Debated in Parliament on 7 May 2026.
Resumption of Debate on Question [6 May 2026],
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Minister for Digital Development and Information].
Question again proposed.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Mandarin and conclude in English. For a start, I rise to support the Info-communications Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this digital age, how do we ensure that the flow of information is fair, that market competition is orderly and that the public interest is protected? This Bill is close to our daily lives.
In the past, we drew clear distinctions between media, such as newspapers and magazines, and telecommunications services, such as telephone lines, mobile networks and broadband. But today, those lines have blurred.
A smartphone is no longer just a communication tool – it is also a news portal, an entertainment platform, an advertising channel and even a starting point for doing business. A single platform can simultaneously influence content distribution, user choices, advertising revenue, business visibility and public discourse.
The media industry today, therefore, is no longer a purely content-driven industry. In other words, it has become a "digital highway." Whoever controls the entry points and key resources can influence competition and can also shape what the public sees and how they understand the world.
The market has changed. Technology has changed. Business models have changed. And the regulatory framework must keep pace. The rules must be updated.
I have six points to elaborate on.
First, this Bill brings greater consistency and clarity to the regulation of competition in both the media and telecommunications sectors. In real life, no one distinguishes between a "media issue" and a "telecommunications issue." What people care about is: why am I seeing this content? Why are my choices narrowing? Why are certain platforms growing ever more dominant?
From a business perspective, whether the market is fair affects innovation. For consumers, whether choices are adequate affects everyday experience. For society, whether the information ecosystem is healthy affects public trust.
If we continue to apply the old, separate frameworks to today's converged market, it is like using an outdated map to navigate a new city – we will easily lose our way.
Second, this Bill strengthens oversight over changes in control, and that is necessary. An ordinary business transaction is a commercial matter. But when it involves a significant media platform, it is no longer just about business – it also concerns the flow of information and public interest.
It is like a community with only one main road – if the management changes, it could affect how everyone gets around. In such circumstances, regulation is warranted.
Third, I also support reducing unnecessary burdens even as we strengthen regulation. Not every transaction requires rigorous approval. Some involve only formalities with no change in actual control, and these can be handled through a notification process.
Good regulation is not about more being better – it is about being precise, clear and predictable.
Fourth, the management of key resources is very important. If a small number of parties control resources that are difficult to replicate and the rules of access are unfair, the market will lose its dynamism. Like a bridge that everyone needs to use, the rules governing it must be fair and transparent.
Fifth, this Bill also introduces the power for the Minister to issue separation orders in specific circumstances.
While this is a fairly strong power, it is not an entirely new concept. Under the Bill, where a regulated person owns or controls certain significant media resources that are difficult to replicate, that may create barriers to market entry or that other competitors require in order to compete, and where actions taken or likely to be taken by the Infocomm Media and Development Authority (IMDA) are insufficient to address the problem, the Minister may issue a separation order where it is in the public interest to do so.
I support the Government retaining such a tool. There are situations where, if the market structure itself has given rise to serious problems, ordinary directions or financial penalties may simply not be enough.
That said, I hope that in exercising this power, three principles continue to be upheld.
First, it should be used as a last resort. Second, it should be proportionate. Third, the process should be clear, the reasons well-founded and affected parties given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Markets need regulation, but they also need certainty. This is especially true for Singapore as an international business hub. Many investors choose Singapore precisely because our institutions are clear, our laws are stable and our regulators are credible. We must protect competition – but we must also protect confidence in our institutions.
Sixth, I also support the inclusion of review and appeal mechanisms. Regulation must not only carry authority; it must also be accompanied by due process and oversight. Only then will businesses have confidence and the public have trust.
Mr Speaker, this Bill concerns the information we encounter every day, the platforms we use and whether the market is fair.
I have a few questions and suggestions for consideration.
First, will IMDA provide clearer and more accessible guidance on key concepts, such as "effective control" and "public interest"? This is particularly important in the context of corporate investments, mergers and acquisitions, equity restructuring and business acquisitions. Clear guidance would help reduce uncertainty for businesses navigating these situations.
Second, for transactions that do not require prior approval but must be notified to IMDA, will the relevant subsidiary legislation set out clearer categories and examples? If practical case illustrations are provided, businesses will find it much easier to comply.
Third, can IMDA prepare a plain-language guide specifically for small- and medium-sized media enterprises and emerging digital media companies? Large corporations typically have legal and compliance teams, but smaller businesses may not have the resources to work through complex provisions. For rules to be effective, people must first be able to understand them and act on them.
