TEAM SINGAPORE

Column: 204

TEAM SINGAPORE:

(Per capita funding): 11.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether there is a difference in per capita funding between a Team Singapore able and disabled athlete and, if so, how is the funding prioritised.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Sports Council funds High Performance Programmes so as to achieve top 10 placing in the 2010 Asian Games Medal Standings and win medals at the Olympic Games 2008 and 2012. Singapore sent a contingent of 25 athletes to the recently completed Beijing Olympics and the women's table tennis team won a silver medal. We have six athletes now at the Beijing Paralympics which has held since 6th September and will close on 17th September.

SSC "cards" athletes according to their medal winning potential. The minimal level of carding is the potential for a medal at the SEA Games. In FY08, there are a total of 810 carded athletes of which 794 are able athletes under the various National Sports Associations (NSAs) and 16 are disabled athletes under the Singapore Disability Sports Council (SDSC).

Column: 205

SSC provides direct funding to the NSAs and SDSC to support high performance and developmental programmes as well as indirect subsidies in the form of usage of facilities, sports medicine, sports science and all other support services. The high performance budgets are for coaching, overseas training, competition, career development, equipment and facilities primarily directed towards carded athletes, while the developmental programmes and indirect subsidies benefit all athletes under the NSAs and SDSC.

SSC's total FY08 direct funding for the NSAs and SDSC was $43.2 million for NSAs and $1.7 million of which the high performance budgets were $21.5 million and $0.6 million respectively. This translates to a total of $54,000 per carded able athlete and $106,000 per carded disabled athlete. In terms of per capita high performance budget, the figure for an able athlete is $27,000, while that for a disabled athlete is $40,000. Per capita funding per disabled athlete is higher mainly because there are fewer of them and also there is less economy of scale and their special needs.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Sir, I would like to ask, with regard to allocation of resources, why is our reward for the Singapore Paralympians not on par with the able athletes. The total prize money that our Paralympians will receive for four medals is in fact still less than that of an individual bronze medal at the Olympics. I am sure the SPS does not value our Paralympians any lesser. Can I just ask why there is a disparity in the reward system?

Mr Teo Ser Luck: I have been to both the Olympics and I have just came back from the Paralympics. I can say that the Paralympians competition is intense as

Column: 206

well. I think they have overcome the odds, I would say a lot more odds, just to get there and to be able to compete. So we accord them with the respect and we accord them, in a way, the type of reward that they should be accorded with. One of the things that we have to look at is that the Olympics competition level is actually quite different. The Olympics competition is a free world competition. Paralympians can join Olympics. Olympians cannot join Paralympics. That is one thing you look at – the level of competition.

Secondly, the base of competition within the Olympics is a lot broader and the base of competition for Paralympics is smaller and is segmentised because Paralympics is based on the disabilities which are classified differently. So that is a different scale of competition.

Thirdly, I wanted to explain that the cash award given to the Olympians is not Government funded. It is the private sector. It is from the Tote Board. For Olympians, they have that cash award for several years already, and for Paralympians, it is only recently. They have managed to get the cash reward by soliciting or getting the support from the private sector and the Tote Board. So they have started somewhere. It is a good first step compared to previously, when there were not any cash awards as well. I think we will continue to monitor and review, and see what is necessary to give them more support.

Most important to the Paralympians, if you ask them, would always be able to continue training and developing themselves in that sport, as well as being recognised as sportsmen and not just as disabled persons. For their recognition, we should try to do more. We should continue to support them if they want to continue with their sports.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, once again. I understand that you will review the system from time to time. I was

Column: 207

wondering whether the Government will think about topping up the cash reward. After all, one of the Paralympic values is equality. We talk about meritocracy with regard to scholarships, among other aspects of our society. Why does it not apply in terms of equality of recognition for disabled athletes?

My second question is whether the current system for sports for the disabled is playing catch-up in Singapore. Will the Ministry use the remarkable achievements of our Paralympians to improve on what we can do for our disabled athletes? Is it possible that we can have a plan on what can be done for them?

Mr Teo Ser Luck: Sir, I will address the Member's second question first. For the longer-term plan, there is a need to look at how we develop a system for Paralympians or disabled athletes. Yes, all the while, there was a lot more focus on able athletes, maybe because of the educational process and the understanding of what needs to be done. Previously, maybe we did not understand enough of the disabled athletes' needs. But now we know that there is a lot more that the disabled athletes can achieve and they actually also bring glory to Singapore and the nation. So we do consider that and we are reviewing whether the future plans will also include an Olympic project that will include both able and disabled athletes and look at how we can develop a system to accommodate all athletes who are representing Singapore. But we must also be aware that able athletes' training and development can somehow be substantially different from the disabled athletes. Even though they can be training for the same sport, their needs are quite different. So, in terms of customising programmes, we will have to do that. In terms of providing support, we will have to treat them as equals, as

Column: 208

far as development and training are concerned.

As for Government funding of cash awards, all this while, the system is that we will get the support from the private sector, eg, Tote Board, and solicit support from the community to support our Olympians and national athletes. We should continue to educate the public that our Paralympians are as important as our Olympians, and that disabled athletes should be treated as sportsmen as well, in order to encourage them to come forward and contribute to a good cause. That we will have to do.

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): In the light of the last two answers from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, would the SPS consider moving the SDSC out, from under the auspices of the SSC to a separate stand-alone council? Secondly, given the sterling results of our Paralympians, would he consider increasing the funding correspondingly?

Mr Teo Ser Luck: In fact, in reality, SDSC operates independently. It is a council by itself, supporting the different athletes, sponsoring them, providing training and coaching services. For example, this time, we have swimmers, equestrian riders and sailors. So the SDSC manages these athletes, giving them the support. SSC's relationship with SDSC is that of the funding lever. They fund them every single year, and the funding continues to increase. In fact, there was quite a substantial increase for this year as well because of Paralympics and we want them to be able to prepare the athletes.

Recently, the SDSC management committee decided to set up the Singapore National Paralympic Council (SNPC) in order to look at how they could prepare the athletes for major competitions, eg, ASEAN Para-Games and the Paralympics, as well as to nominate and

Column: 209

select them for these major games. So we now actually have SDSC and SNPC, which very much mirror what we have for able-bodied athletes, which are the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) and the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC).

So there is a segregation of duties and there is clarity in the scope of the work. With that, they can place better focus. With the Paralympics success and a greater awareness that our disabled athletes can achieve more and we can also help these disabled sports people to achieve and realise their dreams as they realise ours, we should consider giving them more support.