THE NEED FOR A MODERN INDOOR STADIUM

5.34 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, the need for a modern indoor stadium has been the subject of intermittent discussions in the public media for some time now. Indeed, it has been quite vocal among the sports circle and I believe that it is very much in the minds of the planners for sports facilities too.

There has been no argument to the contrary over the need for such an indoor stadium, at least not that I know of. I suspect, however, the problem bugging the minds of the planners must be the ever-present need to justify its need against the question, "Will it be a financially viable proposition?"

Sir, I have the privilege, rather the misfortune, to be counted as one of those ardent supporters for the indoor stadium project. It was a personal experience shared with no less than 6,000 other people. The Minister concerned may be interested in the following first-person report:

Nine pm, 3rd September, 1979. This was the Pesta Sukan Basketball Invitation Championship at the Gay World Stadium and the game was played to a capacity crowd of 6,000. The Gay World Stadium was far from gay when suddenly the heavens opened up with a heavy downpour. The roof began to leak badly. Soon splashes of water collected into puddles. In good spirit, the two rival teams continued the game.

It was a chaotic situation. The game hardly resembled basketball, neither did it qualify for water polo, and the skids reminded one of ice hockey. Perhaps a more appropriate description would be water basketball played on skates! Singapore proudly announced its discovery of a new game, but I am afraid that it will never find its place in the SEA Games or the Olympics. What was needed to complete the whole show was umbrellas!

But it was not at all funny for the players. At least one player from abroad found that out - the painful way. He slipped and injured his head on the hard cement ground. Fortunately, the injury sustained was not serious and the player recovered after treatment at the hospital.

Sir, the Championship I have mentioned was the Pesta Sukan International Basketball Meet organised in response to the Singapore Sports Council's annual sports promotion. The Basketball Association of Singapore, which has the honour of having the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence as its President, emerged the embarrassed organisers, not so much for the act of Providence which we have no control, but for the Sports Council and the Singapore Government.

The Gay World Stadium which was built more than 40 years ago is one of the two indoor stadia and the only one suited for this sport and with a seating capacity of around 6,000. An international tournament of such a scale has no alternative but to expose the players to the ridiculously poor facilities by present-day standards. I suggest the Building Control Division should seriously examine the Stadium before it grants any certificate of fitness for its continued use.

The Sports Council can hardly be blamed for this despicable condition, the indignation we suffered notwithstanding. Although the hirer has to pay to the Council 20% of the gate collection on top of the rental charge, the annual revenue collected hardly justifies extensive repairs as the tenancy is on a yearto-year basis. It certainly is not prudent to commit the expenditure in the circumstances.

Just to name a few of the many defects of the Stadium. Besides the leaking roof, the floor is not constructed with the parquet flooring which is the standard requirement of the game. Toilet facilities and changing rooms are not only far from adequate but they are also in a terrible state of disrepair. There is no ventilation to speak of as the old ceiling fans have been out of order for quite some time. Another major defect is that there is no buffer between the spectators and the players which renders crowd control and an orderly game not far from being impossible in a capacity crowd. One can go on to list out the hundreds of such defects at this Stadium.

Sir, it is not my intention to expose the deficiencies of the stadium which stand out like a sore thumb. It is doing quite well on its own. Many foreign sportsmen and their officials cannot help but wonder why a progressive country like Singapore, ironically noted not only for its progress in the construction industry but also for its declared policy of a rugged society and sport consciousness, should allow the situation to pass without proper indoor stadium facilities for so many indoor sports.

Six thousand spectators that evening could not be wrong. The hundreds of thousands of sports enthusiasts who visited the stadium on dozens of occasions could not be wrong.

The point I really want to make is: It is high time that the Government built a modern indoor stadium without further delay. Such a stadium will, without doubt, be an added impetus to the promotion of other indoor sports apart from basketball, because basketball as a spectator sports perhaps commands a popularity slightly better than the other games which require the facility of an indoor stadium. The indoor stadium, when completed, will prove to be a viable project as its multiple usage, apart from volleyball, table tennis, badminton, sepak takraw, etc., will ensure that its facilities will be put to maximum use. To ensure that it is economical to the lessees, the stadium must have a seating capacity of between 15,000 and 20,000 which is the normal economy size.

The addition of this new facility will create a tremendous impact on the local sports scene. The indoor stadium can be put to other uses. It could probably include stage performances, not to mention competitive sports like boxing, wrestling, and all forms of pugilistic art. Its primary function is not to be a show-piece. A greater interest in sports and healthy recreation has been given emphasis by the Government, and the Singapore Sports Council, in its role as a Government agency to undertake this function, has done well in so many fields. Besides the National Stadium, the Sports Council has been extremely successful in providing a host of other sports facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and squash courts, even though the latter two, for obvious reasons, may not have so many spectators as basketball.

