YOG ' budget, we got it wrong : Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 主办青奥超支, 预算错误

The dollars and sense of the YOG

Sept 2010 , By LEE U-WEN, Business Times

[SINGAPORE] Hosting last month’s Youth Olympic Games (YOG) in Singapore was, in Vivian Balakrishnan’s own words, “not cheap”, given the government forked out $387 million to organise the 12-day event. This was more than
three times the initial projection of $122 million, and the Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister admits the organising committee severely underestimated the requirements in a number of key areas such as technology and venue upgrading.

“Our initial estimate was clearly inaccurate – we got it wrong. This was the first-ever YOG and, quite frankly, both the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and ourselves were starting from scratch,” he said in Parliament yesterday as he took pains to justify the government’s decision to bid for the event three years ago. More than 5,000 teenage athletes and officials from 205 countries were in town for the inaugural Games, which ended on Aug 26.

As Dr Balakrishnan fielded questions in the House during an intense, 50-minute debate on YOG, he gave a blow-by-blow breakdown of how the budget was spent, citing specific areas.

Logistics, covering food and logistics, cost $44 million in total, while the bill for technological investments and upgrades came in at $97 million. The minister defended this expenditure, saying the government “had a reason”
for underestimating this aspect. “We didn’t think, at that point in time, that we were going to host a Games
which are at world-class standard with world-class timing and information systems,” he said in response
to a question from non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who wanted to know whether there was due diligence
when preparing the original budget, which was much lower than bidding rival Moscow had put on the
table.

Dr Balakrishnan reiterated a point his ministry made prior to YOG: that many of the final specifications and standards of each event – which had to be pegged to World Youth Championship levels – were determined only after
Singapore won the hosting rights in February 2008.

When it emerged that YOG would cost more than the government had thought, Dr Balakrishnan had to answer two questions: would Singapore still have gone ahead with its bid had it known it would cost $387 million; and, after
doing so, has it received value for money?

“Once I was convinced that the answer was ‘yes’, I had to proceed,” he said, adding that he had to convince
the rest of the Cabinet before getting the approval for the additional funds from the Finance Ministry.

The other option that crossed his mind was to “blindly cut the budget” and deliver a sub-standard YOG, but this would not have been fair to the athletes, the IOC or Singapore. “At the end of the day, you want to host something that would be a source of collective pride for all Singaporeans,” he said.

Revenue-wise, ticket and merchandise sales are expected to have yielded about $7 million – a “low figure” because the organisers wanted to make the event accessible to all. Companies big and small contributed $60 million of sponsorship in kind, while others such as Samsung, Atos, Panasonic and DBS gave $7.6 million in cash.

About 70 per cent of the budget, or $260 million, was awarded in contracts to local companies.

Another $46 million went to overseas firms with local subsidiaries. Dr Balakrishnan urged them to “leverage on
their experience” and go on to compete for other major international projects worldwide.

Additional tourism receipts are likely to have amounted to about $57 million, while Visa recently reported
that spending on foreign Visa-branded payment cards in Singapore increased 38 per cent to $154 million.

All in all, YOG did well to profile Singapore to an international audience, as more people will “sit up and take notice” of what the country is capable of. “Now everyone knows we are a beautiful, dynamic, creative and global city
that they would want to visit, live, work, play and invest in,” Dr Balakrishnan said.

_________________________

Not cheap
Breaking down YOG’s

projected $387m budget ( $m)
Technology 97.0
Upgrading of venues and equipment 76.0
Live broadcasts 45.5
Logistics 44.0
Security 18.0
Operational costs 14.3
International torch relay 7.0
Cultural and education programme 5.4
Sponsorship received (cash and in kind) 67.3

Source: MCYS

Link :The dollars and sense of the YOG

____________________________________________________________________

YOG Over budget, but we’d do it again

THE NEW PAPER, Thursday, September 16 2010, REPORT: LEDIATI TAN

HOSTING the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) was not cheap, conceded Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, in Parliament yesterday. But it was money well-spent.

He was responding to questions by Members of Parliament (MPs) on why the budget for the YOG tripled from the original estimate of US$75 million (S$100 million) to S$387 million. Said Dr Balakrishnan: “Our initial budget estimates during the bid phase were clearly inaccurate. We got it wrong.