Fourth, for stronger powers, such as the divestiture order, will the Government elaborate further on the circumstances under which it would consider invoking such powers? It would also be helpful to explain how the Government will ensure that this remains a measure of last resort, applied in a manner proportionate to the situation.
Fifth, even as we promote fair competition, how do we continue to maintain Singapore's attractiveness as a hub for digital media, technology platforms and regional content? Regulation should not only prevent problems; it should also give healthy, well-run businesses the confidence to grow.
Today's digital ecosystem is like a large marketplace. A good marketplace is not one without rules. It is one where the rules are clear and fairly enforced, where large players can grow, small operators have a chance and consumers can participate with confidence.
As the saying goes, "Clear waters let fish swim freely; clear rules give people peace of mind." When market rules are clear, competition thrives. When regulatory boundaries are well-defined, businesses have confidence. When the public interest is safeguarded, society has trust.
(In English): Beyond these provisions, the Bill also needs to be seen in a broader global context. Around the world, regulators are grappling with similar challenges, such as how to deal with powerful digital platforms while keeping markets open and innovative.
Singapore must continue to take a calibrated approach. We must protect our information environment. But at the same time, remain a trusted and attractive hub for investment and innovation. We should recognise that influence today is not just about ownership, but also about algorithms.
What people see online is often shaped by automated systems with recommendation engines ranking models and content creation tools. These systems are not always visible, but they are very powerful. So, moving forward, issues like transparency, accountability and trust in these systems will become increasingly important.
Another key point is inclusion. As we strengthen regulation, we must ensure that smaller players, like startups, independent creators and community platforms, are not crowded out. A healthy media ecosystem is not just about a strong major player but also about diversity – diversity of voices strengthens innovations and it strengthens public disclosure.
Finally, regulation alone is not enough. An informed and discerning public is just as important. Media literacy and digital awareness are long-term safeguards. When people are able to question, evaluate and think critically about what they see, they become an active part of a trusted digital ecosystem. I support the Bill.
Ms Cassandra Lee.
Mr Speaker, the IMDA (Amendment) Bill seeks to further harmonise and align the competition frameworks governing the telecommunications and media sectors.
This Bill builds on substantial public consultations that concluded in January 2026 and follows from the introduction of the converged Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunication and Media Services in 2022. I support this Bill.
Unlike many other industries, the regulation of media companies is not only about economics, it is fundamentally about the role media plays in society. Media companies shape public discourse and influence how citizens understand and form opinions. For these reasons, competition rules in the media sector are essential not just to ensure efficient markets. But also, to prevent excessive concentration of influence over information.
If left unchecked, high levels of concentration in media markets may result not only in economic dominance but also in gatekeeping power over what information reaches the public. In this context, the Bill's strengthening of competition oversight is particularly in relation to ownership, control and market conduct and this is both timely and necessary.
At the same time, the Bill reflect the Government's responsiveness to industry feedback and its willingness to refine legislation to better reflect market realities, particularly in the media services sector.
One significant amendment, for example, is the treatment of anti-competitive agreements. Previously, where an agreement was found to be anti-competitive under section 62 of the IMDA Act, the entire agreement could be rendered void. Under the proposed amendments, only the provisions found to be anti-competitive will be void, with the remainder of the agreement continuing to be valid and enforceable. This represents a more calibrated and commercially sensible approach to competition enforcement.
The Bill, however, focuses on traditional media companies, publishers and broadcasters. My question is therefore whether there is a possibility of an expanded scope of the Bill – that is, regulating content creation companies that do not fit within the traditional entities that are regulated by the IMDA Act.
The media landscape is undergoing profound transformation. We are witnessing the rapid rise of digital and social media ecosystems where news and current affairs content are increasingly consumed online through non-traditional channels such as social media. Indeed, audiences, particularly younger ones, rely heavily on news outlets, like Mothership, to receive news.
What we are seeing is the emergence of local companies that are media producers and content-driven businesses that do not necessarily operate traditional newspapers or broadcast channels. They, nevertheless, produce and disseminate large volumes of content that are consumed and trusted by the masses. Yet, they may not always fall neatly within the categories of regulated persons under existing legislation.
Given the increasing role of local digital media companies and content businesses in disseminating news and shaping public discourse, could the Minister share whether the Ministry is considering whether aspects of this competition framework may in time need to extend to entities that perform media-like functions even if they do not fall within traditional licensing categories?
