Parliament
Opening Speech by SMS Tan Kiat How for the Second Reading of the Info-Communications Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill
6 May 2026
Introduction
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Digital Development and Information, I beg to move that “The Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, the Bill proposes amendments to the Info-communications Media Development Authority Act, or the IMDA Act. Principally, the amendments align the regulatory framework for the media sector with that for the telecommunication sector. The Bill also makes related amendments to the Telecommunications Act.
Let me first set out the context of the Bill and how the proposed amendments fit within the broader regulatory frameworks. I will then bring Members through the two key amendments – (a) firstly, those relating to the ownership and control of key media entities; and (b) secondly, amendments that facilitate regulatory action by IMDA, together with a number of administrative updates.
Context
Sir, as the amendments are technical in nature, let me first set out the background and context.
IMDA was established in 2016 through the IMDA Act. The observation then was that the lines between how content is produced, how it is carried, and how it is consumed were starting to converge. IMDA was formed through the merger of the Info-communications Development Authority and the Media Development Authority to become the single regulator and industry developer for both the telecommunication and media sectors.
IMDA relies on the Telecommunications Act as the main legislation for the telecommunication sector. The Telecommunications Act covers the licensing of telecommunication systems and services, as well as competition and consumer interest matters.
Unlike the telecommunication sector, a few regulatory frameworks come together to form IMDA’s toolkit for the media sector. The Broadcasting Act, or the BA and Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, or the NPPA determine who is a broadcasting licensee or a holder of a newspaper permit respectively, and such entities may be specified as regulated persons under the IMDA Act and be subject to the competition and consumer protection framework in it.
The proposed amendments under this Bill deal primarily with the IMDA Act, i.e. the competition and consumer protection aspects of our regulatory framework for the media sector.
Amendments Related to Ownership and Control of Regulated Persons
Let me now turn to the first set of amendments that relate to the ownership and control of key media entities, or regulated persons as referred to in the IMDA Act. The amendments look at the media market structure and practices. They aim to ensure fair competition and market conduct, and that consumers of media services are protected.
Sir, we care about who owns and controls regulated persons. These are companies that shape the information environment for our citizens, especially in the age of AI and disinformation.
Clause 9 in the Bill will replace the existing Section 65 in the IMDA Act. The intent is to broaden IMDA’s oversight of ownership and control changes. Under the amended framework, changes in ownership or control that can allow any person to direct the actions of regulated persons will require IMDA’s prior approval. Specifically, this would apply where a person acquires 30% or more interest in a regulated person, obtains effective control over its operations, or takes over its media business as a going concern. The 30% threshold in the Bill serves as a benchmark for when someone would presumably have control over the entity’s decisions and operations. This is consistent with the 30% voting control level under the MAS Take-Over Code as well.
With this change, IMDA’s approval would now be needed if an entity that is not a regulated person wishes to acquire 30% or more of our PayTV operators, SingNet or StarHub Cable Vision, for example.
This requirement is in place today for the telecommunication sector, where acquisitions by any party, crossing certain thresholds, such as 30% ownership or control of key telecom entities, require IMDA’s prior approval. We are adopting this practice for the media sector.
I should add that under the BA and NPPA, a person must not become a substantial shareholder which is defined in the Companies Act as having not less than 5% of the total votes attached to all voting shares in the company, a 12% controller, or an indirect controller of a broadcasting company and newspaper company without the Minister’s prior approval. These 5% and 12% thresholds give the Government oversight and control over persons who have significant stakes in our media companies to ensure that these companies are not subject to undue influence.
The proposed change to the IMDA Act with the “30% controller” threshold will add to these safeguards. IMDA will have the powers to assess such changes with additional market conduct and consumer protection considerations.
Amendments to Facilitate Regulatory Action, and Other Administrative Updates
Let me turn to the second set of amendments. Broadly, they consist of amendments to facilitate regulatory action by IMDA, and several administrative updates.
Amendments to provide IMDA with powers to issue directions for fair and efficient market conduct
Clause 6 of the Bill empowers IMDA to issue directions for the purposes of maintaining fair and efficient market conduct or to safeguard consumers' interests by promoting fair, transparent and reliable provision of media services.
Under the current Act, IMDA's powers to give directions to regulated persons is limited to cases where there is non-compliance with competition or consumer protection rules under the IMDA Act and the Telecom and Media Competition Code.
