Tan Kiat How
Singapore
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier I spoke about the policy objective of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, and we have remained consistent and united on this objective over the years. The question is our measures – how might we show some flexibility when it comes to movie screenings?”
“Sir, I can take the Member's question first, about the institutional arrangement. IMDA works very closely with different Government agencies including the NHB. In fact, we work closely on films, the classification of films. So, there is no need for an explicit institution arrangement as they are already doing so.”
“These are the primary objectives, but we will continue to see how we can think about meaningful information for family members. I know family members when they put their loved ones in nursing homes, there is a range of factors they consider.”
“These are lessons we have learned and we will make sure that those lessons would be incorporated in our standard operating procedures in our approach next time. Lastly, I just want to thank the Member for coming by at least a few times to my constituency to speak to my merchants, the hawkers, the residents.”
“For example, there are no dialect restrictions for arts performances or content available on the Internet and online streaming services. On free-to-air television and radio, we believe that Mandarin should continue to be the mainstay.”
“If there is more demand, we will discuss it with the film distributor and see how we can provide additional flexibility. But we will take a review as it comes along and it is certainly something for which we will speak to all members, industry partners, community partners about, and take their views on board.”
The complete record
Every one of 514 lines we hold for Tan Kiat How, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“These are lessons we have learned and we will make sure that those lessons would be incorporated in our standard operating procedures in our approach next time. Lastly, I just want to thank the Member for coming by at least a few times to my constituency to speak to my merchants, the hawkers, the residents. Thank you for your care and concern. And certainly, if that happens in Aljunied, I will make sure my colleagues will make sure that we will also return the favour, to show care and concern for residents. Thank you very much. 12.04 pm”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications and questions. First, like I said in my earlier reply, CDA will have to do such precautionary screenings, in this case, for TB, on a regular basis, when needed. This is really part of our more proactive sentinel surveillance stance to minimise outbreaks of infectious diseases. So, that is one. We do so when we believe there is a case where we can take early action, intervene early to prevent future outbreaks. When future outbreaks happen, the cost of doing so and cost of intervening will be much higher, especially for individuals and the community. The second, I have explained and well, you can refer to my social media as well, I have done quite a fair bit. And I am glad the Member has noted it when he came to visit me at Heartbeat@Bedok. CDA has also explained that the 13 cases were over a period of three years, but recent developments in whole genome sequencing, whole genome sequencing capabilities, they were able to track that the TB bacteria was genetically linked across 13 individuals – although none of them were from the hawkers, merchants or people working in Heartbeat@Bedok or in the Bedok Town. They frequented the place, perhaps had a meal or used some of the facilities. But as a matter of precaution, we wanted to make sure we test it, test everyone there, those who are working there and those who frequent facilities often to really make sure that everyone is safe. And we tried to explain it. There are many learning points on how we could have explained it better, as the Member has pointed out. And we take those learnings to heart. CDA will see how to better improve the public communications to assure people.”
“These are the primary objectives, but we will continue to see how we can think about meaningful information for family members. I know family members when they put their loved ones in nursing homes, there is a range of factors they consider. First and foremost will be the safety, the health and welfare of the resident in the nursing home, but other factors include affordability, include different kind of considerations like vicinity to their home and so on. There are different and a myriad of variables in terms of consideration. MOH is continually looking at how we can provide meaningful information for caregivers and family members to make a decision.”
“Sir, first and foremost, I would like to assure Members and members of public that MOH has a robust regime – audits, thematic audits, off-cycle audits – to make sure that our nursing home operators maintain good standard of care, good clinical procedures, and to make sure that resident safety and welfare are taken care of from the healthcare and medical point of view. This is already in place. The audit findings for these two nursing homes are a feature, not a bug of our regulatory framework. As mentioned earlier in my reply, a large majority of these nursing homes with identified areas of improvement have taken steps to rectify them and sustain the improvements over time. In cases where we believe that they have not done so after repeated engagements with them, we take the extreme step of revoking licence and making sure that we take care of the residents who are in their care. This is a feature, not a bug. To his point about supporting nursing homes, we do support our nursing homes through different support from manpower training grants to other support for nursing homes, raising the collective standard of care and professionalism across the whole nursing home sector. So, this is something we have been doing and will continue to do. Thirdly, on informing the family members, MOH's first priority is to make sure those improvements are done, lapses are rectified and to make sure nothing endangers the residents' safety. That is our first priority. If things really do not improve, then we take the extreme step of engaging licence operators. In these two cases of nursing homes, we had to revoke their licence and make arrangements for residents to be get taken called of in another facility.”
