling of oneness and pride of supporting our national teams, as each fan became a part of the Kallang Roar and Wave.

Sadly, Madam, this experience now feels like ancient history. We have not witnessed such exhilarating and tremendous support for our Lions for many years. Many are still painfully waiting for the revival of our Lions, expressing our concerns, sharing views and perspectives, but, regrettably, there are quite a big number who have lost faith and given up after our Lions' poor performance in AFF Championships 2022 and the 32nd SEA Games, followed by two recent uninspiring international friendlies.

Madam, I have, throughout the years, spoken several times in this Chamber on Singapore Football, sharing my perspectives. Speaking in support of this Motion, I would like to again surface mine as well as fellow Singaporeans' observations, concerns, thoughts on the current situation and what can be done for the future of our football. Some of these points are a reiteration and elaboration of what I have said in this Chamber.

Madam, I would like to make it clear that I am neither claiming that I have the solutions to this plight that we are facing, nor do I want to belittle any ongoing efforts in bringing glory back to Singapore. My speech is a small contribution in terms of observations and perspectives in our attempts to Make Singapore Football Great Again.

To begin with, let us look at where Singapore currently stands in the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) rankings. Our men's national team is currently ranked at 158th place. The highest ranking we ever attained was 73rd in 1993, while the lowest is 173rd in 2018 and our average is 127th. At the peak of our FIFA ranking, our men's football national team in 1993 was made up of popular footballers, such as Fandi Ahmad, V Sundramoorthy, Malek Awab, Nazri Nasir, Rafi Ali and other excellent players.

This means that in the three decades since we achieved our highest ranking, we have dropped by a remarkably disappointing 85 places, which is also 31 places below our average. Since we hit bottom in 2018, we improved by 15 places in five years. But this minor improvement is a small consolation for the players and fans who are struggling to understand how we have failed to improve over the years despite all the efforts put in. Our recent results demonstrate that where many other countries in the region have improved, Singapore football has fallen behind.

Madam, the right efforts are needed to formulate the right programmes and approaches to better our football situation. We need to see what had worked and what did not work in the past, so that we can dissect, review, finetune and come up with the best efforts and measures in improving our football.

I believe any changes that need to be made should start with setting of a Goal or Vision for Singapore Football. I believe that both the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and the Government understand this. In 1998, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had this vision, Goal 2010, to qualify for the World Cup in that year. We obviously did not make it, but we had a brief glimmer of hope when our junior Lions won third place during the inaugural Youth Olympic Games (YOG) hosted in Singapore. That team, coached by former player Kadir Yahaya, seemed to hold promise for a brighter future in Singapore football. I will speak more on that unfulfilled promise later.

More recently, in August 2019, it was reported in the media that the then-Vice President of FAS, Mr Edwin Tong mentioned that, I quote, "FIFA World Cup 2034 will be a realistic goal for Singapore." On this matter, I had asked the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) through a Parliamentary Question in September 2019, as well as in my Committee of Supply (COS) 2020 cut on FAS' strategic plans in achieving this goal. MCCY's replies were that the Ministry was waiting for FAS to advise them on their plans.

Nonetheless, in March 2021, FAS, as reported in the media, shared that the World Cup 2034 is an "aspirational target". Pertaining to World Cup 2034, I would like to seek two clarifications. One, FAS has announced in August 2019 that World Cup 2034 is a realistic goal. Meanwhile, in March 2021, FAS set it as an "aspirational target". Can FAS or MCCY confirm whether it is the former or the latter?

Second, I would like to, once again, ask for updates from FAS or MCCY on the strategic plans in achieving this realistic goal or aspirational target. I note that there are plans to launch an Under-17 league in 2024, and also to train talent scouts, which were announced in May 2023 during a consultation exercise. But surely, there has to be more to the roadmap.

Madam, aspirational targets are well and good, but there also needs to be a healthy dose of reality injected. If we cannot even advance beyond the group stages in regional competitions, making it to the World Cup is nothing short of a fantasy. And even if, by some miracle, we were to meet that unlikely aspirational target, we are likely to be utterly humiliated.

Before we even think about the World Cup, why not we first try to qualify for the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Asian Cup in 2036? Historically, our national football team has participated in the AFC Cup since its inception. However, the only time we have ever qualified for the final round was in 1984 – as the host country. We have never made it past the qualifying rounds on our own steam. Let us set our sights on the AFC Asian Cup and develop a roadmap towards that goal. The roadmap can include milestones, such as winning the AFF Championship and maybe even gold at the SEA Games in a decade. In this manner, there is greater accountability as well. And if we need to revisit the strategy along the way and tweak it here and there, so be it. It is better than setting an aspirational target that is plain unrealistic.

Madam, in any sport, the seeds for success must be sown early. In 2021, FAS announced the introduction of "Unleash The Roar" (UTR). Once again, as I did in my COS 2022 speech, I welcome the small steps that have been taken under the UTR project, such as the setting up of School Football Academies and partnerships with global leaders in football, such as clubs from the Spanish premier La Liga.

This is not the first time that FAS has tried to implement youth development programmes. One example is the Junior Centres of Excellence (JCOEs) which were implemented in 2011. If we go back further, we have the Milo Soccer School. For those who may be too young to remember, the Milo Soccer School was a key youth development programme in the 1980s and 1990s which gave birth to many of our nation's football heroes, among whom are Fandi Ahmad, Nazri Nasir and Lee Man Hon.

So, we know that youth development is not a new idea for Singapore football. But we also have to confront our failures in youth development, despite the investment of time and resources. In 2015, then-FAS technical director Michel Sablon, in a media report, praised JCOEs and mentioned that with further improvement of this programme, he was confident that Singapore's national team can be like Japan's by 2020. Maybe Mr Sablon was being over-enthusiastic in speaking to the media; maybe his sense of optimism was hopelessly misplaced. We may never know.

What we do know is that we have failed to make progress in youth development even after all the programmes that were implemented and even after we appointed several reputable technical directors and coaches. There was a time in the 1970s and 1980s when our football team was on par with the current Asian football powerhouses, such as the Japanese and Korean teams. They have advanced considerably; we have not.

The relative lack of progress suggests that there are factors that hindered the effectiveness of our plans and programmes. These could include failures in the training and development system and the lack of quality in mentoring, coaching and grooming our young talents.

To elaborate this point further, I would like to return to our 2010 Singapore Youth Olympic Games (YOG) team, which I mentioned earlier in my speech. This team created history for our football when they won a bronze medal at the tournament. And they seemed to hold great promise, having also secured a 3-2 victory over the Tottenham Hotspur academy team during the team's two-week camp in England in their preparation for YOG 2010.