In this context, as IMDA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) continue to review and update the regulatory framework, I would like to ask if the Ministry would share any updates on whether it is considering any further developments in relation to the regulation of social media use by adolescents and youths.
Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank Members for their support of the Bill and their comments.
I will address Members' comments in four broad themes: first, the scope of powers in this Bill and considerations that will guide the Government in exercising these powers; second, the benefits to consumers from fairer, more competitive market conduct; third, the implications on the workforce; and fourth, how this Bill facilitates the growth and development of our media sector, including smaller and diverse players.
To recap what I said yesterday, the amendments are technical in nature but they are nonetheless important. They strengthen our regulatory toolkit to ensure fair competition and market conduct in the media sector and protect consumer interests.
As Mr Sharael Taha noted in his speech, this Bill is not about content regulation. It is also not about the quality of content. Instead, it focuses on market structures and practices, and consumer protection measures. It is to ensure fair access and to keep the market vibrant.
While Members are entitled to have different views on the quality of our media entities and the quality of content that they produce, these are not pertaining to the amendments in this Bill. But let me just make a few points.
Today, mainstream media outlets are trusted and have worked hard to hold their own against much larger global players. A 2025 survey by the Reuters Institute found that our mainstream media outlets remained the most trusted news brands in Singapore. And consumers in Singapore have choices. We have access to an ever-expanding range of content and media services from global online and streaming platforms, and often consume media from multiple sources. So, our local media outlets for news, current affairs, entertainment are working hard to hold their own. I am proud to say that they are doing so. That is my first point.
My second point is I think there was confusion about the scope of the Bill, about market structures and concepts of competition. These fundamental approaches and principles cut across many sectors. It is not just telecommunications, it is not just media, but also energy, power, financial services. Competition and consumer protection matters arise across many other sectors. While there will always be sector-specific nuances, the underlying principles and objectives are consistent, namely, to constrain the abuse of market dominance, facilitate fair competition and protect consumers.
Likewise, this Bill supports these objectives. I do not believe that the Members would disagree with the merits of adopting good practices from the telecommunication sector, as well as any other sector, so as to strengthen our regulatory toolkit in the media sector.
This Bill reinforces our longstanding commitment to keep Singapore a business-friendly and attractive place for investment. We have always exercised our regulatory powers proportionately and fairly, with appropriate checks and balances. And beyond IMDA's regulatory remit, there is also recourse to the Courts through judicial review.
It is precisely this measured and judicious approach to regulation that has underpinned Singapore's positions as a digital hub, with strong international connectivity and sustained investments by leading global companies. And we work hard to make sure that we maintain this reputation globally. We can direct regulatees, we can pass regulations, but we cannot force people to invest here. And maintaining that regulatory professionalism and our trusted reputation as pro-business, with regulators that are professional, unbiased and objective, is important.
That sets the context in which I will try to answer some of the questions from different Members.
Members have asked about the scope of certain defined terms in the Bill and emphasised the importance of ensuring that the new powers introduced are exercised judiciously, transparently and on a clear basis, so that we maintain a fair and pro-innovation environment and ensure business certainty. Dr Choo Pei Ling, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Dr Hamid Razak, Mr David Hoe, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Andre Low, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised these points.
At this juncture, Sir, I just want to also note that Ms Mariam Jaafar was unfortunately unable to speak on this Bill because she had to rush to the airport for an overseas work trip. She sent to me her speech in advance before she left for the airport so that I can take note of her comments and points. Where appropriate, I will address her points in my speech.
Let me first clarify the definitions in the Bill.
The definitions of "associate" and "effective control" are not new. They mirror existing definitions in the Telecommunications Act. These definitions support our objective of ensuring fair market competition and prevent abuse of market dominance, as I have outlined earlier.
The definition of "essential resources" is in substance the same as the existing definition in the current IMDA Act. The amendment provides that IMDA may communicate the designation of an essential resource in a manner to secure adequate publicity or notice rather than solely by notification in the Gazette.
I say that because I think there was some confusion to think we are no longer publishing in the Gazette. We are, but in addition to that, we are publishing on IMDA's website and sending the notification directly to the affected party.
This is to be more pro-industry because, Sir, unfortunately, not all global companies and investors pay attention to our Government Gazette all the time. So, we put it on IMDA's website so that affected parties know about it. We send a notification to them. Interested parties, licensees included, can refer to them on IMDA's website. So, that is the intent of the change.