“Sir, in respect to the Mandarin supplementary question, let me also try to address it in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] What Members discussed earlier encompassed not just movies, but television and radio stations as well. We feel that Mandarin should remain the mainstream language. The primary purpose of the Speak Mandarin Campaign is, after all, to encourage the speaking of Mandarin. Over the past few decades, the entire linguistic landscape has changed significantly. When I was a child, it was very difficult for me to learn Mandarin, because the various Chinese dialects share certain similarities in pronunciation with Mandarin that can create confusion. When I was at The Chinese High School, I had classmates who came from Malaysia. They had attended primary school there and later came to do secondary school in Singapore. They could write Chinese well, but when they tried to speak Mandarin, their pronunciation was not standard due to the influence of Cantonese. Our television and radio stations should not lose sight of their original purpose and must keep Mandarin as the mainstream language. That said, there is some flexibility. On Channel 8, for instance, there is a designated morning slot for dialect broadcasts, particularly for the news. Similarly, at 10.30 am, 11.30 am and 12.30 pm, dialect news broadcasts are available on a radio station to cater to the needs of our seniors. We do want seniors to have avenues to stay informed about what is happening in the world around them, hence the flexibility. More importantly, we have taken note of the warm reception that "Dear You" has received from our people, and we will look into this film policy further.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier I spoke about the policy objective of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, and we have remained consistent and united on this objective over the years. The question is our measures – how might we show some flexibility when it comes to movie screenings? In fact, we have always maintained a practical and flexible approach. As I mentioned in my replies to other Members, we have our own local productions such as "881", which contain substantial dialect content, and we have been able to adopt a flexible approach in allowing them to be screened. "Dear You" has generated a warm response among many of us. We will continue to approach such films with a flexible attitude. If demand grows, we can allow more screenings of Teochew dialect films. I would like to reassure Mr Liang that we will look at these films in a very pragmatic manner. But what is equally important is that we do not lose sight of our original objective – and that objective is to promote the speaking of Mandarin.”
“Sir, allow me to also reply in Mandarin.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions in Mandarin, please allow me to reply in Mandarin as well. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Just now I spoke about measures regarding the screening of dialect films in my English speech. Here is a summary in Mandarin. This film has been deeply moving and has resonated with local audiences. The Teochew spoken by the characters has struck a chord with many people, especially our grandparents' generation. The film has also sparked broader conversations among Singaporeans about the restrictions on screening dialect films. We have listened to various views and are grateful for the feedback received. In fact, as Singapore's linguistic landscape has evolved, the Government has from time to time reviewed its approach to dialect films, adjusting to meet demand and allowing for greater dialect content in films where appropriate. We will continue to listen to public feedback and give serious consideration to whether restrictions can be further relaxed, so as to increase the number of screenings of dialect films and give local audiences more opportunities to access and appreciate them.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. Firstly, I must say I empathise with his Toa Payoh East residents. In Bedok, we have one of the oldest estates and many seniors, and of course, they hold dialect and engagement with dialect as a very core part of their identity, their life experiences. I must add that beyond just films and cinema, there are many other venues for which seniors and those who are not so old, the younger ones, to engage with the dialect culture. Clan associations, programmes, different streaming applications or even activities in the community. So, it is not just isolated or confined to films. As I mentioned earlier in my reply, when I visited the theatre that screened the Mandarin version of the "Dear You" show, there were actually more young people, more inter-generational engagements – because the grandchildren, the children came together with their parents and grandparents. And because it was in Mandarin, it was more accessible to younger people. When we talk about inter-generational cohesion, engagement, it really goes beyond just language. It is about creating the shared experiences and a space which these conversations and dialogues happen. So, we will certainly consider the different inputs as part of the review. But rest assured, to the Member, that there are many other options and venues for seniors or younger ones to get engaged with the dialect culture.”
“If there is more demand, we will discuss it with the film distributor and see how we can provide additional flexibility. But we will take a review as it comes along and it is certainly something for which we will speak to all members, industry partners, community partners about, and take their views on board.”
“Sir, let me take a step back and answer Mr Giam's question. As earlier articulated by the Minister for MCCY on the broader language policy, Mandarin is one of the four official languages in Singapore and is the mainstay. The historical context of the Speak Mandarin Campaign is about promoting the use of Mandarin. At that point in time, the language environment was different. And because it succeeded, that is why the language environment today is different. Our young people are proficient, competent with English and many with Mandarin as well. So, it is a success. The policy's objectives remain because they are important, as articulated by MCCY earlier. But our implementation of the guidelines, of the regulations have evolved with the changing language environment. And I gave many examples earlier. Today's conversation or debate here in Parliament around "Dear You" is a step in that direction. As I have said earlier, we welcome views from stakeholders, industry members, community partners, people who are enthusiastic about the dialect culture, enthusiastic about on trying to understand the roots, their identity, including the younger ones. We welcome it as part of a conversation. And as part of this conversation, we are reviewing our current film classification framework with respect to the use of dialect in films. We will take some time to do so because it is an evolution, it is a thoughtful approach, speaking to people, making adjustments, not abrupt changes, like all good policies are. So, I want to assure Mr Giam that for "Dear You", we have given flexibility. The film distributor knows that we are giving him flexibility. I had earlier mentioned, we approved another 100 screenings today, that brings up the number of screenings to 272.”