The players from that tournament were dubbed a "Golden Generation" not only for achieving a milestone bronze medal at the inaugural event, but also for their exciting style of play. And yet, a review of their fortunes a decade later told a story of a lost generation of footballers. I would like to quote some of these players sharing their woes, which was reported in one of our local online media. First quote: "After the YOG, there was no follow-up… We had no coach and we didn't even have a single training session for seven or eight months". Another quote, "While much was promised, in terms of on-the-ground work, nothing was really done. We were on our own, things soon went downhill, and eventually they forgot about us".

Madam, I am aware that excellence at the youth level does not always translate at the senior level. Nevertheless, I believe we need to pose some hard questions, identify where we have previously gone wrong and rectify these errors as we commit towards a long-term youth development programme that will not lead to another "Golden Generation" turning into a "Lost Generation".

Madam, I mentioned earlier in my speech that Singapore football has its unique features, such as the Kallang Wave and the Kallang Roar. There are other, less positive, unique aspects to Singapore football which we need to address if we are to progress towards success.

I have touched on this issue previously. In 2019, I noted that former national player and coach Fandi Ahmad had made reference to a "unique ecosystem" in Singapore football which he felt was important for the coach of our national team to understand. In response to Fandi's comments, FAS had cited our small population, land constraints and the competing commitments, such as National Service and academics, which our young players have to juggle, compared to their peers globally and regionally, who are more likely to be full-time professionals.

I believe these "unique" factors remain relevant today. In my previous speech, I had called on MCCY, SportSG and FAS to form a unique team to examine how we can leverage these factors to create a more positive ecosystem for our footballers and, in fact, all our athletes.

The issue of National Service has been thoroughly debated in this House and I acknowledge the various allowances for deferment or disruption of National Service obligations which the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has provided for our athletes competing at a high level. Balancing our defence needs with our sporting aspirations is necessary and possible.

As for our other unique features, I would like to know if the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has conducted study visits and reviews of countries who face similar population constraints as Singapore and what lessons have been learnt and perhaps implemented into our own development planning. I had cited Iceland, whose football team made it to the 2018 World Cup despite their small population.

Madam, Croatia is another footballing nation that we could also learn from. A country with a population of around four million, it has been achieving great success in international football. The Croatian football team joined FIFA in 1994, ranked 125th. They rose to third place with their first World Cup appearance in 1998, making them the fastest, most volatile ascension in FIFA ranking history as well as the youngest team to ever occupy the top 10 of the world ranking.

Another point I would like to share which could spur our football is about providing better support in terms of employment or career path for our national players upon their retirement from football. I brought this up as I met and spoke to a couple of Singapore's ex-internationals who shared that they do not encourage their children to pursue their dreams to start a football career. When asked why, their short reply, "No future." Their concern is what would become of their children after their short career stint in football. Madam, this is a real and valid concern.

Madam, I am aware that on 23 June 2023, FAS has announced "Players' Concierge" as a platform to serve our national players, both current and former, providing guidance, guiding and equipping them with the necessary tools to prepare for life after football, as remarked by former Singapore international Baihakki Khaizan, who conceived this initiative. Baihakki gave assurance that our aspiring footballers of the next generation would see football as a viable career which does not end once they hang up their boots.

Madam, I laud this initiative and hope that this effort will get the support from all the stakeholders and, in turn, build confidence in our youths as well as their parents of the viability of pursuing a football career.

Madam, the final point I would like to make is to reiterate the call I made in this year's COS which is that FAS and other relevant stakeholders engage in an open conversation, a large scale one similar to our national conversation, with local players and coaches, both current and former, and to add on also local football fans and enthusiasts. The sporadic and occasional closed door consultations FAS has held is of limited value and has the risk of creating an echo chamber.

In May 2023, FAS announced that it will convene a review panel after the dismal performance at the SEA Games. I support this effort. However, I would propose that this review does not only look into our dismal performance at the SEA Games but instead do a review of Singapore football as a whole, a review that will look into making Singapore football great again. And if it means we need to tear down FAS and rebuild from the ground up, so be it.

Madam, I think this proposed effort is worth the time, resources and energy. As I have mentioned in the earlier part of my speech, football is a unifying sport as it brings together the different segments of society regardless of socio-economic status, race, language and religion, making Singapore football great again will bring the revival of Kallang Roar and the Kallang Wave which our nation has been patiently waiting for almost three decades. [Applause.]

Leader of the Opposition.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion on sporting success filed by the Member for Sengkang GRC, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and the Member for Aljunied GRC, Muhammad Faisal bin Abdul Manap.

I also join my Workers' Party colleagues, Members of this House and all Singaporeans in extending our well wishes to Team Singapore athletes who competed at the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games and the Southeast Asian (SEA) Paralympic Games last month.

At every international sporting event, a few Singaporean athletes stand out. At the last SEA Games, Shanti Pereira's name was on everyone's lips and deservedly so, as she took her place as the fastest sprinter in Southeast Asia. Feng Tianwei's grit was a source of pride for many at her swan song at the last Commonwealth Games.

And there are certainly athletes who wish they could have done better. To these sportsmen and women, I say: failure makes future success even sweeter; so, stay in the fight and know that Singapore will always be rooting for you.

To this end, I want to express my support for the national Under-22 football team which could do with more support from everyone right now. A few results during the SEA Games may have been hard to swallow, but I look forward to Singapore football putting this tournament behind them.

There are a few sports that can unite Singaporeans nationally like football can. We saw that during the 2020 Suzuki Cup semi-final when the Lions, with the team down to eight men, fought hard, despite the odds. In doing so, they earned the respect of so many Singaporeans.

Sportsmen and women have that incredible gift, the ability to lift their compatriots in a way very few expressions of human achievement can. That is the incredible unifying power of sports and why our athletes, regardless of their sport, play a huge role in nation-building and deserve our support and utmost respect.

On a more personal note, I would like to congratulate Aljunied-Hougang Town Councillor, Mr Francis Seet and his daughter Tiffany. Despite starting the sport of fencing only a few years ago, she brought home, as part of the foil team, a gold medal from the recent SEA Games.

Madam, my contribution to this Motion is focused on the resolution of disputes between sports authorities and athletes. I speak with reference to one of my residents, SEA Games silver medalist, Soh Rui Yong, and his non-selection for the upcoming Asian Games in October.

Right off the bat, it is important to recognise that there are certain obligations involved when an athlete competes under the national flag. There are rules to follow. However, as they are highly competitive individuals, it is not unusual to find that sports attract its fair share of the strong-minded and the strong-willed. In fact, this element of their character is sometimes the "X" factor that also pushes them to surpass their opponents.

History is replete with such headstrong characters, such as the great Muhammad Ali, whose showmanship both in and out of the ring and incredible ability combined to define him. To say that he routinely thumbed his nose at authority is probably an understatement. In March 1966, he consciously objected to being drafted to serve in the Vietnam War and earned the ire of those in authority, which he referred to as the "white establishment". His sense of universal justice was captured for posterity in his famous words, "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam, while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?"