We will engage the owner and controller of such essential resources before the official designation and inform them of such designation by serving notice on them and also publishing on our website, as I mentioned earlier. This is the same practice for the telecommunications sector for similar designations. So, it is a good practice. We are adopting it for the media sector.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the updated definition of "regulated person" will be applied in practice to avoid over-capture beyond key media entities. Our regulatory intent remains unchanged. As I shared earlier at the start of my speech, the scope of the powers articulated in this Bill and the regulatory intent remain unchanged. The definition continues to be targeted at key media entities and only covers entities specified by the Minister in the Gazette. The updated definition is meant to fill potential gaps in coverage as the market evolves.
Really, the Bill aims to target large players that are dominant and to make sure they do not abuse their dominance. It is for large entities, key media entities. The regulatory intent has not changed.
As I explained in my Second Reading speech yesterday, there may be key media entities which may fall outside the existing definition of "regulated person" in the IMDA Act. So, the amendments are aligned with the approach for the telecommunication sector, for example, in capturing business trust structures, which is a fairly recent corporate structure.
Mr Hoe, Mr Low and Mr Sharael asked about the powers to issue directions in the public interest under the new section 61A. To be clear, the power to issue directions must be read in the context of the full provisions. Thus, the power is limited to maintaining fair market conduct and effective competition and safeguarding consumer interests. Therefore, this power is neither a catch-all nor unconstrained.
Under the new section 61A(4), IMDA is required to give prior written notice to the person concerned except where it considers not practicable or desirable. We will attempt to always do so. In stating the proposed direction and its effect, IMDA allows for representations to be made. IMDA must then consider these representations fully before deciding whether to issue the direction. It is a well established process.
On the powers under the new section 65A, raised by Mr Yip, this provision allows IMDA to require the disposal of shares or the relinquishment of control. A similar power already exists under the Telecommunications Act and is intended to address scenarios where a party, for example, provides false or misleading information or documents to IMDA in order to obtain IMDA's approval.
Mr Yip asked about the proportionate exercise of IMDA's information gathering powers in the new sections 65B and 71A. The Bill specifies that these are to enable IMDA to obtain information relating to the holding of equity interest and control of voting power in a regulated person and information relating to a media resource where IMDA has reason to believe that it should be designated as an essential resource respectively. So, it is constrained and it is read in that context.
Dr Choo, Mr Fadli, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Low, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Sharael and Ms Jessica Tan had questions on the exercise of powers under the new section 69A, which allows the Minister to order structural separations.
We fully recognise the gravity and impact of separation orders on affected entities. While the provisions mirror existing powers in the Telecommunications Act, those powers have not been exercised to date. It is our intent that structural separations are only imposed as a last resort and in exceptional cases. To this end, this power has strict legal limits. All three of the following requirements must be met before a separation order can be issued. These are articulated in the Bill.
First, there must be a qualifying market condition. Either the regulated person owns a media resource so costly to replicate that it blocks competitors from entering the market or the regulated person holds significant market power and competitors cannot realistically provide media services without access to their services. That is the first.
Second, a separation order cannot be invoked by the Minister unless conventional regulatory remedies by IMDA have already been exhausted or are demonstrably inadequate.
Third, the Minister must be independently satisfied that issuing the separation order is in the public interest. In making this assessment on public interest, the Minister is required to work within the confines of the law and consider whether the order is necessary or desirable to promote fair and efficient competition in the media sector, to enhance the efficiency and international competitiveness of Singapore's media industry, to eliminate or reduce barriers to competition arising from the regulated person's ownership or market power, or to promote transparency, non-discrimination and equivalence of supply in the provision of media services.
Even after deciding to issue an order, the Minister's discretion remains constrained. The new section 69A(4) will require the Minister to ensure that the specific directions included in the separation order are proportionate. In assessing proportionality, the Minister must consider how contestable the relevant media services market is and whether the directions will effectively eliminate or minimise any incentive or opportunity for the regulated person to distort competition in that market.
All of these legal requirements must be satisfied and no single requirement alone is sufficient. This reflects a clear legislative intent: a separation order is a last resort. The Bill therefore ensures such powers may be exercised in defined circumstances, for defined purposes, and only after all regulatory tools have failed and only with directions that are proportionate to the competitive harm being addressed.