“Sir, I can take the Member's question first, about the institutional arrangement. IMDA works very closely with different Government agencies including the NHB. In fact, we work closely on films, the classification of films. So, there is no need for an explicit institution arrangement as they are already doing so. More importantly, I think the Member's earlier point was whether we consider heritage, artistic merit and the context in which dialects are used in film. And I would like to reply in the affirmative. As I explained earlier in my reply, and I gave some examples of some of the locally made firms like "881", "Long Long Time Ago" and many others. We do consider the context in which the dialect is used in the film – whether it is appropriate, reflects the cultural context of the movie of that time. For example, "881" was telling the story about the getai culture and some of the nuances of it, the texture of it, requires dialect to be used. So, we do take these into consideration. I want to assure the Member that we do so.”
“I mentioned earlier in my reply, some of the local movies, like "881", have substantive dialect content in the film. We look at the historical context, the heritage value and if it reflects Singapore stories. IMDA has taken a flexible, pragmatic approach and we will continue to do so.”
“We have said that we will provide flexibility and we will continue to provide flexibility, in fact, the number that the Member cited has been updated in my reply, I said, 272, if the Member listened carefully just now. The film distributor knows that we will continue to provide flexibility. So, in practice, if the film distributor feels that audience demand is there for the Teochew original film, we will provide flexibility. But more importantly, having a Mandarin version creates a bigger access to many more audiences in Singapore. Not just those who are speaking the dialect, especially our young people. So, there is value in having a Mandarin version of the film, in addition to being aligned with our broader language policy. The Member mentioned OTT platforms, Internet streaming for example. Different platforms have, historically, been regulated differently based on different reach of audiences. Cinemas, being a public-regulated exhibition space in Singapore, ought to be seen closer to mainstream media. Having said that, as I have explained in my reply, we appreciate that the language environment has changed and we are prepared to see how we can expand access to dialect movies as we undertake our review. Sir, I would just add that, over the years, it is not as if our guidelines have been static. We have been updating it, refining it, adapting them – for example, providing more flexibility of dialect use in films and in some of the mainstream radio stations and television channels. So, our policy, whilst remaining true to the policy intent of the larger language policy in Singapore, the implementation of it has evolved, has been flexible, pragmatic, taking into consideration the language environment.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications on the review of the use of dialect in cinema and films. As I have explained in my reply, we are getting feedback from different parties – industry stakeholders and community partners. We appreciate and welcome the conversations that have arisen from the "Dear You" screening. Actually, just yesterday, I had a screening in my constituency for my residents – one theatre in Teochew, one theatre in Mandarin. I went by, spoke to my residents before my Meet-the-People Session. It was very interesting. For the Teochew hall, almost all seniors, maybe some of the middle-aged people, like me, were there. Some were there because they wanted to hear the original Teochew dialect, some had watched the Mandarin one and wanted to hear the Teochew one. When I went to the Mandarin hall, it was very interesting. Some had actually watched the Teochew one and wanted to watch the Mandarin one because they could not quite understand the Teochew dialect, especially for non-Teochew speaking or non-native-Teochew speaking individuals. But in addition to seniors, I was very pleasantly surprised to see many young people – children, secondary school, even primary school. They were there, accompanying their grandparents, parents and it was very good to see that it was a family affair. The young people, when I spoke to them, wanted to understand more about the environment in which their great-grandparents or grandparents had lived through in the early days of Independence. The Member talked about screening of the original Teochew dialect of the film being popular.”
“For example, there are no dialect restrictions for arts performances or content available on the Internet and online streaming services. On free-to-air television and radio, we believe that Mandarin should continue to be the mainstay. For cinemas, we are prepared to allow more screenings of dialect-language films, so as to provide audiences with greater access to such content. We appreciate the feedback from Members and will carefully consider what further steps are appropriate.”
“Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Kenneth Tiong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Dr Neo Kok Beng in today's Order Paper, as well as related questions by Mr Darryl David1 and Ms Mariam Jaafar2 for subsequent Sittings. If Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session. Guidelines on language use in media are implemented by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). They support the Government's longstanding policy to promote Mandarin as one of four official languages and have generally served us well. However, as noted in the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) earlier reply today, Singapore's language environment has evolved. Recognising this, in implementing the guidelines, IMDA has exercised greater flexibility to allow more dialect content in films. Each year, around 30 to 40 dialect films are screened at film festivals. At the same time, IMDA has allowed unrestricted screenings of films with substantial use of dialect, such as "881", "Long Long Time Ago" and "Wonderland". For the film "Dear You", IMDA has approved a total of 272 screenings of the Teochew version and is prepared to approve additional screenings should the film distributor request them in response to audience demand. Beyond these implementation changes, several Members have called for the guidelines themselves to be reviewed. We recognise that the circumstances have changed since the guidelines were first introduced. There is, therefore, scope to consider how we can expand the space for dialects, while continuing to uphold the importance of Mandarin. In doing so, we should also take into account the different media platforms.”