“This was the first ever Youth Olympic Games in the world. Quite frankly, both the IOC (International Olympic
Committee) as well as us were starting from scratch. “We therefore underestimated the requirements
and the consequential cost of several major functional areas which were necessary to host these Games.” Moscow, which was the other finalist in the bid to host the YOG, had a budget of US$180 million.

The alternative, said Dr Balakrishnan, would be to blindly cut the budget and deliver a substandard YOG. But that would neither have been right nor fair to the athletes, to the IOC and to Singaporeans.

Would we still have bid for the Games had we known it would cost $387 million?

Did we get value for money?

“The answer to both these questions was ‘Yes’,” said Dr Balakrishnan. Why?

International branding for Singapore
Positive image of Singapore will attract both visitors and investors.

Local companies benefited
$260 million worth of local contracts (about 70 per cent of projected budget) went to local companies.

Boost for local sports culture
Locals will benefit from the upgraded or new sports facilities such as at Toa Payoh Sports Hall, Singapore
Sports School’s 10m air pistol range and the new Tampines Bike Park. Singapore is now better placed to host
international sporting events.

Tourists spent more here
YOG brought in an estimated $57 million in additional tourist receipts. Visa reported that spending on foreign Visa-branding payment cards in Singapore went up by some $154 million during the YOG. This is an increase of 38 per cent compared to the same period last year. Sale of merchandise and tickets are expected to
fetch $7 million.

_____________________________________________________

Where the $387m went

PROJECTED COSTS OF THE BIG TICKET ITEMS:

$97 million on technology
$76 million on upgrading sports venues and equipment
$45.5 million on live broadcast of the Games
$44 million for logistics such as cleaning and transport
$18 million on security
$14.3 million on operational requirements such as catering, laundry services, language translation and interpretation work
$7 million on international torch relay across five continents
$5.4 million on Culture and Education Programme

SPONSORSHIP:

$60 million from sponsorship in kind from companies
$7.6 million in cash sponsorship from companies such as Samsung, Atos Origin, Panasonic and DBS

___________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

主办青奥超支但值得

Sept 2010, 早报

我国对主办青年奥林匹克运动会的预算错误，实际开销比估计多出两倍以上，但政府认为这一切是值得的。社会发展、青年及体育部长维文医生昨天在国会中回答议员询问青奥运严重超支的问题时，说明青奥的主要开支情况。

他说，政府申办青奥运时所估计的7550万美元（相等于1亿零100万新元）预算是不准确的，这是因为青奥运是全新的
尝试，包括国际奥委会在内的主办单位都低估了这个赛会的要求和规格，以致最后的开支与预算高出许多。

不过，维文指出，如果和近年以及下来将举行的奥林匹克赛事相比，我国对首届青奥运的支出，其实是不多的。

维文说，北京奥运会共有1万1000名健儿参加，京奥的开支达39亿新元。而新加坡青奥运迎来了3600名选手，而
政府对青奥运支出的3亿8700万元，只是京奥的十分之一。温哥华冬季奥运会的参与选手比青奥少，但开支约22亿6000万新元，相比之下青奥运的开支只占温哥华冬运的五分之一。放眼2012年伦敦奥运，当地的初步预算已达19亿2000万元。

预算出现偏差须正视两大问题

维文进一步说，当他意识到预算估计出现偏差后，他必须正视两大问题。
　　第一，如果一早知道预算高达3亿8700万元，新加坡是否会继续申办青奥运。
　　第二，耗资3亿8700万元举办青奥运，是否值得？

维文说：“在我的脑海中，这两个问题的答案都是‘是’，我也说服了内阁同僚，批准更高的预算。其实我们还可采取另
外一个方案，就是盲目地削减预算，举办一场水准低劣的赛会。但我不觉得那会是正确的决定，因为这对运动员、国际奥委会和全体新加坡人都是不公道的。”
张志贤：费用花得合情合理