The Government should not drag its feet any longer. The Singapore Pools Pte Ltd, which was originally set up with the primary objective of helping the development of sports in Singapore must have now collected sufficient funds from gamblers to finance not just one but several indoor stadia. Or has the Singapore Pools Pte Ltd changed its basic obligation to sports? Would not the Company reaffirm its obligation?

Sir, the money-men are a lot of tough nuts to beat. All hon. Members know that. But certainly monetary returns should not be the sole objective in implementing its policy. They are tough, but we can beat them. But if they are nuts, then we have to crack them. Anyway, if we fail to crack them in the end, it is only because they are nuts.

It is the intrinsic value and returns that we should be concerned with, and a project like the provision of an indoor stadium cannot but achieve the objective.

Sir, I am a sports lover, though not a sportsman. I sincerely and strongly feel that the Government should act quickly on the matter of bringing into reality its Master Plan for Sports drawn up a few years ago. Any delay will mean higher construction cost.

May I, Sir, conclude my remarks with a quotation from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence, as reported in the Straits Times of 9th September 1979. He said:

'The building of an indoor stadium is imperative and is the cherished desire of our sports enthusiasts in Singapore.'

I am sure hon. Members in this House will share the same view. We want a modern indoor stadium, and we want it quick. 5.47 p.m.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the call for the urgent need to build a modern multi-purpose indoor stadium in Singapore. I beg your indulgence to deal at some length on this subject. At the same time, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Singapore Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Social Affairs, to re-examine and re-evaluate its "Sports for All" policy.

I must congratulate the executors of this policy, namely, the Singapore Sports Council, for its singled-mindedness and successful implementation of such a policy. Singaporeans today are caught in the fervour of mass-participation in sports to the extent. I am told, confidentially, that some cardiologists are having a busy time trying to dissuade unsuitable candidates with bad medical records from jogging or running the marathon.

On the other hand, I am increasingly perturbed by the declining performance of our top athletes and sportsmen, and by "sportsmen", I take the term to embrace "sportswomen". The recent features in the mass media on our Jakarta-bound athletes and sportsmen made interesting but sad reading. In fact, I suspect sports writers, in churning out apologia after apologia on the poor records of our sportsmen, are preparing Singaporeans psychologically for yet another dismal performance at the South-East Asian Games. I salute the diminishing breed of Kunalans and Mericans - to this breed I can only wish them longevity and unusually strong legs.

I am not against the philosophy of "Friendship first, medals second" at international competitions. I am concerned about the reality of competitive sports in Singapore today, which should read as "Friendship first, medals God willing". No spectator, no sports enthusiast, indeed no one, backs a loser. And our athletes and sportsmen are fast becoming losers in international competitions. To argue that Singapore, with 2 1/4 million people, cannot aspire to be worldbeaters is not doing competitive sports any good. From this reasoning, which is based purely on the rule of probability, the top sporting nations in the world today should read in descending order: China, India, the USSR, the USA, Indonesia, Japan, etc. I am certainly against spending excessive time, money and effort to set world-records. I am, however, convinced that with more official endorsement and encouragement we can turn the tide and instead stimulate sufficient interest and commitment in our sportsmen to equal the best in the region. This is the time for thought and I hope that the Acting Minister for Social Affairs will respond favourably.

The question of building an indoor stadium is one example of how Government can further encourage sports in Singapore. We urgently need an indoor stadium with a seating capacity of 15,000 or more to cater for spectator accommodation for indoor sports such as badminton, basketball, volleyball, table tennis, gymnastics and perhaps martial arts. Over the years, public clamour for a modern indoor stadium has been growing. Various national sports associations have echoed a similar call by the President of the Singapore National Olympic Council, Mr E.W. Barker, the Minister for Law and Science and Technology, and also from the Acting Minister for Social Affairs.

