Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill.

At its heart, this Bill is a modernisation exercise. It updates a 1973 Act so that our national sports agency can reflect the sporting and fitness realities of Singaporeans today.

This Bill does three things: first, it expands what we legally recognise as "sports" to include mind sports and e-sports; second, it extends the Council's remit beyond sport into physical fitness activities; third, it strengthens the Council's ability to uplift standards, through research, coaching guidelines, accreditation and the establishment of training institutions and facilities.

I support these changes because it also recognises three realities. First, sport has diversified. Competition today not only happens on courts and tracks, but also on boards and screens. Some of our young people compete in inter-school chess championships, while others represent their campus in organised e-sports tournaments.

Second, our national focus has widened. It is no longer just about participation in sport, but building an active, preventive-health culture. Physical activity is increasingly seen as an upstream investment in long-term health and well-being.

Third, high performance sport today is scientific and multidisciplinary. The Bill emphasises on standards, accreditation and institutions that reflects this reality. While I support the Bill, I would raise four clusters of issues for consideration on mind sports, e-sports, broader system implications and active living through physical fitness and the built environment.

My first set of questions, like many have spoken, relates to the meaning and operationalisation of the term "mind sports". The Bill already gives a definition of mind sports, which is "a competitive game based on intellectual skill rather than physical skill, such as chess or bridge".

My question is: how will SportSG operationalise recognition of mind sports beyond the examples in the Bill? Specifically, are there any tangible inclusion and/or exclusion criteria that can be laid out? For instance, in my view, mind sports typically consist of one, or a combination of the following: deep concentration, memory, pattern recognition, decision-making under time pressure and composure under stress. But these characteristics are not unique to chess or bridge alone.

In my conversations with my residents and also my volunteers after Meet-the-People Sessions, they asked, "David, would games like Pokemon cards, mahjong, poker also be considered as mind sports?" because if those characteristics I mentioned earlier, they do qualify. I must tell you one that someone mentioned. They asked, "Would even buying Toto or 4D at Singapore Pools outlet could be construed as some as a form of mind sport because there is some element of competition in winning a few million dollars?" Some may even say, "It involves some level of intellect because you have to study the number pattern that have "opened" previously before you decide what number to buy."

So, without clear criteria, we may risk inconsistent decisions, disputes and perception that mind sports is ad hoc. If the term "mind sport" becomes too elastic, it may unintentionally undermine the credibility of mind sports as serious competitive pursuits.

Hence, I wonder if it would be good for SportSG to put in place or lay out the following, either in the Bill or when implementing the Bill: a clearer application and recognition framework of mind sports; baseline criteria with inclusions and exclusions more explicitly stated at the outset; a transparent assessment process and a periodic review mechanism of what constitutes as mind sports.

Mr Speaker, my second set of questions pertains to how the inclusion of e-sports in this Bill raises a different and more sensitive issues, especially for our youths. We know from research that competitive e-sports training can be intense. One recent academic paper summarised that e-sports athletes may train four to 10 hours per day.

For a minority, gaming can become especially problematic given its addictive potential. In this context, I welcome that the Bill because it strengthens SportSG's ability to set codes of practice, guidelines and accreditation standards. These powers are important in e-sports, where quality and safeguards vary widely today.

In this respect, I have three questions on how these powers might be used well.

First, will SportSG develop a structured youth e-sports training framework? This could encompass age-appropriate guidelines on training hours, mandatory breaks, expectations around sleep hygiene, because that is what parents tell, and a required physical conditioning component. That aim here is not about micromanaging, but it is about building healthy norms, especially for under-18s who are immersed in the world of e-sports.

Second, will SportSG require accreditation for e-sports coaches and training centres that run structured programmes for our youths? If e-sports is to be treated as a sport, then coaching should also be treated as a profession, with standards and safeguarding expectations, and clear escalation pathways.

Third, will SportSG consider proactively working with relevant agencies from the start to develop parent-facing guidance, for instance, with MOE and the Ministry of Social Development and Family? Presently, many parents tell me that they struggle to distinguish between training from play, or even to assess readiness of their child to take part in competitive e-sports.