Precisely because this is a serious intervention, it is important that the necessary powers are available should the situation arises. Their existence also send a strong signal to the market that the Government will act decisively to safeguard fair competition and market conduct. This, in turn, helps deter abusive market behaviour before it takes hold.
Sir, this House also spoke about the AI Motion yesterday for more than seven hours. That discussion underscored the need for us to be prepared for future uncertainties. The powers to issue separation orders are framed in the same spirit, to ensure that we are not caught unprepared in addressing significant market risks should they emerge.
I have also said in my Second Reading speech that it is appropriate for a decision of this gravity to be taken at the Ministerial level. In addition, this process is also amenable to judicial review.
To address Dr Choo, Mr Fadli and Mr Yip's questions on the new section 65, including how IMDA will assess major acquisitions, IMDA will consider whether the acquisition would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition or is against the public interest. At the same time, we recognise that acquisitions, mergers or consolidations may generate economies of scale or introduce innovation, with potential pro-competitive effects and consumer benefits.
These considerations will be assessed against our primary objective of maintaining competitive markets that protect consumer interests as part of the broadened oversight of major acquisitions. Let me also add, that the procedures and timelines for the process are outlined clearly in the Telecom and Media Competition Code.
Dr Choo, Mr Fadli and Mr Hoe asked about the intent, design considerations behind both the reconsideration and appeal mechanisms, including if there could be room for independent review. Both mechanisms are already well established in the telecommunication sector, since the market was fully liberalised in April 2000. This reconsideration process allows parties to ask IMDA to review decisions if new information or considerations arise. The appeal mechanism provides process flexibility, allowing parties to choose whether to appeal directly to the Minister or seek reconsideration first. The provisions for both processes, including the timeline, process and requirements are stated clearly in the new sections 67A and 68.
So, it is about providing additional options. Sometimes, the parties may want for IMDA to reconsider the decision because new material information has come up. So, it gives the parties an additional option to seek the regulator's reconsideration rather than directly appealing to the Minister in the first instance. So, it is an additional option, but parties can still decide to go straight to the Minister for appeal. So, this reconsideration amendment provides that option. It is meant to be pro-industry and also facilitate timely resolution of issues.
Members should also note that appeals to Minister are independently assessed from IMDA's regulatory decisions. Furthermore, parties can seek judicial review. Taken together, this framework provides multiple levels of checks and safeguards for a regulatory decision, including review by the Courts. As mentioned, the Minister also needs to be accountable to the public and to this House, to Parliament.
Mr Yip asked how both public and industry interests would be considered under the new section 61, where IMDA can approve documents prepared by a person other than IMDA as a code of practice or standard of performance for the media sector. Let me explain the intent. The amendments provide additional flexibility for IMDA to benefit industry players.
If there are codes of practice or standards of performance by others that meet IMDA's regulatory requirements, there should not be a need for IMDA to "reinvent the wheel". It saves time and resources for all stakeholders. IMDA will consult industry and the public before issuing any new codes, as its current practice.
Broadly, Dr Choo, Mr Fadli, Mr Hoe and Ms Jessica Tan, also raised the importance of transparency in the exercise of powers under the Bill, to both industry and the public. I agree with Members.
Generally, written notice will be issued to the affected party ahead of regulatory decisions and there are opportunities for the party to make representations, to then be considered by IMDA or the Minister before they decide. Secondly, the Bill spells out clear considerations or criteria for provisions, for example the scope of powers to issue directions under the new section 61A and the conditions to issue a separation order and potentially award compensation under the new section 69A.
We intend to inform the public when major regulatory decisions are made, given their impact on the media landscape and to explain the key considerations. I would also make clear that notifications by IMDA on matters, such as the specification of essential resources will continue to be published on the Gazette for information, in addition to other channels, like on our website and direct notifications to the affected party.
We are committed to being open and transparent. This is a reputation that we build up, over years and decades. The litmus test is the business community, global investors, international players wanting to invest in Singapore and continuing to invest in Singapore, because they trust the Government, they trust the regulatory environment and they trust the professionalism and transparency of our processes.
On this particular point, as mentioned by Mr Low, MDDI and IMDA conducted a public consultation for the Bill. By the close of the consultation, MDDI and IMDA received one submission from a law firm directly relevant to the Bill. As per usual practice, IMDA has published the response received on IMDA's website.