副总理兼国防部长张志贤昨天到新加坡体育学校，为我国青奥运夺牌健儿颁发体育奖学金时也表示，曾亲自仔细查看青奥运的数目，因此坚信这笔费用花得合情合理。

张志贤也是新加坡奥理会主席，他说：“青奥运最后办得非常成功，所有新加坡人都应该为此感到自豪。这笔钱花
得恰当，这一点我非常确定。”

维文昨天在国会上发表了近半个小时的讲话后，伍碧虹（淡滨尼集选区议员）、扎吉哈（丰加集选区议员）和林瑞莲
非选区议员）继续针对青奥运超出预算的课题提出额外询问。他们的问题包括，社青体部为何不更早公布青奥运预算案细节、该部如何在时间紧迫的情况下确保没有被商家“敲竹竿”，以及当局最初的预算为何那么保守。

维文做出回应时指出，其实他在青奥运开幕之前就透露了预算增加的消息，没有公布细节是因为不想重蹈覆辙，在赛事还未结束前公布任何不正确的数据。另一方面，为了确保开销得当，青奥运组委在筹备过程中，都会广泛地请教业内人士和海外专人。

谈到政府预估错误，维文承认其他申办青奥运的城市，如莫斯科，确实提出了更到位的初步预算。莫斯科曾举办过夏季奥运和大大小小的国际比赛，经验丰富，而新加坡相比之下，已许久没有举办集合多元体育项目的国际比赛。加上青奥运是崭新的尝试，才会出现预算偏差。

除了这个课题，维文昨日也在国会中提到青奥运对新加坡的长远影响，以及政府接下来将如何培养体育人才的计划。

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
新加坡新闻 2010年9月16日星期四

举办首届青奥运虽然“不便宜”，但它为新加坡带来的有形和无形回报却是丰厚的。其中，国人在青奥运期间所展示的“新加坡精神”就是最大的收获。

社会发展、青年及体育部长维文医生昨天在国会总结青奥运对新加坡起到的深远影响时，多次提及两万名义工的无私奉献。

他指出，这群义工没有领取薪水、主办单位给他们提供的伙食也不是最上等的，但他们却积极且认真地工作。这份热忱来自于身为新加坡人的自豪感，因为他们想让全世界感受新加坡的美好。

维文说：“对我来说，义工的表现就是‘新加坡精神’。说实在的，经过了青奥运，我对未来更具信心，因为我看到了‘新加坡精神’。”

维文也在国会中列出了青奥运预算的分类情况。为了提供最先进、准确的计时和积分系统，政府对科技设备的投入占了预算的绝大部分，高达9700万元。体育场馆和相关设施的翻修费则是7600万元。提供现场直播和举办亮眼的
开幕、闭幕式花费了4550万元。途经五大洲的五城市火炬传递开支是700万元。物流、保安和运作开支分别为4400万元、1800万元和1430万元。深获国际奥委会好评的青奥教育与文化计划花费为540万元。其余的开销涉及办公室和行
政运作、营运与传播、义工培训、保险与法律咨询费用、医疗服务、电源需求等。

青奥运的收入主要来自特许商品、票房和商家赞助。特许商品和票房预料会取得700万元的收入。维文解释，这方面的利润不多，原因是政府希望一般国人能够广泛参与和接触青奥运，所以商品、售票的标价都不昂贵。

青奥运也争取到760万元现金赞助，其他方面的赞助总值6000万元。

与此同时，本地公司所获得的青奥运合约总值2亿6000万元，占青奥运3亿8700万元开支约70%。另外4600万元的合约由国际企业的本地子公司取得。承办首届青奥是殊荣人们会记得新加坡

青奥运同时招来消费和旅游收益。威士卡（Visa）数据显示，青奥运期间在本地使用外国威士卡付款卡的消费达1亿5400万元，年比上涨38%。新加坡旅游局同时估计，这段时间的旅游收入可达5700万元。

维文指出，能够承办首届青奥运是一项殊荣，往后人们会记得新加坡，而青奥运也再次为新加坡打响了国际品牌和知名度。在商业领域里，新加坡对国际企业将更具吸引力。

我们这次也通过青奥运证明，新加坡不仅是个安全、有效率的国家，这里也是美丽、动感、精彩和富有创意的国际都会。展示“新加坡精神”　是主办青奥最大收获。