Presently, there are only two small indoor stadia in Singapore. The Gay World Stadium is more than 40 years old, grey with age, and has a limited seating capacity of 6,000. It is under condemnation but, due to the lack of an alternative, it has been maintained at some expense. Indeed, the Gay World Stadium is the largest sauna bath in Singapore. The roof leaks badly and the electrical wiring is in need of complete replacement. In 1978, the equipment of an international entertainment ice show was damaged by roof leaks during a heavy downpour of rain, A few days ago a foreign basketball player suffered a slight head injury when he fell on the floor made slippery by roof leaks during an international basketball tournament. The common comment among the international teams participating in that tournament was that the Gay World Stadium was unfit for an international tournament. For the record, every night of the international basketball tournament was well supported by spectators. It is ringed by shops which are very poorly maintained and hazardous to the stadium. There are inadequate changing rooms and toilet facilities of an acceptable standard. The conditions are quite appalling, and I can just go on and on. The Gay World Stadium is presently used for indoor sports events, largely basketball, boxing, volleyball, sepak takraw and martial arts. Occasionally, we do get professional wrestling and some entertainment shows and even rallies have been staged at the stadium.

In recent years, a series of international matches between Singapore and the People's Republic of China in the games of basketball, table tennis and badminton proved a sell-out at the Gay World Stadium and the Singapore Badminton Hall. Many fans were turned away because of the limited seating capacity.

The Singapore Badminton Hall was completed in 1952. For the record, it is the second largest sauna bath in Singapore. It is presently heavily booked for badminton. The acoustics and lighting are inadequate, Seating capacity is about 5,000 with extremely poor ventilation. The hall also serves for gymnastic competitions, sepak takraw and, occasionally, entertainment shows are held there. The Badminton Hall is therefore inadequate to meet the rising demands of spectator participation in spectacular entertainment shows and popular sports.

A further need for an indoor stadium is the rise in popularity of family-type entertainment. Such family-type shows have been staged under canvas at one of the open areas at Kallang in recent years. Shows such as Disney-on-Parade, Holiday on Ice, Peter Pan, etc. drew large crowds averaging, I am told, 6,000 per night. In an insular situation, such as Singapore, the availability of a large indoor stadium will encourage entertainment promoters to import such shows providing towards the family-type entertainment for the masses. More recently, promoters have staged pop musical concerts at the National Stadium at the risk of being rained off. Other than cinemas and the new community centres. Singapore lacks a large indoor stadium to meet this mass leisure need.

With sports being promoted actively by the Singapore Sports Council and with the emphasis on mass participation, large numbers of people are now taking up sports. A survey conducted in late 1977 among organised sports clubs and institutions showed that 26,410 participated in table tennis; 17,040 were engaged regularly in basketball, and 27,210 played badminton. This survey did not take into account those participating in these and other sports on a group or informal basis.

Based on the survey and the fact that basketball has a strong following, there is every reason to believe that basketball tournaments arranged between Singapore and other countries and, in particular, a Malaysia Cup equivalent, can attract the crowds to pack the large indoor stadium, just as football fans have packed the National Stadium. Statistics show that in the Pesta Sukan Basketball event between 1977 and 1979, more than 30,000 people witnessed the competitions in each of these years. Martial arts competitions in each of these years also attracted capacity crowds in the finals. The promotion of the two spectator events like the basketball and martial arts is likely to continue to attract maximum crowds.

With badminton still remaining as a popular recreational activity, the indoor stadium, when free from major events, can provide an alternative source of public courts.

An indoor stadium can also meet the need for a suitable venue when the Ministry of Education organises national school sports competitions and events. They also need such a facility to host regional and international school sports meets.

The auxiliary floor space of an indoor stadium can then be used as a training area for other indoor-type sports events. 6.01 p.m.

[Mr Hwang Soo Jin in the Chair]

Dr Ong Leong Boon: We have read of the plight of at least three sports organisations in their perpetual struggle to house the training of their international competitors. So long as Singapore sends teams to such sports listed above at regional and international competitions, such as the South-East Asian Games and the Asian Games, Government should provide facilities to meet these needs.

It is also feasible that the indoor stadium can be used for mass rallies, musical and other entertainment shows as well as large indoor exhibitions. In recent years, the Singapore Sports Council, I am told, had to turn down enquiries for the holding of some such events.

I would like to argue that a decision is needed on the primary issue of whether the provision of an indoor stadium and other sports facilities should be considered on the basis of economic returns, that is, to make money sufficient to pay for its capital and interest or that the indoor stadium should be considered a social provision. I would like to argue: just like defence, health and education, sports is not and should not be regarded as a revenue-generating proposition. Money spent on the provision of adequate sports facilities is necessary expenditure for a healthy social and recreational outlet for our people. Considering the present growth of the Republic and the cherished policy of providing a quality of life to people with growing affluence and living in a confined small island, the provision of an international sports facility as a social need is clearly essential.

