Tan Kiat How defends IMDA Bill as Andre Low warns of impact on independent media growth

SINGAPORE: Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Tan Kiat How defended amendments to Singapore’s media regulation laws after Workers’ Party Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Andre Low warned the changes could discourage the future growth of independent journalism.

Parliament passed amendments to the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) Act on 7 May, bringing media regulation closer in line with frameworks already applied to the telecommunications sector.

The amendments expand IMDA’s powers over regulated media entities, including newspaper publishers and broadcasting licensees, and introduce new ownership approval requirements, proactive regulatory directions and structural separation powers.

During the parliamentary debate on 6 May, Low said the Workers’ Party did not dispute the administrative rationale for harmonising regulation across telecommunications and media sectors.

“IMDA already regulates both the media and telecommunications sectors,” he said.

“Drawing on a common framework across both is defensible on efficiency grounds and harmonisation grounds.”

However, Low argued that the legislation extended beyond administrative alignment because it applied regulatory structures designed for telecommunications infrastructure to organisations producing journalism and public discourse.

“The delivery mechanism may be shared, but the nature of what is being regulated is not,” he said.

Concerns over future independent media

Low identified three provisions as particularly significant: proactive directions under Section 61A, ownership approval requirements under Section 65 and ministerial separation powers under Section 69A.

“My concern is this: this Bill may not be about the media landscape as it exists today,” he said.

“It is about the one that has not yet arrived.”

Low warned the legislation could prevent the emergence of future independent media organisations capable of developing substantial reach and influence outside state-linked structures.

“A future where genuinely independent media may grow in reach and maturity — and my fear is that this Bill is written to foreclose that future before it has the chance to arrive,” he said.

He argued that ownership regulation in telecommunications was justified because communications infrastructure could become exclusionary if concentrated in a single operator’s control.

“The power to shape public discourse is categorically different from the power to route a data packet,” he said.

According to Low, media regulation required stronger statutory safeguards than those applied to telecommunications operators.

He called for explicit protections for editorial independence, plurality conditions attached to ownership approvals, higher proportionality standards and independent review mechanisms.

Questions over independent journalism

Low questioned whether the legislation was genuinely intended to address competition concerns within Singapore’s current media environment.

He noted that SPH Media Trust and Mediacorp were already government-linked organisations operating “within the government’s orbit”.

“Extending regulatory powers over entities already in that orbit makes little sense and does not meaningfully change the competitive dynamics,” he said.

Instead, Low argued the amendments appeared aimed at preventing the emergence of future independent media entities backed by private investors and operating outside government influence.

“The more significant read of this Bill is that this is a pre-emptive measure,” he said.

Low cited Hong Kong’s Apple Daily and US publication The Washington Post as examples of influential media organisations backed by wealthy individuals with independent political convictions.

“Jimmy Lai and Jeff Bezos are not politically neutral figures,” he said.

“But their convictions were their own, not the government’s.”

“That is precisely what made their publications independently powerful. They could ask hard questions without needing permission from whoever held office.”

Low specifically pointed to Section 59, which allows the minister to designate newspaper publishers or broadcasters as regulated entities subject to the new powers.

“The minister can designate any newspaper publisher or broadcaster as a regulated person on no published criteria and bring the full weight of this regime to bear,” he said.

He referred to independent publication Jom, founded in 2022 and funded primarily through paying subscribers rather than advertising or government-linked funding.

Low said Jom had around 8,000 paying subscribers as of October 2025 and disclosed that he was among them.

“It scrapes by because readers choose to pay for serious journalism,” he said.

He warned that if Jom were designated under Section 59, any investor seeking to acquire 30 per cent or more of the publication would require prior IMDA approval.

Low added that IMDA could issue proactive directions under undefined “public interest” grounds, while the minister could compel the transfer of a publication’s business under separation powers.

“This Bill is not written for Jom as it stands today,” he said.

“It is written for what Jom — or another publication like it — might become in 10 years.”

