IMDA (Amendment) Bill
Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to do three main things: one, enhance the provisions relating to fair and efficient market conduct and effective competition in the media industry so that they are aligned with that in the telecommunications industry; two, reduce the regulatory burdens on the media industry; and three, provide IMDA with additional powers.
This Bill is a necessary and timely update to harmonise regulations within a converging digital market. While the direction of travel is broadly understandable, the Bill does grant the Government significant powers. And, Sir, I believe stronger safeguards must accompany such stronger powers.
Expanded Powers and Ministerial Discretion
One significant change in the Bill is Clause 15, which amends the law to vest the power to issue a separation order, which can require a company to restructure or divest parts of its business to address competition concerns, directly in the Minister rather than the IMDA.
While it may align with existing practice in the telecommunications industry to place such powers directly in the hands of the Minister, this also raises important questions about concentration of decision-making authority within the hands of political officeholders.
Structural remedies are complex and technical. They have far-reaching implications for markets, investors, and consumers. It is therefore important that such decisions are guided by clear, objective criteria, and that they are seen to be so.
The Bill does not currently require detailed publication of reasons for such decisions. Without this, there may be concerns about transparency and predictability. Businesses need clarity on how decisions are made, and the public needs confidence that such powers are exercised in a fair and consistent manner. We suggest that the Minister should have to make public a detailed reasoning behind a separation order before one is made.
Additionally, the Bill introduces a dual-track appeal mechanism, allowing affected parties to seek reconsideration by the Authority or appeal to the Minister. While this adds procedural flexibility, it does not address a broader structural concern: the absence of an independent appeals body, which is not under the Executive.
In other areas of competition law, appeals are heard by independent tribunals. This provides a layer of separation between regulator and adjudicator, enhancing confidence in the system.
Here, both the separation order and the appeal are issued and heard respectively by the Executive. While there may be practical reasons for this arrangement, the Government should explain why an independent appeal mechanism is not being adopted, particularly given the increasing complexity of digital market regulation.
Transparency
Sir, another area of concern relates to transparency. The Bill allows for certain regulatory determinations, such as the designation of dominant players, to be communicated through private notifications rather than public gazetting.
While this may streamline administration, it reduces public visibility into how market power is assessed and regulated. In sectors as critical as media and telecommunications, transparency is not merely a procedural matter. It is a cornerstone of public trust. Consumers, competitors, and investors all benefit from understanding who holds significant market power and how that power is being managed.
The Government should therefore clarify how it intends to balance efficiency with transparency in implementing these provisions. How will we ensure that the relationship between the regulator and companies does not become even more opaque and hidden from public view?
The Bill also introduces broad concepts such as “control” and “essential resources,” which underpin many of its new powers.
While flexibility is useful in a fast-moving digital landscape, overly broad definitions may create uncertainty. Businesses may find it difficult to assess whether routine commercial arrangements fall within regulatory scope.
Similarly, the category of “regulated persons” can be expanded by the Minister. This raises questions about how emerging digital platforms, such as streaming services, will be treated.
Clear guidance will be important to ensure that regulation remains targeted and proportionate, without inadvertently discouraging innovation or investment.
Competition
The Bill is framed as promoting competition. Yet, in practice, Singapore’s media landscape has long been characterised by structural concentration, particularly in sectors such as free-to-air broadcasting and print.
The Bill clearly strengthens the regulatory tools available to the Government to structure the media industry to promote competition. However, these additional powers granted to the Government by the Bill should not inadvertently result in the further erosion of media pluralism.
For example, the expansion of merger controls to any person acquiring a 30% stake in Clause 3 gives the Government a virtual veto over the financing of media entities. How will the Government reassure Singaporeans that the expanded merger controls will not be used to block legitimate investment in independent or alternative media platforms?
Conclusion
Sir, the Bill affords the Government with a broad swathe of discretionary power to regulate the industry. Such discretionary power cannot however be left unchecked. We need clear statutory safeguards to ensure these powers are exercised fairly, transparently, and in the public interest.
My clarifications notwithstanding, I support the bill.