“Only in exceptional circumstances where all existing measures have failed – and I listed the three legal requirements for that before the Minister decides – and after the Minister decides and issues the order, the decision can be challenged; and the Minister needs to defend it publicly. So, these decisions are not taken lightly at all. And we have not exercised such powers. With that as a context, let me go into next point. The Member was talking about a hypothetical example or situation where a separation order has been issued, what happens? Well, it is a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios, because we have not even envisaged a scenario where it will happen and we have not yet exercised such powers. But most importantly, it is really in the exercise of such powers and the next level of details. What are the considerations? The considerations must go back to the policy intent of the Bill, which is: "Does it enhance competition? Does it protect consumer interest?" And that should guide the decisions of the structures after that. Those structures also need to involve the affected parties who are receiving the direction. And the affected parties may be large companies with their own shareholders, their own set of investors. These issues need to be talked through and discussed. I think at that point in time, if they need to apply for licences, if they need apply for a permit to operate, they should do so. The same criteria to evaluate any permit application are already embedded in the existing laws and regulations. And they will continue to apply. So, I hope that explains the context to Mr Low.”
“So, I just wanted to be very clear how we should interpret the provisions. That is important because our exchange here will be in the Hansard and will be relied on if there are further challenges in the courts or elsewhere. So, I just want to make that point very clear. So, that is on scope, definition, public interest. As for the specific scenario of transferee selection in the event of a structural separation order and why, under the Act, it is envisaged that the entity may have to apply for a newspaper licence at a point in time. Let me start by reiterating what I have just said. I took some time in my opening Second Reading speech, as well as the closing speech, to articulate that structural separation orders by the Minister is not to be taken lightly. It is not just about the telecommunication or media sector, where these powers are now embedded. But it sends a broader signal to the global investment community, the international businesses – many of them international businesses, listed companies. Many, many options of not just investing in Singapore, many places for them to invest. Why do they invest here in Singapore? And these are large companies with robust corporate governance, institutional investors, shareholders; and they look at where to invest their resources, their money. Our regulatory certainty and pro-business environment gives us the competitive advantage. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is a reputation that we husband, we shepherd, we safeguard. So, that is really one context in how we think about structural separation orders. We do not take it lightly.”
“Sir, the Member has a number of clarifications and I will attempt to go through them. I ask the Member to let me know if I have missed out some things. Let me first talk about the scope of definition. Let me just clarify, he mentioned that we are amending the Broadcasting Act. We are not. Nothing in this amendment Bill touches the Broadcasting Act. So, that is the first factual clarification. Second, it is about the scope of definitions of regulated persons under the IMDA Act. The regulatory intent is clear; and when you read the different provisions and amendments, it should be in the context of the scope of powers envisaged under this Act and debated here in Parliament. And that was the IMDA Act that was passed some time ago. The regulatory intent is for fair market competition and protecting consumer interest. And that overarching intent should be one guiding how we interpret the different clauses and provisions and powers in the Act. So, the exercise of these powers, whether through the regulator, like IMDA, or in certain circumstances, by the Minister, it should be read in a context of how it will enable better fair market competition and protect the consumers, especially against large players who abuse the position of dominance. So, whether it is articulation of the clause of "public interest", or in terms of thinking of who are the regulated persons defined under the Act, it should be seen in that context – larger players that may abuse their dominance to frustrate new entrants. That is really the thrust of the IMDA Act – market structures, market practices, consumer protection. And nothing in this amendment Act changes the other Acts that govern the media sector, whether the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act or the Broadcasting Act.”
“The Bill has established clear procedures to ensure that these powers are exercised only when necessary and in a measured manner, promoting a fair market environment while also providing businesses with certainty and confidence. I also agree with Dr Choo Pei Ling that we must remain transparent in our approach to regulation, so as to ensure that industry players and the public continue to have confidence in our regulatory framework. (In English): Sir, in conclusion, I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions. 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.”
“This is a fast-moving space and we will continue to monitor developments closely. I thank Members for raising this issue. I would also like to add that IMDA wears a number of hats. In addition from a regulator point of view, it also plays a 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, China, and brought another group of more than 10 larger local media companies to Seoul, Korea to look at collaboration opportunities. And we will continue to do more to support our local media players. 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. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today's amendment Bill draws on good practices from the telecommunication sector to ensure more effective regulation, promote fair competition and continue safeguarding consumer interests in the media sector. In a rapidly evolving media environment, it is important to ensure that our regulatory framework remains effective and forward-looking. As Mr Lee Hong Chuang has noted, any new regulatory measures must be proportionate to the issues – neither excessive nor inadequate.”
