\n<\/p>\n
The circumstances under which a minister could order the structural separation of a media entity drew questions from several MPs.<\/p>\n
MP Yip Hon Weng (PAP-Yio Chu Kang) asked how the higher threshold of ministerial decision-making would be exercised and what considerations would guide such interventions, given the significance of such a move.<\/p>\n
Mr Tan said structural separations would be “only imposed as a last resort and in exceptional cases”, with strict legal limits. He outlined three conditions that must be met before a separation order can be issued.<\/p>\n
The first is a “qualifying market condition” \u2013 for instance, where a media entity owns a resource so costly to replicate that it blocks competitors from entering the market, or holds significant market power such that competitors “cannot realistically provide media services without access to their services”.<\/p>\n
The second is that all other regulatory remedies by IMDA have been exhausted or are demonstrably inadequate. The third is that the minister must be independently satisfied that issuing the order is in the “public interest”.<\/p>\n
MP Fadli Fawzi (WP-Aljunied) suggested the minister should publicly disclose detailed reasoning before issuing a separation order, as such powers could “raise important questions about the concentration of decision-making authority within the hands of political office holders”.<\/p>\n
Mr Tan said: “We intend to inform the public where major regulatory decisions are made, given the impact on the industry and the media landscape, and to explain the key considerations.”<\/p>\n
MP Patrick Tay (PAP-Pioneer) asked whether workers would be supported in the event of major restructuring under the new law.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mr Tan said the amendments focus on fair markets and consumer protection but that workers would not be left without support. He encouraged unionised companies undergoing major restructuring to engage NTUC and their unions early, and said the government would work with unions in the telecommunications and media sectors to support affected members.<\/p>\n
Nominated MP Andre Low said he feared the Bill was designed to “foreclose a future where Singapore has a genuinely independent press, publications that owe their survival to the readers, not to the goodwill of any government”, and urged the government to clarify if that was not its intent.<\/p>\n
Mr Tan said the power to issue directions must be read in context: it is limited to maintaining fair market conduct, effective competition and consumer interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“Therefore, this power is neither a catch-all, nor unconstrained,” he said.<\/p>\n
The Workers’ Party MP pressed further, asking whether the government would commit to not directing independent media companies subject to a separation order to transfer their business to a government-linked entity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mr Tan said the question contained “a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios” and that such powers had not been exercised or even envisaged. The key considerations in exercising them, he said, would be whether a decision enhances competition and protects consumer interest.<\/p>\n
Mr Low also raised concerns that the Bill could have a “chilling effect” and dent investor confidence in Singapore’s media industry.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mr Tan said the powers in the Bill sent a “broader signal” to the global investment community of Singapore’s regulatory certainty and pro-business environment.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“It is not something to be taken lightly, and it’s a reputation we husband, we shepherd, we safeguard,” he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n