I took a look at it, it is a three- or four-page paper by a law firm. I looked through the details of it before and I looked at it again because Mr Low raised it. The submission had broadly raised the same points that many of the Members suggested, to more clearly define key terms, such as "essential resources" and also noting similar comments on the phrasing of section 61A, which confers powers on IMDA to issue directions. These comments are similar to what many Members had raised, and I believed have addressed them in my Opening speech of the Second Reading as well as my Closing speech. So, rest assured, before any major decisions are taken, we consult, we take a look very carefully at what responders have provided to us and look at what their suggestions are.
On the exercise of powers, MDDI shares Members' commitment to ensuring these powers are exercised properly. Importantly, as I have explained, such powers are not new to IMDA – it has been exercising equivalent powers judiciously in the telecommunications sector for years. Members can be assured that the same rigour and care will apply in this context.
Let me now turn to the second theme of how this Bill benefits consumers. Dr Hamid Razak, Mr David Hoe, Ms Mariam Jaafar, and Mr Yip Hon Weng noted that the amendments should translate into benefits for consumers.
We are mindful of this objective. These amendments in this Bill aim to do so by strengthening the regulatory framework for the media sector. The amendments proposed in this Bill help ensure that Singapore's media market remains competitive, dynamic and fair. They contribute to public confidence in the media sector, good content, reasonable prices and a vibrant information environment for every Singaporean.
As I have laid out in my Opening Speech, the Bill also gives IMDA the tools to act swiftly when fair market conduct is threatened and where the actions of service providers may hurt consumer interests for example the powers under the new section 61A.
Ms Cassandra Lee asked whether the Government is considering further developments to the regulation of social media use by adolescents, in the context of increasing use of such platforms.
We are deeply concerned about ensuring a trusted and safe online environment for everyone and we approach this on many fronts. Over the years, we have introduced various laws to ensure that Singaporeans go online safely. For example, in 2022, we amended the Broadcasting Act, which allowed IMDA to issue directions to social media services to prevent Singapore users' access to egregious content on their platforms. IMDA also introduced Codes of Practice for Online Safety in 2023 and 2025 for designated social media services and app stores respectively.
These Codes require the designated services to put in place systems and processes to mitigate their users' risks of exposure to harmful content on their platforms. Last year, this House passed the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act, establishing the Commissioner of Online Safety to provide victims of online harms with timely relief and redress.
Earlier in this Sitting, on 5 May, we have also answered questions on the regulation of social media. As the amendments of this Bill do not pertain to these specific matters, I would refer Ms Lee to those replies and to raise subsequent Parliamentary Questions if needed.
Let me now turn to the third theme on implications to the workforce. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng spoke about the workforce impact and the need to support workers during organisational changes from mergers or restructurings. We recognise the disruptions and anxiety that workers may face and the importance of whole-of-Government oversight of such shifts.
I would stress that while the amendments in the Bill focus on fair markets and consumer protection in the media sector, that does not mean that we are not supporting our workers through disruptions and transitions. MOM's legislative frameworks and guidelines that are broad-based and applied across the various industry sectors will continue to be in force.
For MDDI and IMDA, in dealing with the telecommunication and media sectors, we encourage unionised companies embarking on or undergoing major organisational restructurings to engage the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and their unions early, and work closely with them to manage the impact on staff. We will also work closely with NTUC and unions in the telecommunication and media sectors to support affected members during those periods.
I would like to thank Mr Tay for his specific suggestions and we will share them with MOM as these are matters which would apply beyond the telecommunication and media sectors.
Importantly, we are not passively waiting for disruption to happen. IMDA actively partners with NTUC and unions to train and skill our workers, so that they remain relevant and competitive in the fast-changing telecommunications and media sectors that are being transformed by AI.
Mr David Hoe, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Andre Low asked whether the Bill facilitates an open and diverse media landscape with independent perspectives, where new entrants can grow and compete in a fair market. Ms Cassandra Lee also asked if we would update our competition framework to include non-traditional media entities. The regulated persons under the IMDA Act are intended to be specific entities. These include major players, including SPH Media Trust, Mediacorp and our Pay TV operators. We are not making changes to this approach.
In this context, as I emphasised earlier, the regulatory focus of the IMDA Act is not on the smaller players in the media sector and media consumption is non-exclusive. Singaporeans have access to a wide variety of content and media services through global online and streaming platforms. The amendments in this Bill are related to ownership and control, and are scoped to cover very specific regulated key media entities. Seen in this light, these amendments act to prevent unfair competition and potential abuse of market dominance by large players that may frustrate the entry and growth of other players in the media sector.