“A publication with the reach to shape conversations, to hold power to account, and to be read by Singaporeans because it has earned their trust.”

Warnings over chilling effect

Low repeatedly stressed that his concerns extended beyond the current government and focused on the long-term implications of embedding broad powers into legislation.

“The powers inscribed in this Bill will not belong to this government alone,” he said.

“They sit on the books for every future government, every future minister and every future Parliament.”

He argued that expansive statutory powers could shape market behaviour even without formal enforcement action.

“These powers do not need to be exercised to do their work,” he said.

“A rational investor who wants to fund serious independent journalism in Singapore will read this Bill and ask: can IMDA issue a direction on public interest grounds I cannot define in advance, with no proportionality test and no independent appeal on the merits?”

“At that point the investment doesn’t happen, the newsroom does not expand, the publication does not grow.”

Low described the resulting “chilling effect” on investment as a foreseeable consequence of the legislation’s drafting.

He also criticised the concentration of decision-making authority in the executive branch, particularly under separation order provisions where compensation decisions and anti-competitive findings would rest with the minister.

“The separation order is final,” he said.

“There’s one decision maker at every stage on every question, with no independent check on the merits.”

Government defends amendments

Responding during the debate, Tan defended the amendments as necessary to align media regulation with existing telecommunications sector rules.

“These are companies that shape the information environment for our citizens, especially in the age of AI and disinformation,” Tan told parliament.

“We care about who owns and controls key media entities.”

Under the amendments, IMDA will gain powers to issue proactive directions against harmful market behaviour, require information disclosures and oversee ownership changes involving regulated entities.

The legislation also empowers the minister to order the structural separation of regulated media entities in exceptional cases.

Tan said the 30 per cent ownership threshold reflected the point at which a shareholder could reasonably influence a company’s decisions and operations.

“The 30 per cent threshold in the Bill serves as a benchmark for when someone would presumably have control over the entity’s decisions and operations,” he said.

He added that comparable rules already existed within the telecommunications sector and would now be extended to media companies.

Tan rejected suggestions that the powers were unrestricted or vaguely defined.

“The regulatory intent is clear,” he said.

“The exercise of these powers should be read in the context of how it will enable better fair market competition and protect consumers.”

He repeatedly stressed that the amendments did not alter either the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act or the Broadcasting Act.

“Nothing in this amendment Bill touches the Broadcasting Act,” Tan said.

According to Tan, the legislation was primarily intended to prevent dominant market players from harming competition or blocking new entrants.

“Larger players that may abuse their dominance to frustrate new entrants,” he said, describing the intended regulatory focus.

Debate over ministerial powers

The structural separation provisions drew particular scrutiny during the debate because of the breadth of ministerial authority involved.

Tan said separation orders would only be used under exceptional circumstances after all other regulatory remedies had failed.

“It is not something to be taken lightly,” he said.

He outlined three conditions before such an order could be issued: the existence of a qualifying market condition, exhaustion of all other IMDA remedies and a determination that the action was in the public interest.

Examples included situations where companies controlled resources so costly to replicate that competitors could not realistically enter the market.

Tan also argued that Singapore’s broader business reputation depended on maintaining regulatory certainty.

“Our regulatory certainty and pro-business environment gives us the competitive advantage,” he said.

During clarifications following Tan’s speech, Low questioned whether podcasts, blogs, social media accounts or foreign-owned digital media platforms with local operations could eventually fall within the legislation’s scope.

“You hear about podcasts being acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars,” Low said.

“It is well within conception that podcasts might well fall under some type of entity that may need to be regulated under these provisions.”

Low also pressed the government on whether media businesses subjected to structural separation orders could later be denied newspaper or broadcasting permits or transferred to government-linked entities.

Tan described such scenarios as highly hypothetical because the powers had never previously been exercised or contemplated in practice.

“It’s a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios,” he said.

However, Tan added that any future decisions would remain guided by the legislation’s objectives of promoting competition and protecting consumers.

“The considerations must go back to the policy intent of the Bill,” he said.