A national framework and research-driven guidance could help parents to understand signs of readiness, set healthy boundaries, recognise warning signs of addiction, such as sleep disruption, mood changes or social withdrawal.

We should also give thought to seek consent from parents whose children are under-18 entering higher-commitment e-sports pathways, so that parents know what is the child enrolling into and can provide the requisite support.

My third point pertains to broader systemic concerns arising from this Bill.

First, resources are finite. With the inclusion of mind sports and e-sports, how will the Government guard against crowding-out of resources to physical sports and community participation, which remains critical for population health and social cohesion?

Second, recognition should not blur an important distinction. Mind sports and e-sports are not interchangeable with physical sports. We have made a deliberate and forward-looking policy choice to adopt a broader legal definition of sport. That is reasonable. But we must be equally deliberate in our messaging that physical activity remains irreplaceable for health, development and lifelong functioning. Mind sports and e-sports build cognition, community and excellence, but they cannot substitute movement. An active mind should sit alongside an active body.

Third, there are downstream implications, particularly for schools. Today, activities like chess are often treated as clubs rather than sports co-curricular activities (CCAs). With this Bill, students, parents and educators may ask whether this should change, that should not be a club but will be now seen as a sport. Will there be joint guidance with MOE on how schools should treat and support mind sports CCAs? Where interest exists, schools should know how activities can be supported, coached and how participation is valued.

Relatedly, how might this affect pathways, such as entry into the SSP? Will the scope of SSP be broadened to include mind sports or e-sports? If not, are there parallel alternative pathways that exist for students who demonstrate excellence in mind sports or e-sports to develop and compete internationally?

Finally, I want to speak about the Bill's expansion of the Council role to promoting and planning of physical fitness activities. This aligns well with our national shift toward preventive health.

My question is when the Bill speaks about "planning" and "promotion", does it extend beyond programmes into shaping the everyday Built environment that makes such activity easier or harder? For instance, when someone engages in a physical sport, it does depend on the facilities or infrastructure, whether it is available or accessible near home. If such options are far from home, poorly connected or inconvenient to access, the best campaigns will still struggle to translate into daily practice or adoption.

In this regard, I previously asked the Minister for National Development in Parliament about the feasibility of converting Housing and Development Board (HDB) car park spaces for alternative uses for sports or recreational spaces. In the written reply, the Minister explained that HDB must take into account of parking demand over time, potential disamenities to residents, technical and safety constraints, such as fire safety provisions, exit capacity and structural loading. The reply also noted that where suitable, HDB has supported such requests by converting upper levels of the multi-storey car parks to greenery and community gardens, and HDB will consider other community-benefiting uses subject to site-specific assessment.

I appreciate the need for safety and site-specific assessment. At the same time, the current posture could feel a little reactive. It depends on proposals coming in one by one, rather than a systematic effort to identify where are the underused or dormant space that can be repurposed for the good of community.

So, I would like to ask: with SportSG's expanded mandate, will SportSG also consider working more proactively with HDB, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and relevant agencies to develop a simple, standard assessment framework and a pipeline of pilots for "fitness activation" of suitable under-utilised spaces, such as upper decks of multi-storey car parks?

In fact, both physical sports and mind sports, such as chess can stand to benefit from the conversion of such spaces. They could start modestly as pilots with clear safety and feasibility criteria, and the designs that are low-cost, low-disamenity and easy to maintain. Such a proactive approach would help turning "planning and promotion" into something that residents can feel in their daily lives: more convenient spaces to move, closer to home, built into the rhythm into their neighbourhoods.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill because it strengthens our sports and fitness ecosystem in a way that reflects how Singaporeans live today. In particular, I support the recognition of mind sports and e-sports because it acknowledges that excellence can be achieved cognitively and also physically because recognition can bring structure, standards and safety. But at the same time, we must pair recognition with clear guardrails and clear messaging. Mind sports and e-sports should complement, not replace, physical activity, which remains foundational for health and well-being. And as we pursue preventive health, I hope we can look creatively into under-utilised spaces that can support active living in our neighbourhoods.