And we certainly recognise that the media landscape has transformed and grown significantly with the internet and social media. This is a fast-moving space and we will continue to monitor developments closely. I thank Members for raising this issue.
I would also like to add that IMDA wears a number of hats. In addition from a regulator point of view, it also plays a role of the media industry developer. It has put in place schemes and programmes to support local players and grow the diversity and vibrancy of our media ecosystem. For example, IMDA's International Co-Production Fund supports local production houses and is awarded to local media companies to co-produce high quality drama series that are infused with a Singapore flavour and made for a global audience.
In fact, I recently joined a trip with NTUC and brought a group of almost 30 content creators, freelancers, small media businesses, on a business development trip to Hangzhou and Hengdian, China, and brought another group of more than 10 larger local media companies to Seoul, Korea to look at collaboration opportunities. And we will continue to do more to support our local media players.
Let me speak in Mandarin, Sir, to address the points made by Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Dr Choo Pei Ling in their Chinese speeches.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today's amendment Bill draws on good practices from the telecommunication sector to ensure more effective regulation, promote fair competition and continue safeguarding consumer interests in the media sector. In a rapidly evolving media environment, it is important to ensure that our regulatory framework remains effective and forward-looking.
As Mr Lee Hong Chuang has noted, any new regulatory measures must be proportionate to the issues – neither excessive nor inadequate. The Bill has established clear procedures to ensure that these powers are exercised only when necessary and in a measured manner, promoting a fair market environment while also providing businesses with certainty and confidence.
I also agree with Dr Choo Pei Ling that we must remain transparent in our approach to regulation, so as to ensure that industry players and the public continue to have confidence in our regulatory framework.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions. This Bill is necessary to promote fair competition and to continue safeguarding consumers' interests. In a rapidly evolving media landscape, it is important that our regulatory framework remains effective and forward looking. Sir, I beg to move.
Clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? Mr Andre Low.
Thank you, Speaker. I have several clarifications for Senior Minister of State Tan. Sorry, I have not counted them, so I seek your forgiveness for that.
I thank the Senior Minister of State for the correction. Firstly, I appreciate that there was only one law firm that submitted a response to the consultation. I believe I was mistaken. The other law firm had published an article on the website, but had not directly responded to the consultation.
My first clarification is to my specific question on the scope of designation. I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State has responded in broad terms that the scope of the legislation is meant to cover large players, key players in the middle media landscape. And subsequently, he also confirmed that the intent is not to address the small players. We appreciate the definition of what the Ministry is considering a "small player" and where exactly where the threshold lies, because I think this speaks to our concerns about the chilling effect of the legislation.
I also specifically had asked if this IMDA Bill, together with the Broadcasting Act that also is being amended, read together, does the scope of the regulated persons potentially include social media companies, foreign players, but that have a local presence?
Also, I specifically asked if entities, like blogs, social media accounts, podcasts and so on, are covered or within the scope. And I asked this because now, you hear about podcasts being acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars. So, it is well within conception that podcasts might well fall under a type of company or entity that may need to be regulated under these provisions.
I also had a specific concern about the "in the public interest" line, in section 61A, para 1C. And I appreciate that Senior Minister of State Tan has clarified that this needs to be read in the context of the full provision, so it is not meant to be a catch-all. I would just like to add that the drafting in the Bill is quite vague, because in para B(2), which immediately precedes the phrasing of "in the public interest", it ends with an "or". So, if you read that together in context, it does seem like 61A(1), para C is meant to be read independently. And if it is read independently, it can seem like a broad all-encompassing power to direct "in the public interest". So, I would appreciate if Senior Minister of State Tan can clarify that that is not the intent.
I also had questions about transferee selection. I had asked specifically if the Government will commit to not directing independent media companies that have been subject to a separation order, to then have that business transferred to a Government-linked media company.
And I also have a specific question on the newspaper permit, and similarly for the broadcasting permit. If you read section 69A (3)b(ii) of the Bill, it seems to imply that companies that have been subject to a separation order will be obligated to reapply for their newspaper licence or broadcasting licence as the case may be. I wonder why it does not just transfer, as a matter of course; and is this an opportunity for the Government to then subsequently deny the successor entity a newspaper or broadcasting licence?
I think that covers the scope of my clarifications. I would just finally add that I still have some overarching concerns about the potential for this Bill to have a chilling effect. I think the Senior Minister of State Tan has mentioned that investor confidence in Singapore is broadly high, and I accept that point.