Arising from his personal stand against the war, he was systematically denied a boxing licence in every state in the US and stripped of his passport. As a result, he did not fight professionally from March 1967 to October 1970, when he was aged 25 to almost 29 – the best years of his sporting life – as his legal battle worked its way through the US criminal justice system until his conviction was overturned in 1971.

In many sports, people wear their hearts on their sleeves. In Singapore's recent past, national footballer Noh Alam Shah was one such individual. Whenever I can, like many Singaporeans, I make it a point to watch the Singapore Lions in action. Noh Alam Shah gave his heart and soul when in national colours. But he had a temperamental side and was involved in violent conduct – conduct which cannot be condoned. Once, he was banned by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) from football for 12 months, with the sentence cut to seven months on appeal.

Passion is not just restricted to athletes. After Singapore's 7-0 loss to Malaysia in football at the last SEA Games, much fan frustration was directed at the management team of FAS. One commentator on Instagram told the current FAS Acting President Bernard Tan to resign. Bernard Tan responded by challenging the individual to meet face-to-face, something he later apologised for.

Given the emotions involved in sport and the popularity of football in Singapore, I can understand Mr Tan's passion, even as it was always going to be matched by some of our long-suffering football fans. We can all accept that sport ignites passions. We win together, we lose together, we celebrate together and we hurt together.

To this end, I wish to speak about the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC)'s non-selection of long distance runner Soh Rui Yong for the upcoming Asian Games.

Rui Yong is the national record holder for the 5,000 metres, 10,000 metres, half marathon and marathon events. My last substantive communication with him was to congratulate him on his performance at the recently concluded SEA Games. Not only did he win silver for the 10,000 metres, he earned plaudits in Singapore and the region for a spontaneous display of sportsmanship, passing his own cup of water to his Indonesian opponent, whom he was in neck-to-neck with, when the Indonesian dropped his water bottle.

Prior to the last SEA Games, Rui Yong was left out of the SEA Games by the SNOC in 2019 and 2022 for disciplinary reasons, when he was at the prime of his athletic life. He had previously won the gold medal for Singapore in the marathon at the SEA Games, both in 2015 and 2017. His latest non-selection will seriously curtail his ability to run and medal for Singapore ever again. Unlike fixed term suspensions for violent conduct or criminal offences, SNOC's blanket non-selection forces his sporting career into limbo for an unknown period.

From publicly available information, the latest non-selection for the Asian Games is a result of public comments he made online. Thirty-six pages of documents allegedly leaked to The Straits Times detailed posts and comments that SNOC took issue with. According to a Rice Media article dated 17 June this year which was titled, "Soh Rui Yong isn't perfect and he should not have to be", Rui Yong responded to SNOC's objection by removing the post in question. This did not placate SNOC and he was still not selected.

The same article says that Rui Yong was not given a chance to clarify his post before the SEA Games' Appeals Committee. He was quoted as saying, "I look forward to proving myself on the track and I hope the Committee would see sense in putting me on the team for the Asian Games. And on my part, I also endeavour to be more careful."

The Olympic Charter states that National Olympic Committees' selection of athletes shall not just be based on sporting performance, but an ability to serve as an example to the sporting youths of one's country. I wish to restate that it is not unreasonable for SNOC to expect our sportsmen and women to exhibit discipline. SNOC must have the authority to bar athletes after a disciplinary panel has heard the affected athlete out, consistent with the principles of natural justice. But I ask that SNOC take a more forgiving attitude towards Soh Rui Yong.

Indeed, SNOC has a track record of forgiving athletes that have fallen short of being examples for our sporting youths and allowed them to compete for Singapore.

For example, a Silat exponent was allowed to represent Singapore at the last SEA Games despite a drink-driving conviction in 2022; a swimmer who had won a silver medal at the last SEA Games had previously been disciplined for consuming controlled drugs and had his prestigious spexScholarship suspended for one month.

Both these athletes were involved in criminal offences. Soh Rui Yong has not been. So, why is SNOC's attitude towards Rui Yong different?

The core of the schism between SNOC and Rui Yong appears to be a spat that arose when Rui Yong challenged the SNOC's nomination of another athlete for an International Sportsman award. Rui Yong disputes the nomination as a matter of principle, I would think, and he disagrees with the facts put forward.

A very senior SNOC figure testified in a civil trial against Rui Yong and senior management figures in Singapore sports had made online posts criticising Rui Yong's actions.

There is a widespread belief that the latest non-selection is a carry-over of that original spat. One cannot help but feel that things have turned personal, with SNOC taking a far stronger stand against Rui Yong, compared to other athletes who have committed transgressions as if to teach him a lesson for his outspokenness.

The current impasse makes everyone look like who they are really not. SNOC has done much work in promoting Singapore sports, bringing sponsors on board and raising the esteem of sports in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans and many parents in a very big way.

But in the eyes of many Singaporeans, on the Soh Rui Yong matter, SNOC, as the highest sporting body in Singapore, comes out looking petty, even as many also believe that Rui Yong needs to learn from the past and draw a line and focus on his sporting career.

It is time to move on from the previous episode involving the lawsuit and I hope the Ministry officials, if not the Minister-in-charge of sports, can intercede to prevent parties from reaching a point where Singapore sport cuts off its nose to spite its own face.

I believe that politicians should not be directly involved in sports and, when they do get involved, it would be for such purposes – as a facilitator to raise the profile of our sports and sportsmen, generating support from corporates, society and parents, and to bring some much-needed wisdom and equanimity into disputes, such as those involving Rui Yong and SNOC.

For their part, I am of the view that our sports administrators can afford to take an elevated approach as they have done in the past and be more big-hearted, especially when you consider their collective seniority and contributions to Singapore sports.

To begin with, a more enlightened and mature approach from all but, particularly SNOC – which does not just hold all the cards but is, clearly, the party in which the power relationship between athlete and state representation resides – can make a massive difference.

I hope this matter can be brought to an amicable resolution with better engagement by a mediator from the Ministry. I ask the Minister to take the initiative and support my call.

Our sporting ecosystem is strengthened when we focus on sporting values, sportsmanship and bringing glory to Singapore.

I support the Motion filed by Member for Sengkang Jamus Lim and Member for Aljunied Muhamad Faisal Manap.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, today, I stand before you, filled with pride and admiration for our athletes and para-athletes, their respective coaching and support teams who surpassed expectations in the last SEA Games and ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia. Their tenacity and determination embody the Singapore Spirit, a nation that, indeed, punches above its weight.

Sports, as I impart them to my students, are a mirror that reflects a nation's vitality. It unveils the determination, unity and resilience within us – serving as a source of national pride and a catalyst for community cohesion.