“I would 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 telecommunications and media sectors that are being transformed by AI. Mr David Hoe, Ms Mariam Jaafar, 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 and 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 are related to ownership and control, and 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. And we certainly recognise that the media landscape has transformed and grown significantly with the internet and social media.”
“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 this Sitting, on 5 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 Parliamentary Questions if needed. 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 restructurings. 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 the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and their unions early, and work closely with them to manage the impact on staff. We will also work closely with NTUC and unions in the telecommunication and media sectors to support affected members during those periods.”
“Let me now turn to the second theme of how this Bill benefits consumers. Dr Hamid Razak, Mr David Hoe, Ms Mariam Jaafar, and Mr Yip Hon Weng noted that the amendments should translate into benefits for consumers. We are mindful of this objective. These amendments in this 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.”
“The litmus test is the business community, global investors, international players wanting to invest in Singapore and continuing 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 received on IMDA's website. I took a look at it, it is a three- or four-page paper by a law firm. 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 that many of the Members suggested, to more clearly define key terms, such as "essential resources" and also noting similar comments on the phrasing of section 61A, which confers powers on IMDA to issue directions. These comments are similar to what many Members had raised, and I believed have addressed them in my Opening speech of the Second Reading as well as my Closing speech. So, rest assured, 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 telecommunications sector for years. Members can be assured that the same rigour and care will apply in this context.”
“If there are codes of practice or standards of performance by others that meet IMDA's regulatory requirements, there should not be a need for IMDA to "reinvent the wheel". It saves time and resources for all stakeholders. IMDA will consult industry and the public before issuing any new codes, as 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. I agree with Members. Generally, written notice 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 issue directions under the new section 61A and the conditions to issue a separation order and potentially award compensation under the new section 69A. We intend to inform the public when major regulatory decisions are made, given their impact on the media landscape and to 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 website and direct notifications to the affected party. We are committed to being open and transparent. This is a reputation that we build up, over years and decades.”
“This reconsideration process allows parties to ask IMDA to review decisions if new information or considerations arise. The appeal mechanism provides process flexibility, allowing parties to choose whether to appeal directly to the Minister or seek reconsideration first. The provisions for both processes, including the timeline, process and requirements are stated clearly in the new sections 67A and 68. So, it is about providing additional options. Sometimes, the parties may want for IMDA to reconsider the decision because new material information has come up. 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 is an additional option, but parties can still decide to go straight to the Minister for appeal. So, this reconsideration amendment provides that option. It is meant to be pro-industry and also 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.”
“This, in turn, helps deter abusive market behaviour before it takes hold. Sir, this House also spoke about the AI Motion yesterday for more than seven 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 effects 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, 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.”
“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 arises. Their existence also send a strong signal to the market that the Government will act decisively to safeguard fair competition and market conduct.”
“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, it is constrained and it is read in that context. Dr Choo, Mr Fadli, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Low, Ms Mariam Jaafar, 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 not 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. 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. That is the first. 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.”
“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 provisions. 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 not practicable or desirable. 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 these representations fully before deciding whether to issue the direction. It is a well established process. On the powers under the 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.”
“I say that because I think there was some confusion to think 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. This is to be more pro-industry because, Sir, unfortunately, not all global companies and investors pay attention to our Government Gazette all the time. So, we put it on IMDA's website so that affected parties know about it. We send a notification to them. Interested parties, licensees included, can refer to them on IMDA's website. So, that is 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 on our website, as I mentioned earlier. This is the same practice for the telecommunications sector for similar designations. So, it is a good practice. We are adopting it 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 the powers articulated in this Bill and the regulatory intent remain 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 do not abuse their dominance. It is for large entities, key media entities. The regulatory intent has not changed.”
“And maintaining that regulatory professionalism and our trusted reputation as pro-business, with regulators that are professional, unbiased and objective, is important. That sets the context in which I will try to 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. At this juncture, Sir, I just want to also note that Ms Mariam Jaafar was unfortunately unable to speak on this Bill because she had to rush to the airport for an overseas work trip. She sent to me her speech in advance before she left for the airport so that I can take note of her comments and points. Where appropriate, I will address her points in my speech. 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 resources" 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 adequate publicity or notice rather than solely by notification in the Gazette.”
“So, our local media outlets for news, current affairs, entertainment are working hard to hold their own. I am proud to say that they are doing so. That is my first point. My second point is I think there was confusion about the scope of the Bill, about market structures and concepts of competition. These fundamental approaches and principles cut across many sectors. It is not just telecommunications, it is 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 the abuse of market dominance, facilitate fair competition and protect consumers. Likewise, this Bill supports these objectives. I do not believe that the 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. And 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 positions as a digital hub, with strong international connectivity and sustained investments by leading global companies. And we work hard to make sure that we maintain this reputation globally. We can direct regulatees, we can pass regulations, but we cannot force people to invest here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank Members for their support of the Bill and their comments. I will address Members' comments in four broad themes: first, the scope of powers in this Bill and considerations that will guide the Government in exercising these powers; second, the benefits to consumers from fairer, more competitive market conduct; third, the implications on the workforce; and fourth, how this Bill facilitates the growth and development of our media sector, including smaller and diverse players. 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 consumer 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 structures 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, these are 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.”