We agree that sports in Singapore does not make money, unlike banks and industries. However, sports as a social need merits the consideration of our leaders. It is time-consuming and perhaps a little unnecessary for me to labour over the values of sports towards health, physical fitness, etc. to the hon. Members of Parliament here, many of whom are voluntarily involved in the running of various sports associations. But let it be debated here and now that sports does make a great social contribution and it will contribute towards the quality of life in Singapore and towards the good health of our people. 6.05 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in a modern civilisation. I would like to term it as "the automobile civilisation". Everything goes very fast and because of this our life-style is bound to deprive us of maximum physical activity. Many people find little time for games or exercise, but with Government policy on sports, culminating in the building of the National Stadium in 1973, their attitude has changed drastically. Young and old participate in sports. As the English proverb says, "There are toys for all ages."

Sir, as early as 1920, a person by the name of George Santayana said, "To the art of working well, a civilised way of doing things would be to add the art of playing well." I must say that so far our policy has been very good indeed. We recognise that games or sports create a healthy body, a healthy mind, a rugged mind and a rugged body. We can inculcate good values among the people and, of course, while playing, we also reveal the kind of people we are. I would say that we are doing this and we must maintain the momentum.

One of the solutions is the building of an indoor stadium. I would say that with this indoor stadium we can prevent ourselves from becoming an under-exercised nation. Further, we will create avenues for more and more people to participate in sports. It is rather a fallacy to think that by watching a football match the people are really participating in that game.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not wait for any fatal accidents to occur to convince us of the need for an indoor stadium, What has happened at the Gay World is something which even the gay people may laugh at. It is high time we realised that there is no alternative but to build a new modern indoor stadium.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply moved by the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Jurong, Kim Seng and Kolam Ayer on the need for a modern indoor stadium. In fact, the Singapore Sports Council and my Ministry have been actively considering such an indoor stadium for some time now.

As mentioned by the hon. Members for Jurong and Kim Seng, the facilities for indoor sports in Singapore are not adequate. The Gay World Stadium which has a capacity of 6,000 is more than 40 years old and, I think, it is due for condemnation. I will be surprised if my colleague, the Minister for National Development, has not already been eyeing for the site. The Singapore Badminton Hall, with a seating capacity of 4,000, is also old, and with poor facilities. These two stadia are no longer suitable for holding international competitions. They are also uncomfortable and do not attract local spectators. The Singapore Sports Council and my Ministry believe that local indoor sports can be improved if there are adequate facilities for their promotion. A good indoor stadium will not only provide a venue for the promotion of local sports activities but also be used for holding local and international tournaments. As mentioned by hon. Members just now, a large indoor stadium will also allow for family-type of entertainment, like the Holiday on Ice, etc.

Sir, based on these considerations and also on some of the reasons highlighted by hon. Members just now, my Ministry therefore submitted to the Development Planning Committee (DPC) our proposal to build an international indoor stadium with a seating capacity of 12,000 next to the National Stadium at Kallang. At the time of our submission on 16th November last year, the estimated capital cost of the stadium was in the region of $40 million. At current prices, the estimated cost of the indoor stadium is $54 million. I have received word from the Ministry of Finance this morning that the proposal has not been approved by my colleague, the Minister for Finance. As for the reasons, economic or otherwise, why the proposal has been rejected, I think it is best if I leave them to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to elaborate. I think he has some very good reasons for not approving this proposal.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is somewhat unusual for me to rise and defend the position of the Treasury on any particular application for funds. But in this case, because of the interest which is apparent in this House on this particular matter, perhaps I may be given leave to give the Treasury's view on what is, after all, a matter of major public expenditure.

I, of course, have listened with great interest to the sentiments expressed in this House and Members appear to argue that this indoor stadium is a viable project. If that is so, then there is no problem at all. There would be any number of private entrepreneurs willing to construct this indoor stadium and to profit from the demand, the clamour or the interests of all the people in sports which would be possible in the stadium. Let me, however, point out, as my colleague has already done, that the stadium will cost $54 million at current prices. That is the first estimate. I have known few first estimates that do not need to be overrun. So let us take $60 million as a fairly conservative estimate for the indoor stadium. Obviously, if recovery of this capital is to be made, even if there is no repayment and only the interest on the capital is to be calculated, we require something in the region of $4.8 million a year just to service the debt. There is then the question, of course, of the need for depreciation because in the case of the indoor stadium we do not have, like the outdoor stadium, open ventilation, so it requires air-conditioning. Air-conditioning, of course, requires expensive equipment and expensive equipment requires maintenance and also public utilities to run it.