Reflecting on my journey, first as an athlete, then as a Physical Education teacher, then as a Sports Science lecturer, and now as a Member of Parliament, I have seen the transformational powers of sports. It is in the joyful shouts and cries of children playing in the school fields and school halls, the tense moments as you await your race in the track and field competition, that community spirit, that feel that you get at a sports competition.

Sports bring us together, teach us about resilience and inspire us to push our boundaries. Our sporting ecosystem should, therefore, be perceived not merely as a conveyor belt for medals, prospects but as a vibrant platform that unites us.

Community sports are the cornerstone of our sporting ecosystem. Our champions, like Fandi Ahmad, Joseph Schooling and Shanti Pereira, amongst many others, first kindled their passion and honed their skills within the confines of our schools, our local sporting facilities and community centres.

The National School Games serve as a crucial platform for fostering this development. This annual competition incites the competitive spirit among our young athletes and provides an early stage for talent identification.

But the significance of community sports surpasses the discovery of sporting talent. It cultivates a sporting culture permeating our society, bolsters social cohesion and instils a shared sense of identity and pride.

When children pass the baton in a relay race or collaborate in a game of sepak takraw, they are not merely playing; they are acquiring teamwork, discipline and resilience.

A second area of focus should be the provision of support for emerging sports that resonate with our youth, such as floorball and tchoukball. These unconventional sports introduced in schools are gaining traction due to their dynamic and inclusive nature. Despite their growing popularity, these sports often do not receive the same level of support or recognition as more traditional sports.

Madam, sports play a significant role in our mental health, too. They serve as an important vehicle for stress relief and mood improvement, especially among our youths. But we must acknowledge and address the mental health challenges faced by our athletes, too, who often deal with immense pressure. This underlines the need for a well-resourced sporting ecosystem and justifies further backing for community sports and emerging sports. In doing so, we are not just nurturing future champions but investing in the mental health of our population.

To strengthen community sports, I propose that our Government continue to invest in local sports facilities and increase funding for coaching programmes at the community level. And our national "Unleash the Roar!" project speaks to this, in the context of football. To uplift the standards of Singapore football, we need to first grow a broad base of participation.

Our children have many options to play football today, even though our void decks are out of bounds due to safety – our school fields, our halls, the parks, the School Football Academies, ActiveSG Football Academy, Singapore Sports School, private clubs and academies – they are all available.

From this broad base, we need to systematically identify the best talent for further development. In that regard, it is important that we equip our coaches and scouts to do this well. Identified talents need to undergo structured training and development. They need to compete regularly and at the right levels. I look forward to the setting up of the national and junior football development centres to provide such structured opportunities for training and competition.

At the same time, we also need a high-level competitive league that our local young players, as well as the best players from the region, aspire towards. And this is where I come to the Singapore Premier League (SPL). Sadly, the matches are no longer as lively as they used to be and I urge the relevant parties to review what more can be done for the SPL.

Madam, beyond football, what we must continue to do is nurture the love for sports, unearth potential talents and champions and, in line with Healthier SG, build a healthier, more resilient Singapore.

To me, sporting success extends beyond the medals we secure on international platforms; it is deeply rooted in the strength and vibrancy of our community sports culture. It is about nurturing unity, fostering resilience and creating a platform for everyone to maximise their potential.

Madam, please allow me to borrow a concept from the dynamical systems theory, which suggests that our journey to sporting success must not be confined to a single path. There is no linear or predetermined process for success. It is a dynamic process, constantly shaped and reshaped by multiple factors. It emerges from the interaction of the individuals, that is, our athletes; the task, which is the sports they are in; and the environment, which is the community.

In that regard, "Success is an emergent property of the interaction between an athlete and their community itself." And as we venture into the next decade, let us embrace this dynamic, interdependent relationship within our sporting ecosystem.

Madam, despite the compelling reservations and suggestions I have outlined, I lend my support to the Motion, albeit with some notable reservations: firstly, it is in the oversight of the indispensable role our communities play in our sporting journey; secondly, it does not fully align with the more encompassing perspective that I hold personally of what sporting success means and what I advocate for.

In my view, sporting success transcends the accumulation of medals on the international stage and is a multifaceted achievement that encompasses community involvement, personal growth and the manifold benefits that ripple through our society.

We are, indeed, on the right path, but we must make a conscious effort to ensure that our journey is both encompassing and enriching – cherishing every aspect of our sporting ecosystem from grassroots participation to international acclaim.

This is not just about sports. It is about shaping a resilient, inclusive society. It is about the dreams we foster, the communities we build and the nation we envision. It is about the very essence of who we are and who we aspire to be. In this pursuit, let us remember: our goal is not to conquer the field, but to conquer the odds.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I support the Motion as moved by my hon colleague and Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, "that this House celebrates the accomplishments of our athletes and para-athletes at the recent 32nd SEA Games and the 12th ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia, and calls on the Government to undertake a thorough evaluation of the areas of improvement in Singapore's sporting ecosystem, and commit to realising clear, achievable goals for sporting success over the coming decade."

Indeed, I join my colleagues and Members of the House in congratulating our athletes and para-athletes at the recent SEA Games and ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia. I would also like to congratulate all the athletes from Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC) for their achievements and thank them for their hard work and dedication.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I share the same concerns and agree with what my hon colleague, Member for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap, has stated in his speech. In addition to the points he has made, I also have a few suggestions.

Singapore is, indeed, a football-mad nation. We have a massive following of European football and many in Singapore have a favourite English Premier League team or a European club.

Many Singaporeans were disappointed with the results of our football team at the SEA Games, and we saw much outpouring of emotions by many. Many of us wondered how we have gotten to where we are today. However, beyond the disappointment and frustrations, I believe there is national will to see Singapore football succeed and we want to support our players and coaches to improve and succeed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we can do better by starting with the basic and building a suitable sporting ecosystem to harness this passion to improve Singapore football. I believe we can do more to increase accessibility to the sport and, therefore, cultivating a larger pool of talents and increase buy-in from Singaporeans.

To begin with, I think it is important to develop a broader base of talent. I would like to suggest that more efforts be directed to the lower football leagues to encourage better participation and to improve quality in such leagues.

According to the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) Annual Report for 2022, Singapore Premier League (SPL) clubs received $8,896,804 in grants while FAS' total expenses for SPL amounted to $13,669,626, inclusive of the state grants.

In comparison, FAS had only incurred combined expenses of $147,404 for the Singapore Football League Divisions 1 and 2, together with Women's Football, inclusive of the Women's Domestic League.

While we can understand why there may be some disparities, I think FAS can still do more to invest in its own lower football leagues or what FAS described as "domestic football leagues" in its notes to their financial statements for Financial Year 2022.