“Hence, I will not share any of the operation details. But certainly, we are using technology, data analytics, including leveraging technologies like AI. I also want to make two quick points. One, a point about the number of cases coming down. The number of cases with phone calls as the first contact method has actually decreased, based on the recent publicly available Annual Scams and Cybercrime Briefs. The number of cases with short message service (SMS) as the first contact method has also decreased about 65% – from 1,285 cases in 2024, to 450 cases in 2025. So, that is progress. But we are not resting on our laurels and we must continue to monitor and take action. And related to that, I know that some prevention is better than the pursuit of recovery of assets. I know that a number of Singaporeans are also wondering: would my number and name be used to register for SIM cards by mules or by bad actors? IMDA, together with GovTech, has jointly developed a new tool, SIMCardHowMany, you can Google it and look at it online, which allows mobile phone users to check the number of postpaid SIM cards currently registered under their names. This allows the members of the public to check their registered SIM cards included within the postpaid limit of 10 SIM cards. Persons who discover discrepancies or suspects that postpaid SIM cards have been fraudulently registered under their names should inform their telcos immediately. So, prevention is better than pursuit of losses after that.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Building on what Minister of State Goh Pei Ming had said earlier on the replies to the earlier two Parliamentary Questions, this is a multi-agency effort across different Government agencies – the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, the Ministry of Home Affairs, IMDA, GovTech, SPF and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, on the import of GSM gateways – so, it is a multi-agency effort. On top of that, I should also mention the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which is an important player. And on top of the multi-agency effort, it is also an effort that involves the private sector. We work closely with telcos, financial institutions and banks. We also work together with other important players, including e-commerce platforms. It is a scourge against society and it requires a whole-of-society effort. So, when the Member talks about the thresholds on SIM cards and prohibition, it is something that we look at together across the different agencies – building on the data that has been collected, certainly by SPF and other agencies as well, and finding the right threshold and refining the threshold depending on the scam tactics involved. So, it is something that is not static but is dynamic, alive and something we look at on a regular basis. In Chinese, there is a saying: "道高一尺，魔高一丈". Scam tactics are evolving, the bad actors are evolving; and we, the good guys, the defenders are also evolving our tactics. In that spirit, I want to assure the Member that we are using different tools, including data analytics, to look at scam tactics and the patterns of how they are evolving. But because of operational security considerations, we do not want the bad actors to know what we are doing.”
“Mr Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned. [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate do now adjourn." – [Mr Tan Kiat How.] (proc text)]”
“They are putting in place, not just processes and investments to secure themselves and their systems, but also proactively thinking about how to secure their AI uses in their organisations. I will use an analogy. When you want to have a fast car, you have a strong engine under the hood of your car. AI is that engine. You want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible to be competitive. But at the same time, you need to have the safety features, the guardrails, your safety belts, good brakes in place. And organisations are thinking about how to secure the AI solutions in their organisations, even as they think about using AI to defend. Lastly, I must also say that we have been working very closely with all of the CII sectors, I shared in this House during the Committee of Supply debates that the Government and CSA are leaning forward. We will share selected threat intelligence information with selected CII owners so that they can better monitor and detect threats against them, especially from advanced persistent threat actors. Secondly, in-house, we are building capabilities within the Government on how to detect those threats using AI and we will share those tools, where necessary, with CII owners.”
“Sir, let me start by highlighting what I said earlier in my Parliamentary Question reply – that we have to look at this as not as just a single episode or single frontier model making announcement. Because this is a trend that we have seen for some time, and we have been monitoring the trend and taking action for period of time. And it is not just about a single model but broadly, even open-source models, we have built up capabilities over time and within matter of months because of how fast AI technology is developing. We work closely with all AI labs, cybersecurity firms as well as different partners around the world to have early access, if we can, to different models and frontier models to test the capabilities. So, this is something we are working on. On his second question around our risk assessment, well, we have been monitoring this trend for some time. Over the last months and year, we have been issuing different advisories. Some of them we publish and are publicly available, like how we think about securing agentic AI software systems in our organisations. Some, we work directly with CII owners. In this House, during the Budget and Committee of Supply speeches, I shared with the House that I have been visiting every of the CII sectors – 11 critical information infrastructure sectors – over the past months and year. I am pleased to share with everyone that I have completed all 11. And the reason why I do so is to personally engage the leadership of each CII sector to understand what they are doing and to reinforce the threat that we are seeing because of AI capabilities. And I am very heartened that all the senior leadership, from chief executives to board members, are aware of the risks and are taking steps. So, they are not taking this lightly.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his supplementary question. I cannot agree more with him that talent is the most critical piece in cybersecurity. As we talk about adopting AI, it is important for us also to adopt AI as the good guys, the defenders – how are we building capabilities in AI to detect, to triage, to respond across the board. And talent is most critical. But there is no one singular definition of what kind of cybersecurity talent is needed. It is a whole spectrum – from running operations to detection, to be able to do red teaming and penetration testing to sniff out vulnerabilities before the bad actors can do that. It requires a whole range of talent. It is not just technical talent but actually, a lot of times, it is understanding the psyche of the bad actors and how do we put ourselves in those shoes and to detect those vulnerabilities. So, we require talent from different sources. That is why over the years, CSA, together with various Government agencies, including our security agencies, have been putting in place different schemes and programmes to support Singaporeans who wish to have a career in cybersecurity. It is a rewarding career – you are doing good, making an impact and it is a meaningful career with good prospects. And we are working very closely with the institutes of higher learning, our different schools, to have those pathways, not just for fresh graduates but also mid-career individuals who want to transit to a cybersecurity career. And in fact, I read a quite useful article yesterday in CNA about talent, and we are doing much more. So, if anyone is keen to have a career in cybersecurity, please check out the resources. We certainly welcome more talent.”
