Speeches
Closing Speech by SMS Tan Kiat How for Second Reading of the Info-communications Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill
7 May 2026
Introduction
Mr Speaker sir, let me first thank Members for their support of the Bill and their comments.
I will address the members’ comments in four broad themes.
First, the scope of powers in the Bill and considerations that will guide the Government in exercising them.
Second, the benefits to consumers from fairer, more competitive market conduct.
Thirdly, implications on the workforce.
And fourthly, how this Bill facilitates the growth and development of our media sector, including smaller and diverse players.
Exercise of Powers
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 consumers’ 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 structure 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, this is 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, news, current affairs, entertainment are working hard to hold their own, and I'm proud to say that they are doing so.
That's my first point. The second point is that I think there was some confusion about the scope of the Bill, about market structures and the concepts of competition. These fundamental approaches and principles cut across many sectors. It's not just telecommunications. It's 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 abuse of market dominance, facilitate fair competition, and protect consumers. Likewise, this Bill supports these objectives, and I do not believe that 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. 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 position as a digital hub, with strong international connectivity and sustained investments by leading global companies.
And we work hard to make sure 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, our trusted reputation as pro-business, and regulators that are professional, unbiased and objective is important. That sets the context in which I will try and 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.
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 resource" 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 publicity or notice, rather than solely by notification in the Gazette.
And I say that because I think there was some confusion to think that 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, and this is really in response to be more pro-industry.
Because sir, unfortunately not all global companies and investors pay attention to the Gazette all the time. So, we put it on the IMDA’s website so that affected parties know about it. We send a notification to them and interested parties, licensees included, can refer to them on IMDA’s website. So that’s 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 it on IMDA’s website. This is the same practice for the telecommunications sector today for similar designation. So, it’s a good practice that we are adopting 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 powers articulated in this bill, and the regulatory intent remains 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 don’t abuse the position of dominance. It's for large entities, key media entities. The regulatory intent has not changed, and 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 provision. 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 it not practicable or desirable. And 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 those representations fully before deciding whether to issue the direction. It is a well-established process.
On the powers under 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, its constrained and it’s read in that context.
Dr Choo, Mr Fadli, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Low, 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 never 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. And 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.
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 arise. Their existence also sends 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 spoke about the AI motion yesterday for more than 7 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 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 and 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 consideration arises. The appeal mechanism provides process flexibility, allowing parties to choose whether to appeal directly to Minister or seek reconsideration first. The provisions for both processes including the timeline, process and requirements are clearly stated in the new Section 67A and Section 68. So, it’s about providing additional options.
Sometimes the parties may want IMDA to reconsider its decision because new material information has come up, and 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's an additional option, but parties can still decide to go straight to the Minister for appeal. So, this reconsideration amendment provides the option. It’s meant to be pro-industry and 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 shouldn’t be a need for IMDA to “reinvent the wheel”. It saves time and resources for all stakeholders. Rest assured, IMDA will consult industry and the public before issuing any new codes, as per 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. And I agree with Members.
Generally, written notices 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 issues directions under new Section 61A and the conditions to issue a separation order and potentially award compensation under new Section 69A.
We intend to inform the public when major regulatory decisions are made, given their impact on the industry and media landscape, and 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 websites, and direct notifications to the affected part.
We are committed to being open and transparent. This is a reputation that we built up over years and decades. And really, the litmus test is that the business community, global investors, international players want to invest in Singapore, and continue 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 on IMDA’s website.
And I took a look at it. It's a three or four-page paper by a law firm, and 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 as many of the members, such as to more clearly define key terms, such ‘essential resources’, and also noting similar comments on the phrasing of section 61A, which confers powers for IMDA to issue directions. And these comments are similar to what many members have raised, and I believe I’ve addressed them in my opening speech at the second reading, as well as my closing speech. So, rest assured that 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 telecommunication sector for years. Members can be assured that the same rigour and care will apply in this context.
Benefits to Consumers
Let me now turn to the second theme of how this Bill benefits consumers.
Dr Hamid Razak, Mr David Hoe, and Mr Yip Hon Weng noted that the amendments should translate into benefits for consumers.
We are mindful of this objective. These amendments in the 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 the sitting on the fifth of 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 PQs if needed.
Implications on the Workforce
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 restructuring.
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 NTUC and their unions early, and work closely with them to manage the impact on staff. We will also work closely with NTUC and the unions in the telecommunication and media sectors to support affected members during those periods.
I’d 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 telecommunication and media sectors that are being transformed by AI.
Development and Vibrancy of Media Landscape
Mr David Hoe, 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. 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 related to ownership and control 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.
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 like to also add that IMDA wears a number of hats. In addition to looking from a regulatory point of view, it also plays the 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 in China, and brought another group of more than 10 larger local media companies to Seoul, Korea to look at collaboration opportunities.
We will continue to do more to support our local media players.
Conclusion
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.
今天的修正法案借鉴电信领域的良好做法，以确保更有效的监管，促进公平竞争，并继续保障消费者在媒体领域的利益。在快速发展的媒体环境下，确保我们的监管框架保持有效且有前瞻性。
然而，就如李宏壮先生刚才所说的，任何新增的监管权力必须与问题的性质相称， 既不过当， 也不缺位。本法案已设定清晰的程序，确保这些权力只在需要时，并以适度方式行使，在促进公平市场环境的同时，也为企业提供确定性与信心。
我也同意朱佩玲博士的观点，我们在监管方式上必须保持透明, 以确保业者和公众继续对我们的监管框架有信心。
Back to English, Sir. I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions. To conclude, 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.