I hope FAS can do more to generate interest, increase participation and improve standards. There should be more equitable distribution for these lower grassroots leagues under FAS to provide a larger pool of talent for SPL clubs as well as for our national team. If such grassroots football leagues had even one-fifth of such resources dedicated to them, the conditions and levels of grassroots football can improve drastically.

For example, clubs can have more budget for training spaces and coaches or even simpler things like having more balls for matches and decent insurance coverage for their players.

Still on the issue of the funding of SPL clubs, which I have mentioned earlier, I would also like to suggest that such funding may be a two-edged sword. While it is encouraging that clubs can afford to pay their players and keep the lights on, it appears to have its drawbacks in other aspects.

Firstly, SPL clubs are not reliant on fans for income, unlike most clubs around the world. So, there is no pressing need to market themselves, to reach out to new fans and cultivate a strong fanbase to support each club.

Next, football fans want to support teams that have history and identity. For example, Futbol Club (FC) Barcelona attracts fans with a tiki-taka brand of football, and even a club like Stoke City, which garnered a cult following in 2010 with their physical brand of football.

While having a common pool of funds for the club is good on paper, it may, in fact, dilute the identity factor.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I submit that clubs should be further encouraged to build their own identity, branding, following and fanbase. In fact, this may, in turn, improve their advertising and sponsorship income. Another possible solution is to earmark specific funds for purposes, such as marketing, merchandising and ticket subsidies. Another suggestion is to gradually reduce the general funding over a longer period of time, say, 10 years, to encourage clubs to find diverse revenue streams.

Earlier, I mentioned the disparity of funding between SPL and SFL clubs. Perhaps, we can increase competition and standards at the SPL as well as at the SFL by reintroducing the prospects of promotion and relegation.

For example, the bottom one or two SPL clubs will be automatically relegated, to be replaced by, say, the top one or two clubs in the SFL. This would encourage greater competition among all clubs at all levels and enhance quality, standards, participation and interest at all levels. It will drive clubs in lower leagues to improve their standards and seek promotion to the SPL. It will discourage complacency for clubs at the SPL level as they cannot take their higher grant or income stream for granted.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe more can be done about the street football culture, or the lack thereof, in Singapore. Many household names that football fans of all ages recognise, started out with street football – from Diego Maradona to Johan Cruyff and, perhaps more recently, players like Ronaldinho, Wayne Rooney or Cristiano Ronaldo.

Many Singaporeans of different generations would remember playing football at void decks or even on grass patches in the kampung. How has our street football culture developed over the decades?

Our street football culture in Singapore has been curtailed by the lack of space. In the earlier years, perhaps we had a unique void deck football culture when neighbours of even both genders would come together to have a kickabout. That was a uniquely Singapore football culture.

Many remember void deck football fondly. It was near home, it was sheltered, so people can play, rain or shine, and it has many pre-made goal posts or teammates in the form of pillars.

However, as our municipal management culture made advances, "No Football" signs would dampen the playing of football at void decks, and understandably so, in consideration of safety, cleanliness and noise, before HDB eventually stopped building suitably sized void decks in our HDB blocks in the past 20 years.

There are, of course, commercial futsal courts appearing in the past 20 years as an alternative, such as The Cage and The Rainforest, but these have their own barriers. It is impractical for primary school children to travel to these places alone with their friends, fork out the money and organise their own matches. Even for many adults, the travel and the need to look for sufficient teammates make this a rather formal affair that requires a high degree of organisation instead of the pick-up games in the neighbourhood.

While there are designated street courts in some neighbourhoods, the weather in Singapore is an active deterrent for play during the afternoon, which is when many children may have their free time after school or homework.

Perhaps, we can revive the void deck football culture in a more modern manifestation by recreating the conditions that made void deck football so inviting – the close proximity to home, the shelter from the rain and the sun, and the ease of access. Perhaps, SportSG can fund the building of roof shelters at neighbourhood street courts and the building of sheltered street courts on the top levels of some of the multi-storey car parks.

Next, FAS can also do more to encourage having more five- or seven-a-side games or tournaments for youth football. Five- or seven-a-side games or tournaments, together with the necessary skills training, may be especially appropriate for youth football, such as for those aged 16 and below, before the players' full physical maturity. This has been recognised by footballing powerhouses, such as England, Germany, even FIFA and, locally, at FAS.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we also need to support and improve our youth pipeline for footballing talent.

Under the current Unleash The Roar! initiative, it is laudable that FAS has continued to identify talents who are under eight to under 15. However, this comes at the risk of leaving behind late developers who cannot match their peers physically earlier on. They do not have the same opportunity or access to resources as their peers who hit puberty earlier.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this is relevant in youth football, as this disparity in physical ability will mean earlier developers will rely on physical attributes rather than developing their skills or technical know-how to perform.

One possible solution is to adopt the concept of bio-banding by classifying youths according to predicted height and weight – also known as the Khamis-Roche method – rather than by age. This has been used by the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team to create success. This has also been used in the English Premier League (EPL).

Studies have shown that bio-banding results in a more technical and challenging game. I will submit that adopting bio-banding will further complement the current youth development programme's emphasis on improving tactical and technical skills.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, amidst the passionate debate and positive suggestions and critiques we have heard in this House so far as Members share their minds in this debate, we would do well to remind ourselves to support and also to trust our football professionals, coaches, managers, players, former players and trained experts to make the right decisions and not take over the decision-making from them accidentally through our enthusiasm.

While researching in preparation for this speech, I was reminded that even FIFA themselves set in stone rules that enforce this. Article 17.1 of the FIFA Statutes states that "Each Member shall manage its affairs independently and with no influence from third parties."

To illustrate by way of suggestions or examples – providing the funding to hire youth coaches but not be involved in interviewing the coaches themselves and rather to leave the professionals to make the decisions; providing space for grassroots football but not dictate the rules of the leagues. We have many illustrious experts in the field and we need to trust them to bring Singapore football to the next level.

In conclusion, I hope for a stronger, broader grassroots and youth development infrastructure for Singapore football that will let more Singaporeans enjoy the beautiful game while improving the talent pool in the long run. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Motion proposed by my hon friends, Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, and Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, on Singapore sports.

We owe a profound debt of gratitude to our athletes who proudly fly the Singapore flag in tournaments like the SEA Games and Para Games. They have sacrificed through their long hours of training and through rising to the challenge of intensely competitive sports where they might face the agony of defeat as easily as the thrill of victory.

For our athletes, we must not only be passive spectators. We must, on occasions like this Parliamentary Sitting, honour them with the respect they deserve for their efforts.

But as we honour and respect our athletes for what they have done in the past, we must be bold to set ambitious goals for the nation's sporting future. This speaks to the second part of the Motion by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. We must strive to enhance our sports ecosystem such that our athletes will find sports a rewarding and sustainable career and that there can be a thriving, commercially attractive ecosystem for other stakeholders, including commercial sponsors and advertisers.