“And put in place enough investments to maintain your property, your digital systems, so that these vulnerabilities would not be exploited by others. So, basic hygiene matters, and I spoke about it extensively in my Parliamentary Question reply. Thirdly, we are mindful that SMEs may not have such capabilities and we deployed different resources supporting them to: firstly do a self-check, a hygiene check, on their own systems through the various cyber essential marks and trust marks – they can look at the guidelines published by CSA; secondly, even as SMEs digitalise and adopt AI technology in their organisations, you want to make sure they are safe and there are guidelines in place for them to think about how to deploy AI solutions in their organisations and in their businesses. And through programmes like SMEs Go Digital, where we work with our industry partners providing these technology solutions and pre-approve them for support, we make sure those basic cybersecurity hygiene practices are baked into those systems. So, we are taking a holistic view on it. But these threats are not new and we have been monitoring them for some time.”
“Sir, let me first set in context my response to Mr Edward Chia. As I mentioned earlier, the enhanced capabilities that frontier models bring to the table is on a continuum. It is not suddenly a step jump or a discontinuous capability that we are not prepared for. We have been monitoring this space for some time and are actively working with international partners, both technology companies developing those AI frontier models as well as governmental organisations, on these threats, including those from intelligence and security agencies. These threats are not new. We have been monitoring this for some time and we have been taking steps to mitigate the risk. That is the first point. The second is that – I will go back to the same point I made earlier – fundamentals matter. Let me use an analogy. As an organisation or an individual, you lock the front door, or you secure the locks of your front door when you leave the building or when you leave your house. These are fundamentals. But over time, when we adopt more digital solutions, digital devices, adopt more different services in our organisation, even in our personal lives, we are almost thinking about it like building more annexes and building more facilities. Which means that your attack surface is much wider because you might have forgotten that you might have left a window open, your back door open, or a new annex in your building has a vulnerability. And what AI empowers or enables the bad actors to do is this that makes them much more capable and much faster in detecting those vulnerabilities and exploiting them. So, first and foremost, it is about securing your own building, your own house, your own organisation, your own digital systems, making sure that vulnerabilities are detected early and locked down.”
“In conclusion, the Government will continue to raise awareness, set standards and support organisations in building robust cyber-defences. But resilience depends on everyone doing their part. We must act early and decisively and stay ahead of the threat.”
“We have an established approach to do this. First, we closely engage technology partners for early visibility and insights into new capabilities as they emerge. Second, CSA monitors active exploitation patterns and shares threat intelligence and advisories through established channels. Third, we conduct attack-surface monitoring and increasingly we are leveraging AI to do so. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about patching protocols and timelines. This is not a new problem. It has been existing. There are established practices for patching that can manage disruption to services. This includes staged rollouts and pre-tested roll-back procedures. These efforts form a broader national effort to raise cybersecurity standards across all sectors. There is no silver bullet and no one-time fixes. We must adapt and adjust to new risks. This requires all stakeholders to play their part actively and responsibly. Many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do not have a chief information security officer (CISO) or even a dedicated IT team. To help our SMEs, CSA's SG Cyber Safe programme provides accessible cyber-hygiene guidance. This includes the CISO-as-a-Service and the Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust Marks, which support organisations to assess and improve their security posture. Individuals have a role to play as well. Three things matter most, as outlined in CSA's "Stop and Check" campaign. First, use two-factor authentication and strong passphrases. Second, update software promptly to ensure that cyber criminals cannot find and use vulnerabilities to infect devices with malware, steal data or take control of devices. Third, use ScamShield and anti-virus to safeguard devices and accounts. Basic cyber hygiene matters.”
“CSA's addendum on Securing Agentic AI, launched in October last year, sets out practical guidance on mapping workflows and applying controls across the entire life-cycle. Fifth, use AI in defence. The same capabilities adversaries are deploying can be turned to detection, triaging and response. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the Government is investing in AI-powered tools for active vulnerability and patch testing. The answer is yes. The Government has been fast-tracking capability building in using AI for cybersecurity for some time, working with industry to access and adapt the best tools available globally. At the same time, we are developing capabilities in-house, so that we are not dependent on any single external party. These are being piloted within Government and will be extended to more agencies and CII owners when ready. To Mr Louis Chua's question on assessment capabilities, CSA leads this effort, working closely with relevant Government agencies and industry experts to exchange insights on the threats and mitigation measures. CSA is also reviewing standards and obligations for CII owners to account for the faster attack timelines. Under the Cybersecurity Act, CSA has the authority to direct and enforce action where necessary. On Mythos specifically: without direct access, we cannot test the model ourselves. But we assess the risk based on published evaluations, threat intelligence and our ongoing engagement with the major AI labs. Where credible evidence emerges of a material risk to systems of national consequence, we work with and advise CII owners to patch and harden their systems. This is the approach we have used to date and we will continue to do so. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about early warning indicators and triggers.”
“The same urgency extends across all sectors. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) will issue a letter to the boards and senior leadership of all critical information infrastructure (CII) owners today. This letter sets out clear expectations, including a review of cyber risk posture in light of AI-enabled threats. Our Government agencies are similarly on alert. This is not an issue that should be delegated to IT teams alone. It demands leadership attention at the highest levels, including board members and chief executives. This applies whether an organisation runs information technology (IT), operational technology (OT), or both types of systems. The priority is to get the fundamentals right – and do so quickly. Five areas matter. First, revisit your cybersecurity risk assessment. Update these for IT and OT systems to account for the AI-enabled changes in the threat environment – in particular, the narrowing window between the discovery of a vulnerability and its exploitation by attackers. Second, know what you have. Most breaches begin at an unmanaged asset – a forgotten internet-facing system, a third-party dependency, a shadow cloud account. You cannot defend what you cannot see. Ensure you have visibility over your current inventory. Third, patch faster, monitor continuously. The time window between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation is collapsing. Periodic audits are not enough. Organisations need to move towards continuous monitoring, automated detection and tested incident response. Fourth, govern your own use of AI. AI tools introduce new vulnerabilities, particularly when connected to sensitive data, code or critical systems.”
“For example, Google reported in 2025 that threat actors had used AI to develop a new class of malware. Unlike traditional malware that is hard-coded at the point of creation, the PROMPTFLUX malware was designed to consult a live AI model during attacks. The AI would rewrite portions of the malware code in real-time to evade detection. Another example is high-fidelity deepfake frauds. In a 2024 case, criminals used an AI-generated deepfake video call to impersonate a multinational firm's chief financial officer and trick an employee into transferring $25.6 million to fraudulent accounts. Similar attempts have been made against business executives internationally and in Singapore too. Today, voice cloning requires only seconds of audio and impersonation tools are readily available. These attacks are faster, more scalable and significantly more sophisticated. What we have not yet seen is fully autonomous AI agents running end-to-end campaigns. But this is a matter of time given the trajectory of technological developments. So, the issue is not any single model like Mythos. The underlying shift is broader and the risks are real. We are treating them with the seriousness they deserve. To Mr Saktiandi Supaat's query, we view AI-enabled cyber risk as an amplification of an existing systemic risk, rather than a wholly new category. The fundamentals to strengthen an organisation's cybersecurity matters more than ever. Therefore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has convened the chief executive officers of major financial institutions to discuss the threat landscape and drive collective action on technology and cyber resilience. Financial institutions are treating this with the seriousness it deserves and have been strengthening their posture.”
“And my reply will also address related questions from Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua filed for tomorrow's Sitting. If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions. We share the Members' concerns and have been tracking these developments closely for some time. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] Let me first address Mr Louis Chua's question on access. The Government does not have access to Mythos. Anthropic has released it only to a limited set of partners under a controlled preview, and we are not aware of any local bank that has been granted access. More broadly, we do not assume that we will always have early access to every frontier model. Instead, we maintain close working relationships with various partners, including major artificial intelligence (AI) labs and cybersecurity firms to track capability developments and to assess safety and security implications when new capabilities emerge. We are also working with partners who have access to Mythos to better understand its capabilities and implications. We should understand the advances in capabilities enabled by Mythos to be part of a continuum rather than a step change. Models like OpenAI's GPT-5.5 already show comparable cybersecurity capabilities and are more widely available. Open-source AI models are also rapidly improving and are likely to reach similar capabilities within months. With AI, vulnerabilities that once took expert teams weeks to detect manually can now be identified autonomously in hours, sometimes minutes. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities much faster than our traditional patching cycles can address. AI is also changing how attacks are carried out.”