THE inclusion of Singapore in the Formula One world motor-racing championship from next year has many Singaporeans cheering.

The hospitality trade has been the most enthusiastic as the tourism-generating potential can be sizeable. But this is primarily a country-branding exercise, an image job. Hence, the Government's involvement in the negotiations with the F1 franchise holders.

Although Singapore is not an unknown quantity in the world's tourism consciousness, exposure of this magnitude and over an event known for its glitz and free spending (the maritime equivalent is the America's Cup yacht race) will lend a bit of sophistication to its international image.

Strictly as a spectator sport, F1 had actually been losing a bit of its appeal because one driver, Michael Schumacher, and one team, Ferrari, had been dominating the championship. Mr Schumacher has retired. This should restore some bite to the competition but it also deprives the sport of a magnetic figure. But no matter.

It is reported that the F1 franchise holders are eager to line up new entrants for the race calendar, such as Russia and South Africa, as older fixtures are deleted for various contractual reasons. This could suggest there is a fair bit of political apple-polishing in the sport as new F1 events in recent years have all been from new-rich or prominent emerging countries (Bahrain, China, Malaysia, Turkey).

On this basis, it is possible Singapore would have landed a slot eventually.

It nevertheless is a coup that the people can be glad about. Singaporeans are supportive of well-defined efforts to make the city a more spontaneous, less formulaic place.

This newspaper backed the effort from the start as few sports events have such cachet and also bring downstream benefits. But there are bound to be questions raised by some people uncomfortable about excessive use of taxpayers' funds in supporting what essentially is a private business venture headed by hotelier Ong Beng Seng.

The Government's undertaking to meet 60 percent of staging costs - about $90 million of the estimated hosting bill of $150 million - can be justified only as tourism promotion.

It is big bucks but cities everywhere are spending as much, and more, to get a bigger slice of the travel market. But the segment of the public that doubts the wisdom of the move needs reassuring that businessmen are not getting a ride in reducing risk.

Which investors would risk millions on a losing proposition? Little is known of the financing details, owing to confidentiality clauses. But the Government should disclose as fully as it can the financial arrangements as the F1contract is to run for five years.