Madam, in my speech, I will touch on a few themes: firstly, setting national goals for what we want to achieve in the sporting arena; secondly, uplifting sports that are less well-known and celebrated than, say, football; thirdly, investing enough and early enough in talent; lastly, creating a commercially viable sports ecosystem.

First of all, Madam, what kinds of goals do we want to set for sports nationally? For every country, there would always be a tension across various goals, for example, cultivating peaks of excellence versus encouraging mass participation, or shining the spotlight on our local athletes while also seeking economic benefits from global leagues and foreign athletes and teams.

I will argue that such goals are not mutually exclusive and sufficient weight can be given to disparate goals. I would argue that we should embrace four goals for Singapore sports at the national level.

Firstly, to achieve and celebrate excellence in sports in general. This means providing a baseline of support, encouragement and publicity for all sportspersons, including para sportspersons, spanning both those who are successful and those who are less so.

Secondly, to focus state resources most on those sports where we can feasibly achieve regional and global excellence as well as in football, which has a unique, exceptional significance from the standpoint of heritage, national pride and the potential for bonding. To do justice to those resources, such efforts have to involve regular, hard-nosed reviews of the successes and failures of past policy, such as what my colleague Mr Faisal Manap called for earlier in the context of FAS.

Thirdly, to apply our communications machinery to highlight our athletes' success and inspire mass participation in sports, which has health and many other benefits.

Fourthly, to convert that mass interest and participation deriving from sporting excellence into a vibrant business ecosystem whereby the sports industry and its athletes can derive a larger share of revenues from the private sector. This last goal is particularly important if we want to make the sports industry sustainable and attractive to athletes, other sports industry professionals and commercial participants versus being an excessively Government-dependent industry.

The last goal is probably where we need the most work. We have to attract strong audiences and spending, which, in turn, will attract commercial sponsorship, participation and advertising, which, in turn, can generate the money needed to spark more excellence, in a virtuous cycle. It does not make sense to speak of a commercial strategy when there is no audience interest. The horse has to come before the cart.

Madam, in the second part of my speech, I will talk about uplifting our national efforts in less well-known sports. Sports like football, badminton, tennis and golf, for example, have a mass audience worldwide and command strong interest in Singapore, too. However, there are less well-known sports where Singaporean athletes have achieved great results regionally and even globally.

One important thrust in our sporting efforts should be to focus on those sports where Singapore has done well so as to focus support on our athletes there so that they sustain and surpass their achievements, analyse and act on the reasons for that success, have our National Sports Associations (NSAs) engage these top performers aggressively to be coaches, advisors and role models to inspire others to take up the sport, and stimulate media coverage and draw more attention and audience numbers to these less well-known sports.

Where we have strong national champions in a sport, there lies the basis for stimulating audience interest and, thus, bring in commercial participation on the back of that.

I am not claiming that nothing has been done by the Government for these less well-known sports, but I am arguing for a more aggressive approach of using our resources to study our regional and world-class athletes in these sports, try to spark more people entering these sports, focus more of our funding dollars on such sports where we are really good and draw more attention and interest to these sports, not only the famous ones.

Let me touch on some examples of sports that are less well-known but where Singaporean athletes have done well regionally or globally.

Firstly, let me talk about darts. We have a national champion in this sport. Paul Lim is recognised as one of the best darts players in the world. His story is an interesting one, the story of a person fuelled by passion without necessarily having the backing of resources.

In a story in TODAY Online from 2017, Paul recounted that in the early part of his journey in darts, he struggled. "I decided to quit my job and go to work on the American circuit. I worked part-time as a chef from Monday to Thursday, then from Friday to Sunday, I would play tournaments. For my first two years, I had no sponsors and I depended on my savings and my job."

Paul excels in the soft-tip darts world, which he picked up two decades ago. Soft-tips are plastic which allows for the scoring to be done automatically. Matches can be played online via the electronic dartboards. This makes it more player-friendly, which, in turn, draws a huge younger crowd that is willing to spend.

In the same article, Paul noted that the soft-tip darts scene has exploded in Singapore, too. He estimated that there were around 20,000 players here. "Singapore has one of the most lucrative and active darts scenes in the world," he said. But agitation creeps into his voice when the state of the local steel-tip scene is brought up. "I feel really angry," he said, and I am quoting from the article here.

This is from Paul: "We could have been growing in the steel-tip (competitions) too, but it's just that the people who ran the (Singapore) Darts Association, for the last 10 years have run it to the ground." We used to send teams to the World Cup, organise the Singapore Open, Pesta Sukan, had a great league system. It was great in the early days. "We have good players … but they can't go nowhere, that's a shame, really."

Without an association to be affiliated with, players are unable to represent Singapore internationally. Lim revealed that he and Harith – "Singapore's best steel-tip player" – owed their participation in the PDC World Cup to a personal invitation from organisers.

Madam, there used to be a Singapore Darts Association. I tried to find out if an NSA for darts still exists and it does not appear that one does. I am aware that SportSG does provide support for athletes in sports where there is no NSA, but it begs the question why there is no NSA and more concerted efforts in a field like darts, where we have world-class athletes and, hence, the potential to build on that.

Next, let me talk about e-sports, an industry at the early stages of growth world-wide. Indeed, Singapore recently hosted the world's top tournament in this sport – the International 2022 – with a prize pool of above S$25 million. Given the tremendous commercial potential for this sport, it deserves the kind of close analysis of success and targeted support that I spoke about. I am glad that there is an NSA for this sport, unlike darts.

In fact, in e-sports, Singapore won a SEA Games gold medal for Valorant, albeit not without some controversy.

This is a sport deserving of more media attention and one where our top performers can hopefully get support in attracting emulators. In fact, it is telling that a Yahoo News article from 2021 said that "Unlike Olympic athletes, our e-sports heroes don't usually get prime time coverage in the media".

Two names worthy of mention here are Daryl "iceiceice" Koh and Ho Kun Xian, who is known simply as Xian. They are some of Singapore's best e-sports athletes that have been champions of multiple globally renowned competitions with the biggest significant tournament earnings in their careers. Daryl reportedly made over US$1.7 million in tournament earnings alone last year, excluding salary and sponsorships. Is the support they receive from the Government proportionate to their sporting success and are determined efforts being made to build a viable ecosystem, with new players entering who are inspired by these greats?

Also, e-sports refers to a collection of various games with different publishers. There are different titles, such as DotA, CSGO, Fortnite, Call of Duty and so on.

I would like to ask – how does Singapore choose to support specific e-sports titles? Why does the Singapore E-Sports Association limit its support only to certain games?

While Singapore has recently won a SEA Games medal for Valorant, why was there no representation for other games, such as DotA 2 and CSGO, which have not only some of the biggest prize pools globally but have also hosted huge events in Singapore, such as the International, and have a large and devoted local fan base?

Next, let me move to powerlifting. On 6 June 2022, Singaporean Farhanna Farid set a world record in the open U-52kg deadlift at the World Open Classic Powerlifting Championships in Sun City. She achieved 200.5 kilogrammes, ahead of Noemie Allabert and Shizuka Rico.

The brothers Matthew and Marcus Yap have also managed a string of achievements in powerlifting. In 2017, Matthew set a powerlifting squat world record, 215.5 kilogrammes, in the Under-66kg sub-junior category at the Asian Classic Powerlifting Championships.

And yet, in 2017, Matthew and Marcus had to crowdfund plane tickets home after missing their flight from Minsk, Belarus, where they were participating in a competition where Matthew had set a new world squat record. They did not receive any funding from SportSG because powerlifting does not, or did not, have an NSA, though having said that, an official at the then Powerlifting Singapore helped them to start the crowdfunding campaign and Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the airline to lower the fare for both of them.

According to Ms Daphne Loo of Powerlifting Singapore as reported in an article in The Straits Times, "Having worked 10-hour shifts at a Korean eatery and saving their allowances just to be able to make this trip to Belarus to compete, there was no way they could afford a flight back. They had already spent $5,500 for the chance to win the World Record," Ms Loo wrote.

The article said that as Powerlifting Singapore was then not an NSA, there is no funding to send athletes overseas. Even today, there still remains uncertainty about the sport and the funding they can expect to receive from governing bodies, as reported in a September 2022 article in TODAY.

Next, let me move to cuesports, starting with billiards. We have a world-class athlete in Peter Gilchrist, who won the World Billiards Championship (English billiards) in 1994, 2001, 2013 (long format) and 2019. Peter was a two-time Sportsman of the Year in Singapore.

We also have Aloysius Yapp, who was the world junior champion in nine-ball in 2014 and runner-up in the 2021 US Open Pool Championship. In 2022, Aloysius won a bronze medal at the World Games in Birmingham, Alabama, for nine-ball. He reached No 1 in the world rankings in 2021. I note that Cuesport Singapore has received some Government funding.

There are a number of other lesser-known sports where we have great talent in Singapore and where more can be done to capitalise on that talent. In the interest of time, I cannot delve deep into all these, but I will refer to them briefly.

In sailing, Cecilia Low and Kimberley Lim came in as the top Asian team at the Olympics, also winning one race where 21 countries competed – an Olympic first. Our sailors also won three of the nine gold medals on offer at this year's SEA Games in Cambodia.

In bowling, Singaporean Cherie Tan was named World Bowling Athlete of the Year by the World Bowling Association in 2019. Shayna Ng won the International Bowling Federation Super World Championships women's singles title in 2021.

As my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned, we also do well in tchoukball and dodgeball, being among the top 10 in the world, even though these sports do not have NSA-level recognition and support.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to conclude this part of my speech, I would like to pull together the threads of my key arguments on less well-known sports.

We clearly have some outstanding talent in less well-known sports at the global or regional level, people like Aloysius Yapp and Peter Gilchrist in billiards, Paul Lim in darts, “iceiceice” and Xian in e-sports, Farhana Farid and the Yap brothers in powerlifting, and Shayna Ng and Cherie Tan in bowling, for example.

We ought to apply ourselves to do a few things as a country in regard to these lesser-known sports.

Firstly, provide proper funding and support to our athletes in these less well-known sports with NSA backing, to enable them to keep winning for Singapore.

Secondly, we should channel more efforts towards raising the profile of these sports and sportspersons – and we have successful sportspersons here to do that – so as to boost audience interest and attract new entrants into these sports, with these world-class athletes being role models and possibly future coaches and advisors to the NSAs.

Thirdly, our sports administration professionals at SportSG and the NSAs should try to unpack the reasons why we have such top talents, remove unnecessary layers of bureaucracy where it is called for, and help tweak our ecosystem to replicate such factors more broadly – the availability of certain types of training or attachment opportunities abroad, for example.

Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will move on to the third part of my speech, which is on identifying top talent that can perform at the highest levels in the region and the world at an early stage. What else can we do to make sure we are identifying such talent early and supporting them with the resources that are necessary to achieve excellence in competitive sports today?

In contrast to the ancient Greek Olympic ideal – and perhaps disappointingly some might say – sporting excellence these days is, to a considerable extent, a function of financial investment in the best coaches, research and analytics, equipment, sports medicine doctors, sports massage therapists, even sports psychologists and so on.

Can we identify early and invest more in the handful of those Singaporeans who are truly talented and have the potential to be world-class or at least tops in the region?

It is well-known that the cost of Joseph Schooling's intense training in the USA prior to winning an Olympic Gold medal for Singapore was well over $1 million – well over. I suspect that not many Singaporean families have that amount to spend or would be willing to spend that on a sporting career for their children if they did.

In the case of Joseph Schooling, he did receive state funding, but this came later in his career, after he had already started getting some good results in the US. As his uncle Max wrote in a public post quoted in a Mothership article:

"His travel was not paid for by "state money" but by his parents. His fees at a very expensive school – chosen because it was a school that specialised in combining academic and sporting excellence in swimming – were paid for not by "state money" but by his parents. His accommodation in North Florida was not paid for by "state money" but by his parents. The same source of "money" was what paid for his specialist coaches, his trips to various competitions and so on."

In fact, according to Max, state money began to flow only very late in the game.

As Joseph himself said in a TODAY article from 2016, "[There is] [a]bsolutely not (enough financial support). Which parent should have to pay over US$1 million out of their own pocket to help their kid succeed? Multi-million-dollar Awards Programme is really nice if you hit the target, but without support and funding, how do you hit those goals?"

In an interview with CNA in November last year, Joseph said, "As far as financial support goes, I definitely think the associations can do a better job. We don't really have much funding."

There is a bit of chicken-and-egg problem here. State funding can be attracted if good results are achieved but to get good results requires funding at an early age. We need to solve this chicken-and-egg problem.

I am aware that there are scholarships available, like the SOF-Peter Lim Scholarship and the NUS Sports Scholarship. But SportSG and the NSAs should give serious thought to how truly talented athletes can be identified and funded early enough in their careers to achieve their full potential, with funding calibrated to potential.

Here, we should direct funding drawn not only from the state but also philanthropic donors as well as corporate sponsors.

But we need to place our bets well. In doing this, we need rigorous, scientific early-stage identification of potentially amazing athletes. Do we currently have a good enough infrastructure and system to spot amazing talent at an early age?

After all, the science of sports has advanced a great deal. There is now significant academic and published literature on how future potential can be predicted to a considerable extent by performance metrics and facts determined scientifically at an early age. This is something SportSG should strive to do and discuss more openly.

For example, are our sports teachers primed with the necessary training to identify revealing predictive metrics and to be able to escalate such cases for national attention? Are they trained to differentiate someone with the potential to become truly great as opposed to just above average? If such training is not practicable, can there be a centralised cadre of talent scouts who have such training, who can be called in to evaluate individuals or who visit schools proactively for observation?

I note that for many professional sports in the US and Europe, there is literally a professional vocation known as talent scout. These professionals are highly trained, held to clear KPIs and fly around extensively to spot talent. Do we have a system for doing this?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the last part of my speech will be on the business aspects of the sports industry. If we succeed in attracting audience numbers and companies to certain sports where we do well, we will also need business managers who know how to optimise the business ecosystem to make it attractive and sustainable.

Are we doing enough to train a cadre of professionals who have the necessary sports business management and marketing skillsets? Can we attract Singaporeans who have an interest in this field to take up sponsored training abroad, or perhaps attract foreign professionals in the short term, aiming for some skills transfer, perhaps using ONE Pass, for example?

Such skills and best practices are available in abundance in countries like the US and the UK, where sports are, in many cases, a thriving, profitable, multi-billion-dollar industry. If you look at the US Superbowl, for example, sometimes, the commercial advertisements compete with the on-field athletic performances for public attention.

This is important if we want to make the sports industry sustainable and attractive to athletes and other sports professionals and administrators on the financial level, as opposed to being a government-dependent industry where one is expected to sacrifice financial sustainability for love of sport. There must be enough money in the ecosystem to attract and retain good people.

In contrast, there are certain types of artistic and creative activity where it is hard to achieve full commercial viability anywhere in the world – symphony orchestras, for example, and certain types of classical art forms, museums and so on. In these industries, state funding will probably remain key, though, even here, efforts can be made to draw in philanthropic donations.

But in sports, commercial viability is not a futile goal, as examples around the world demonstrate.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, with this Motion, the Workers' Party hopes to spark a national conversation on the future of sport in Singapore – what we want to achieve and how we are going to achieve it.

I trust the debate today will generate many useful discussions and will spark public participation in the conversation. We need the Singaporean people to wholeheartedly shape and thus support our sporting directions and to walk with our sporting stakeholders to make the future for sports and our sportspersons in Singapore better than the past.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion posed by my colleagues, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap.

Ms Poh Li San.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to highlight some of our accomplishments at the 32nd SEA Games and the 12th ASEAN Para Games in Cambodia.

Amongst the 558-strong contingent, our Team SG athletes bagged 51 gold, 43 silver and 64 bronze medals. Three athletes stood out.

One was Sprint queen Shanti Pereira, who was also commended by fellow Members. At 26 years old, Shanti became the first Singaporean woman to clinch gold medals for both the 100-metre and 200-metre sprint events and rewrote the national sprint records several times this year.

The second was 21-year-old swimmer, Jonathan Tan. He clinched gold at the games and broke the national and SEA Games record for 50-metre freestyle. With this winning time, Jonathan has also qualified for Paris Olympics 2024. His achievements are impressive even though he is still currently serving his National Service.

The third was 16-year-old debutant, Izaac Quek. Izaac swept three gold medals in all three table tennis men’s events by beating competitors who are more than twice his age.

At the 12th ASEAN Para Games, our athletes won 12 golds, 15 silvers and 17 bronzes. Special acknowledgement must be given to swimmer siblings, Colin and Sophie Soon, who both excelled. They clinched gold medals and rewrote the Games records for the S13 freestyle event.

With 51 gold medals, eight Games records, 17 national records and 40 personal best results, Singapore ranked sixth amongst 11 ASEAN countries, and not seventh as mentioned by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim earlier on. For a small nation to compete with more populous neighbours, it is not an easy feat. But we did well and what was achieved is credible, to say the least. So, congratulations to all our athletes!

Even with these accomplishments, I am of the opinion that there is always more room to achieve sporting successes as a nation. The fundamentals for this blueprint are in place, we are on the right track and there are bright sparks.

With the recent achievement as a reference, it is likely that in another decade or so, we might be able to see more TeamSG athletes on the Olympics podium. And in order to achieve sporting successes, focus must be placed on youth development.

To support the development of national athletes and national sports associations, the Government has already invested about $70 million annually on the High-Performance Sports system. These are significant investments to assist our high-performance athletes with a conducive training environment and to provide some financial support for them to train and compete at major competitions.

In October 2021, I spoke about nation-bonding through sports in Parliament and I recommended a four-pronged approach to strengthen our competitive sports system. The four points were: (a) focus on a few key sports; (b) search for talents from a young age; (c) nurture them through training and competitions; and (d) help them persevere through the challenging periods. These approaches will require commitment and continual efforts from both the Government and stakeholders.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as the President of Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA), I would like to share my views and experiences about the table tennis youth development plans that we have.

STTA was founded in 1931 and has a long history of more than 92 years. The association has gone through its fair share of ups and downs over the years. Today, table tennis is one of the most popular sports in Singapore.

Many Singaporeans would remember how the Singapore women’s team won our first Olympics silver medal in the Beijing Olympics 2008. There were criticisms with regard to the fact that they were foreign talents. However, their contributions have undeniably elevated the standard of competitive table tennis in Singapore. To add, our head coaches for our current national team were both former Olympians: Coach Jing Junhong and Coach Gao Ning. They are naturalised Singaporeans and have remained here to help STTA nurture our national paddlers. Their valuable experiences and skills have contributed towards our table tennis successes.

Experienced stalwarts like Olympians Feng Tianwei, Yu Mengyu and Lin Ye have retired and STTA will have to ensure that there are new talented paddlers to take over. I am happy to share that as a result of STTA’s youth development programmes, we are not only able to nurture young talents to replace our stalwarts, the average age of our national team now is only 22 years old.

The recent Cambodian SEA Games men’s team gold medal was a historic win. It was the first victory in 50 years by an all local-born team. The men and women’s teams won four golds, two silvers and three bronzes – the best results since SEA Games 2017. This achievement is a strong testament to the early fruits of our local youth development efforts.

In STTA, we have put in place a very stringent selection process and start training the paddlers at a very young age. Children as young as five start training at one of our seven zone training centres that are located all across the island.

There are approximately 350 students in total. Students with good potential will start serious training from 10 years old and have an opportunity to be part of the Junior Development Squad, which has about 100 players.

Thereafter, at the secondary school level, about 40 players will be selected for the Youth Training Squad and School within Schools Programme. From this lot, between five and eight players will be selected for the Intermediate Squad. And finally, the top 12 players will be selected into the National Team.

The fact is that less than 1% of the Zone Training Centre students will eventually make it into the National Team.