However, there may be instances where actions of licensees may result in outcomes that are detrimental to consumers or undermine fair market competition, despite there being no breach of the IMDA Act or the Code.
Just to illustrate based on a past telecommunication sector example – it is unfair to you, as a consumer, if your provider abruptly changes the price or terms and conditions of your subscription during the contractual lock-in period to your disadvantage. To protect consumers, IMDA prohibited such practices in 2015 and could do so quickly through a direction. IMDA subsequently formalised the requirements in the Code.
IMDA does not have powers today to act in this manner in the media sector. IMDA will need to first revise and reissue the code of practice before it can act. This takes time and consumers will be worse off during the interim period.
With this amendment, IMDA can take similar quick and targeted actions for the media sector through the issuance of directions.
Sir, this Bill also makes a few other amendments that are administrative in nature.
Powers to obtain information for specified purposes
First, new section 65B introduced by Clause 9 and new section 71A introduced by Clause 16 of the Bill enable IMDA to obtain specific information to support regulatory decisions. These information-gathering powers are to ascertain a person’s equity interests or voting power in a regulated person, for the purposes of assessing ownership changes, and gather information relating to the potential designation of a media service as an essential resource.
Powers to order structural separation vested in Minister
Second, Clause 15 provides that the powers to order structural separation of a regulated person is vested in the Minister, rather than IMDA. We recognise that a structural separation is a significant regulatory intervention, and it is appropriate that a decision of this gravity is taken at the Ministerial level. This mirrors the existing position in the Telecommunications Act.
The basis for these powers is meant as a last resort to eliminate barriers to competition created by the control of bottleneck media resources or the possession of significant market power, after existing and potential regulatory actions by the IMDA are deemed to be ineffective to enhance competition, and where the Minister is satisfied it is in the public interest to issue the separation order.
Updating definition of ‘regulated person’
Third, Clause 3 updates the definition of parties who can be designated as regulated persons to address potential gaps.
To illustrate, the current definition of ‘regulated person’ in the IMDA Act covers a ‘newspaper company’ for the purposes of section 65. A newspaper company is defined in the NPPA as a public company limited by shares in compliance with Section 10, which provision includes, among others, a requirement for all directors to be Singaporean citizens. This requirement was in place when the NPPA was enacted in 1974.
The media landscape has significantly evolved over the years. Other forms of corporate structures could similarly hold newspaper permits and their publications may have similar reach and influence, even if the entities do not fall within the narrow definition of a “newspaper company”, such as having Singaporean citizen-only directors. The updated definition will allow these entities to be captured as regulated persons.
On the broadcasting side, the current definition of a regulated person in the IMDA Act covers only holders of broadcasting licences. Structures like business trusts that hold broadcasting assets are not covered under the current definition. We are updating the definition to cover such trust structures.
This is aligned with the approach for the telecommunication sector.
Allowing IMDA to approve codes or standards prepared by parties other than IMDA
Fourth, Clause 5 allows IMDA to approve documents prepared by a person other than IMDA as a code of practice or standard of performance for the media sector. This is a practice informed by our experience with the telecom sector, where international standards have been considered and adapted for setting relevant standards for Singapore, such as the use of standards by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for mobile handsets and terminals.
This is a practical, industry-friendly amendment. To illustrate, where there are already good industry standards developed by professional bodies or industry associations, IMDA would have powers to require compliance with these industry-developed standards. It avoids duplicate rule-making, and it builds on industry buy-in, because the rules are ones that industry itself has developed.
Notifying IMDA is sufficient for immaterial transactions
Fifth, in a similar spirit for our regulations to be practical, Clause 9 of the Bill deems it sufficient for persons to notify IMDA, instead of seeking IMDA’s approval, for immaterial transactions to be set out in subsidiary legislation. The intention is to prescribe transactions which do not have an impact on equity interests or control of voting power held by shareholders of key media entities, for example due to a transfer of shares between a corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary as part of corporate restructuring. This amendment will lighten the regulatory burden and align with the approach taken for the telecom sector.
Related amendments to the TA for alignment
Lastly, Clause 18 makes related amendments to the Telecommunications Act itself. Sir, these are for alignment purposes. The amendments update drafting, terminology, and cross-references so that the two Acts use consistent language and terms.
Conclusion
Sir, the amendments in this Bill ensure that our regulatory frameworks remain relevant, and align the good practices across the telecommunication and media sectors.
Sir, I beg to move.