On that basis, I think economically it would be very necessary for someone to put down on a piece of paper how, in fact, this stadium can be made viable. In addition to the capital cost or servicing of the capital cost, of course, there is recurrent cost. Even on a cash basis, I am in some doubt as to whether expenses can, in fact, be covered. On economic grounds, therefore, the Treasury feels quite justified in turning down this proposal unless better estimates are made. On social or other grounds this is a matter for judgment, for political assessment, as well as for us to consider what are the alternatives.

The purpose of having an indoor stadium, as I understand Members, is to be able to seat 15,000 spectators. In fact, that figure has sometimes expanded to 20,000. Let me make it clear that the $60 million I was talking about refers to a 12,000-seat stadium. If we want a 20,000-seat stadium, this cost should be multiplied by a figure in proportion and it would come up to $100 million. Assuming that we have a relatively modest 12,000-seat stadium costing $60 million, we have to consider whether we want to spend this money on an indoor stadium or whether we prefer to use it for the purposes for which we are encouraging sports, which is really participation sports. That means for people who go jogging, swim, play tennis, play squash, rather than for 12,000 people watching games played in eight badminton courts and two basketball courts. I do not think they would be watching eight badminton games all at the same time in the stadium.

The point is that the indoor stadium will only encourage spectator sports. That means there will be a lot of people who should be out jogging or swimming just looking on at other people playing and who probably would not be our own people playing in the stadium, It would be people from overseas. So the question is really whether the justification for the indoor stadium is one of prestige, that because countries around us have indoor stadiums, therefore we must have one and we must be able to invite people to come to Singapore. That may be a valid reason. In fact, the application for this particular stadium is merely one of many which have been made, and I would say that the debate for a stadium would still be continuing. While the Minister for Finance has turned down this stadium on economic grounds, the Minister for Social Affairs has already indicated that he is in favour of the stadium and the Minister for National Development is in favour of it but is doubtful about the cost.

I would suggest that, if we really want to encourage sports, what we have been doing so far has been correct - that we should encourage community centres and the provision of facilities in those centres for basketball, badminton, martial arts, some of which were mentioned by some of the Members here, and that these facilities should be provided in greater numbers in other areas where there are residents. There are people in Singapore who will participate in these sports.

The subsidy for a community centre is on the basis which has recently been approved. It is about $800,000. Even with 30 centres, that is merely $24 million, less than half of what we might need for a small 12,000-seat indoor stadium. So the choice is really the alternative: whether we want to spend $60 million or $100 million on an indoor stadium depending upon what exactly we plan for, or do we want to provide greater facilities elsewhere in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the debate on this matter will continue.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Hon. Acting Minister for Social Affairs for his encouraging words but I think he succeeded very well in passing the buck to the Ministry of Finance. I am grateful for the explanation by the Hon. Finance Minister but I find that his arguments are economic, at best. To me, they are totally unacceptable in terms of promotion of sports. To suggest that participation in sports and sports spectatorship are mutually exclusive entities, to me it is not true because spectatorship encourages participation and participation encourages spectatorship. They are complementary.

I find it sad to note that his Ministry had taken this judgment on pure economics. I am grateful, however, that he did consider the social and political reasons which he said could be open for further debate. What was most alarming was to hear the suggestion that if the proposition of an indoor stadium were to be a viable proposition, then he may consider passing it on to the private entrepreneur. To me, this is an abdication on the part of the Government of its responsibility to its people. I do not think the promotion of sports should be a responsibility of private entrepreneurs. I think it is part and parcel of Government responsibility and a good government will look after all aspects of its national life.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, this is a neutral question, more a matter of information. How many golfers do we have, and how much money was spent on the Sentosa Golf Course?

Mr Hon Sui Sen: Sir, that is a very pertinent question. The point about golf is that the Government does not spend any money. The golfers pay for the cost of whatever they do on the golf course. I am not a golfer. So I do not know what they do. They spend a lot of money. They buy a lot of golf clubs. They pay for the club house. They pay for the maintenance of greens. I wish the same could be said for people who go to the indoor stadium and to the outdoor stadium; that they pay the total cost of the stadium, the cost of maintenance, and so on.

I think there is a point in what the Member for Kim Seng said about spectator sports perhaps leading some to participate. I do not concede that all will participate in sports in consequence. I know that certainly a lot of people who watch football are of the female sex and I do not think many of them are likely to participate in football as a game, at least not for the next few years as I know Singapore. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I have already said. As I say, the debate on this will continue both with my colleagues and I have no doubt outside between sportsmen and non-sportsmen.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.