But I think specifically for the media industry, Singapore's media industry is currently – I would not say it is a bastion of a free and open market. We are dominated by two major media companies that are within the Government's orbit. So, I would push back on that suggestion that within the media landscape, that investors have high confidence investing in Singapore companies.
Sir, the Member has a number of clarifications and I will attempt to go through them. I ask the Member to let me know if I have missed out some things.
Let me first talk about the scope of definition. Let me just clarify, he mentioned that we are amending the Broadcasting Act. We are not. Nothing in this amendment Bill touches the Broadcasting Act. So, that is the first factual clarification.
Second, it is about the scope of definitions of regulated persons under the IMDA Act. The regulatory intent is clear; and when you read the different provisions and amendments, it should be in the context of the scope of powers envisaged under this Act and debated here in Parliament. And that was the IMDA Act that was passed some time ago. The regulatory intent is for fair market competition and protecting consumer interest. And that overarching intent should be one guiding how we interpret the different clauses and provisions and powers in the Act. So, the exercise of these powers, whether through the regulator, like IMDA, or in certain circumstances, by the Minister, it should be read in a context of how it will enable better fair market competition and protect the consumers, especially against large players who abuse the position of dominance.
So, whether it is articulation of the clause of "public interest", or in terms of thinking of who are the regulated persons defined under the Act, it should be seen in that context – larger players that may abuse their dominance to frustrate new entrants.
That is really the thrust of the IMDA Act – market structures, market practices, consumer protection. And nothing in this amendment Act changes the other Acts that govern the media sector, whether the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act or the Broadcasting Act.
So, I just wanted to be very clear how we should interpret the provisions. That is important because our exchange here will be in the Hansard and will be relied on if there are further challenges in the courts or elsewhere. So, I just want to make that point very clear.
So, that is on scope, definition, public interest.
As for the specific scenario of transferee selection in the event of a structural separation order and why, under the Act, it is envisaged that the entity may have to apply for a newspaper licence at a point in time.
Let me start by reiterating what I have just said. I took some time in my opening Second Reading speech, as well as the closing speech, to articulate that structural separation orders by the Minister is not to be taken lightly. It is not just about the telecommunication or media sector, where these powers are now embedded. But it sends a broader signal to the global investment community, the international businesses – many of them international businesses, listed companies. Many, many options of not just investing in Singapore, many places for them to invest. Why do they invest here in Singapore? And these are large companies with robust corporate governance, institutional investors, shareholders; and they look at where to invest their resources, their money. Our regulatory certainty and pro-business environment gives us the competitive advantage. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is a reputation that we husband, we shepherd, we safeguard.
So, that is really one context in how we think about structural separation orders. We do not take it lightly. Only in exceptional circumstances where all existing measures have failed – and I listed the three legal requirements for that before the Minister decides – and after the Minister decides and issues the order, the decision can be challenged; and the Minister needs to defend it publicly. So, these decisions are not taken lightly at all. And we have not exercised such powers.
With that as a context, let me go into next point. The Member was talking about a hypothetical example or situation where a separation order has been issued, what happens? Well, it is a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios, because we have not even envisaged a scenario where it will happen and we have not yet exercised such powers.
But most importantly, it is really in the exercise of such powers and the next level of details. What are the considerations? The considerations must go back to the policy intent of the Bill, which is: "Does it enhance competition? Does it protect consumer interest?" And that should guide the decisions of the structures after that.
Those structures also need to involve the affected parties who are receiving the direction. And the affected parties may be large companies with their own shareholders, their own set of investors. These issues need to be talked through and discussed. I think at that point in time, if they need to apply for licences, if they need apply for a permit to operate, they should do so. The same criteria to evaluate any permit application are already embedded in the existing laws and regulations. And they will continue to apply. So, I hope that explains the context to Mr Low.
Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order.
I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar.
I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament. Because on the Hansard, we will not have the hon Member's speech. But the Senior Minister of State has referred to her, I believe, at least once at the beginning and once in the course of his speech.
Mr Pritam Singh, you are right. First, a Member has to be present to make his or her speech. Ms Mariam Jaafar is not present. So, her speech that Senior Minister of State Tan referred to will definitely not be in the Hansard. That is the first point.
Any Member who wishes to make a point must be in Parliament to make his or her speech. So, the references are not correct. This is a good reminder to all Members that you have to be present in the Chamber to make your speech and make your points.
Any other clarifications?
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Kiat How].
Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS