Telecommunications (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.45 pm

The Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Madam, the Telecommunications Act, or TA for short, provides the broad legal framework for the regulation of Singapore's telecommunications sector. The TA provides the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) with various powers, including those to grant licences, issue directions and codes of practices, and promulgate service standards.

Mdm Speaker, the TA must remain relevant and effective in regulating and providing for the development of our telecoms industry amidst rapid changes and recent developments. Since the last review in 2012, my Ministry has been keeping a close watch on how the industry has evolved, both locally and internationally, as well as the changing needs and demands of Singapore consumers. We have made three key observations.

First, the reliance on telecom services by consumers and businesses, especially for mobile telephone services, has increased dramatically over the last few years. Total mobile data usage has more than doubled since 2012, due to increased smartphone penetration and the use of data-intensive applications, such as mobile video streaming. Hence, consumers and businesses have come to expect more reliable and better quality service standards. To meet these rising demands, IMDA must have the ability to facilitate the continued deployment of telecoms infrastructure.

Second, consumer disputes have become more individualised in nature and usually relate to customer-specific contractual and billing issues. Given the individualised nature of these disputes, IMDA's existing frameworks for consumer protection will not be as effective. A dedicated, specialised and independent platform that can resolve these disputes in a fair and even-handed way will be needed.

Lastly, my Ministry has noted instances where end users may not have the freedom to access telecoms services from their preferred operator. Madam, this should not be the case. It has been 16 years since the telecoms sector was fully liberalised. A key consideration for liberalisation was to allow end users more choice. To ensure that consumers and businesses can continue to reap the benefits of competition, any obstacles in the way of them exercising choice should be removed.

Madam, my Ministry conducted a four-week public consultation in August this year to share these observations and consult on proposed solutions. Respondents generally supported our observations and suggested solutions. In light of this, we intend to amend the TA to effect most of these proposals, save for two.

First, my Ministry has decided not to proceed with increasing the maximum composition amount for compoundable offences under the TA from $5,000 to $10,000. As we have experienced a recent spike in the number of cable-cut incidents around Singapore, we wanted to send a clear and strong deterrent signal to would-be cable-cut offenders that they must follow the prescribed procedures for isolating telecom cables before commencing earthworks. Given the seriousness of cable-cut incidents and their adverse impact on end users, we have assessed that a more effective and targeted deterrent approach would be to focus on actively prosecuting and seeking harsher criminal sentences for such offences. This effort is underscored by IMDA's recent prosecution of a case which has led to Court fines totalling $165,000 in 2015.

The other proposal that we will not proceed with is requiring that all appeals to the Minister also be copied to the regulator. Such a requirement is an operational one and need not feature in primary legislation.

Mdm Speaker, allow me to now go through the key amendments proposed.

Mdm Speaker, for IMDA to facilitate the continued deployment of telecoms infrastructure, a few amendments will be needed.

Today, IMDA's Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings, also known as the COPIF, requires building developers and owners to provide adequate space and facilities for the deployment of telecoms equipment in their buildings. However, IMDA has faced many practical challenges with building managers that have delayed timely deployments in the buildings they manage. To ensure COPIF's effectiveness, clause 2 will expressly clarify that parties who have control over the day-to-day management and operations of the building must also comply with COPIF. In practice, IMDA will continue to enforce COPIF requirements on the legal owner of the building in the first instance, before reaching out to building managers, such as the Management Corporations and Town Councils.

In addition, under current rules, telecom licensees must provide sufficient notice when entering buildings to deploy their infrastructure. Clause 8 will provide greater certainty to building owners and occupiers on this notification and objection process. For example, before entering a building, licensees must first issue clear and accurate notifications to the building owner stating their intent and nature of the activities to be done, including whether they intend to use the space and facilities to serve any other building.

In our dense urban environment, mobile deployments need to be sited at suitably high locations, such as building rooftops and towers, to optimise coverage of each mobile antenna. Accordingly, it is usually optimal for mobile operators to deploy their infrastructure on rooftops to serve multiple buildings from one location. This is known as "spring-boarding". Given the advantages that spring-boarding confers, clauses 9 and 10 will empower IMDA to establish a framework to further regulate and facilitate the use of and access to buildings for spring-boarding. Following these amendments, IMDA will consult affected stakeholders on amendments to COPIF to allow spring-boarding and other related operational details.

To provide end users with the freedom to access telecom services from the operator of their choice, clause 11 will prohibit building owners from entering into exclusive arrangements that have the effect of limiting end users' choice of telecoms service provider. Madam, I would like to assure the House that this amendment will not prevent building owners from having promotional tie-ups with operators that end users can benefit from. This amendment simply prevents a building owner from denying end users the right to choose their preferred operator. The amendment is also not intended to apply to data centres, central offices and telecom exchanges, as their customers lease space to locate their equipment and are not considered tenants or residents for the purpose of this provision.

To ensure that clauses 9, 10 and 11 are effective, IMDA will be able to issue written notices and directions to licensees, developers, owners or occupiers of any land or building to achieve regulatory compliance. Although no concerns were raised in relation to these powers during the public consultation, I wish to assure the House that IMDA will be reasonable, prudent and circumspect in the application of these powers and that IMDA will take affected parties' concerns into account before making a decision. IMDA will also only narrowly apply these powers to specific contractual clauses that are inconsistent with the written notice or direction. In all other cases, these amendments to the TA will not affect the continuance of existing contracts, which should carry on until the expiry or termination.

Mdm Speaker, IMDA will need to be empowered to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme, for the resolution of disputes between specific telecom and media licensees and their subscribers. Given that IMDA's regulatory powers for the telecom and media sectors are contained in the TA and IMDA Act respectively, clauses 17 and 21 will make amendments to both, to give IMDA powers to establish an ADR framework, as well as the rules, procedures and operational mechanics of the ADR scheme. As I mentioned during the debate on the IMDA Bill in August this year, having telecom and media regulation in separate legislation is an interim measure and my Ministry remains committed to the longer term approach of developing a holistic framework for the infocomm media sector through streamlined rules and regulations.

Mdm Speaker, in establishing a sector-specific ADR scheme, we are quite cognisant that service providers may be unwilling to participate in existing voluntary mediation schemes, such as those offered by the Consumers Association of Singapore. As such, participation in the ADR scheme will be made mandatory for service providers. Consumers, however, will have the flexibility to resolve their disputes through the ADR scheme, or through other avenues, such as the Courts or Small Claims Tribunal. IMDA is considering a suitable and independent operator for the ADR scheme and will consult relevant stakeholders on the details of the scheme after the legislative framework is in place.

Mdm Speaker, my Ministry is also amending the TA to strengthen oversight of the telecom industry and provide greater clarity to the existing parts of the TA.

Clause 2 will amend the current definition of "telecommunication service" to make explicit that this includes the leasing of telecom cables.

Clauses 3, 4 and 5 will amend sections 5, 5A and 5B respectively to clarify IMDA's existing powers to levy fees and charges for licences, spectrum rights and satellite orbital slots. These amendments are to clarify IMDA's existing powers and are not intended to grant any new powers or impose any new obligations on regulated persons. Clauses 3, 5 and 6 will also make it clear that a licensee is not entitled to a refund of licence fees if its licence is suspended, cancelled, terminated or reduced in duration by IMDA or at the request of the licensee. Similarly, clause 18 will clarify that it is an offence for a telecom licensee whose licence has been suspended to establish, install, maintain or operate a telecoms system or service.

Clause 7 inserts a new section to provide that where a person uses shared radio frequencies, that person must accept that interference may occur and that IMDA is not liable for any interference. This amendment is no different from the principles governing the sharing of radio frequencies already set out in IMDA's Telecommunications (Radio-communication) Regulations. Nonetheless, before allocating radio frequencies for sharing, IMDA will continue to carefully consider and assess the impact and whether there will be potential for interference to existing users.

Clause 12 amends section 26(1) to allow IMDA to issue or approve codes of practice or standards of performance authorising the collection, use or disclosure of personal data by telecoms licensees without end users' consent. This amendment is in line with exceptions already set out in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and will be applicable for instances, such as network planning, maintenance, as well as for facilitating interconnection and interoperability between telecoms licensees. Aside from these purposes, the PDPA will continue to apply.

My Ministry has also proposed a suite of enhancements to provide greater clarity to the sections of the TA relating to consolidations and corporate governance. Clause 14 will clarify the specific circumstances in which IMDA's directions with respect to consolidations have overriding effect. Clause 15 inserts a new section 32DA to empower IMDA to issue directions to enforce conditions of approval for mergers and acquisitions involving a designated telecoms licensee, business trust or designated trust. Clause 16 takes into account industry comments from the public consultation and clarifies the specific conditions that IMDA may impose for its approval of CEO or Board of Director appointments in designated telecoms licensees.

Lastly, clause 20 will allow IMDA to issue regulations on the wiring of telecoms cables in access networks deployed by telecoms system licensees. Such regulations are currently limited to the public switched telephone networks belonging to public telecoms licensees which rely on copper cables. The amendment ensures that IMDA's regulatory framework for the deployment of telecoms cables stays relevant as copper cables are increasingly being phased out and replaced by optical fibre cables.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill before the House today ensures that the TA can remain relevant and effective amidst a rapidly changing industry environment. IMDA is committed to working closely with the industry and various stakeholders to develop the necessary operational and implementation details relating to these proposed amendments.

The telecommunications industry is a fast-paced one. My Ministry will continue to stay abreast of developments, both locally and internationally, to ensure that our legislative and regulatory frameworks continue to facilitate a conducive environment for businesses to grow and thrive and for consumers to benefit from competitive and high quality services. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

12.58 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill that will impact the future of telecommunications in Singapore.

I would like to focus on two aspects of this Bill. Firstly, on the proposal in the Bill to empower IMDA to establish a framework for further regulating and facilitating access to rooftop space for the deployment of mobile equipment. Given the possibility of a fourth mobile operator entering the market, I would like to know if IMDA would be imposing a cap on the total number of mobile operators that can deploy their telecommunications equipment on the same building.

Further, would the Ministry consider a strategy for all the operators to share base stations, like how operators currently use the NetLink Trust infrastructure for fibre broadband, for example? So, you do not clog up your rooftops with too many base stations or you have too many inline within the building repeater cells, for example. This may be especially important if they are moving to a new 5G network in the future based on new infrastructure, thus sharing may provide economies of scale for the operators and be more cost-effective for consumers, too.

On this point about access to rooftop space, there are already existing agreements in place to govern this. How will the Ministry protect landlords with these existing agreements in place? I ask this as I wonder if the new regulations will enable operators to cancel these existing agreements with immediate effect and request to relocate their base stations in the same building under new terms.

In addition, will the amount of rent-free space that IMDA currently allocates under its Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings (COPIF) for telecommunications deployments in buildings be increased to account for this proposal?

The other area I would like to raise a point on is the proposal to empower IMDA to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. I applaud this scheme but seek more clarity on how it will be implemented. Will the ADR scheme be administered by the Government? What sorts of disputes can consumers bring to the ADR operator? Will consumers have to pay for ADR services and will the outcome of the ADR process be legally binding? How is the proposed ADR scheme different from some of the existing mediation channels available to consumers today, such as CASE or the Singapore Mediation Centre? These are important questions to ask and gain clarity on.

Mdm Speaker, a structured mediation process is a good step, but it must protect the interests of the consumer to ensure high quality and a high level of service. Mdm Speaker. I rise in support of the Bill.

1.00 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill and I promise to be brief. I would like to raise three points in my speech. First, with regard to health; second, with regard to access; and third, with regard to safety.

In terms of health, with the growing number of space stations and telecommunications access points in Singapore, there is some concern on the ground on impact on human health. According to the American Cancer Society, people exposed to radiofrequency radiation can be affected and there are potential health risks.

Recently, in South Korea, there have also been a series of protests against THAAD system – which the American military would be deploying – which is based on radio signals and telecommunications signals. Overall, it is supposed to protect South Korea against any hostile North Korean aggression. But the protestors' complaint was largely that the authorities were not forthcoming with any information on the potential risks, in terms of electro-magnetic waves, on the hundreds of villagers who live and farm in the region where the THAAD system would be deployed.

Secondly, in terms of access. There is section 32D where the IMDA has the power to issue their actions, "override the provisions of the Business Trusts Act, Companies Act, Limited Liability Partnerships Act, Trustees Act and the Futures Act". Some of those I have spoken to felt that this was quite overarching in terms of the number of Acts that it overrides and grants access to many of these private buildings. Therefore, could the Minister perhaps explain whether there has been any response during the public feedback with regard to granting of access and whether there are some key areas of hindrance?

In terms of cable-cut incidents that the Minister has mentioned earlier, many of these equipment are based in public buildings, some of which would be HDB blocks. Access to rooftops of these buildings can sometimes be circumvented. So, in terms of safety of equipment and the potential for deliberate acts to disrupt telecommunications in Singapore, could the Minister comment on how this would be prevented, going forward? Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

1.03 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I rise in support of this Bill. These amendments include operational improvements and also provide clarity on how telecommunications operators are regulated.

The amendments also lay an important foundation for the introduction of next generation mobile technology, which includes the building up of our Smart Nation sensor network.

Madam, allow me to share three suggestions for the Ministry to look into.

Firstly, on the objections by owners or occupiers of the land or building to a telecommunications licensee accessing their property, can the Minister share how many of such written objections have been lodged over the past three years? In addition, on how many occasions over the past three years have the authority authorised the works to be carried out, despite the objections and following the inquiry?

The amendments to section 14 add an additional step where the "Authority must notify the public telecommunications licensee concerned to resolve the dispute with the objector due to the objection". Also, "on receipt of the Authority's notice, the public telecommunications licensee must take genuine steps to resolve the dispute with the objector due to the objection".

Can the Minister clarify how long the telecommunications licensee is given to try to resolve the dispute? And is there a timeframe provided for the Authority to hold an inquiry from the time a written objection is lodged?

I expect that most of the time, there should not be strong reasons for objection, but, in some cases, owners could have legitimate reservations and this should be promptly looked into.

Secondly, we should ensure that the additional efforts to deploy mobile equipment provided by this Bill do lead to better connection.

I understand that the installation of mobile equipment is primarily for the economic benefit of mobile operators. With this in mind, would the Ministry consider ensuring that operators ensure a guaranteed minimum standard of broadband service to all customers?

This would go beyond service levels on coverage, but include a requirement on speed. For example, all 4G customers within a certain area of an installed mobile broadband equipment should be guaranteed a certain Internet speed.

If speeds fall below a certain level, the operator must respond within a certain time to remedy any issues. Such a regulated guarantee would also provide more comfort to owners that the equipment installed on their roofs will benefit them as well.

Third, a minor point on an inconvenience faced by consumers. Consumers should have a choice on which networking equipment they can use, now that amendments have been proposed for Internet and mobile operators to have a choice on where best to install their equipment.

Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) often require customers to use a default modem and router, which is rented or bought from the ISP.

This means that if the customer has an existing router or modem, they will not be allowed to use it. For example, unless you are subscribing to the most expensive plan, SingTel currently requires that you use their own modem.

I had a personal experience with this inconvenience. Recently, I bought a new wireless router. However, when my ISP's support came, I was told that I would not be able to use it. So, I ended up buying a device which I was not allowed to use in my own home. Speaking up on behalf of consumers, would the Ministry consider taking steps to change this?

Madam, apart from the clarifications requested and the suggestion for improvements, I stand in support of the Bill.

1.06 pm

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Given the rapid developments in the telecommunications and media industries, the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act (TA) and Media Development Authority of Singapore Act (MDAA) are, indeed, timely.

Allow me to first talk about the proposed amendments to the Additional Dispute Resolution mechanism. It is laudable that IMDA is taking proactive steps to strengthen consumer protection.

I have been approached by many residents who have outstanding issues with the telcos. For various reasons, they did not or could not use the current dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, I think it is useful to create an alternative.

A meaningful dispute resolution mechanism needs to: be affordable for individual complainants; accommodate consumers of all language and educational backgrounds; run efficiently, with conclusions reached in a timely manner; create binding outcomes; and generate more benefits than it costs to run.

The benchmark to beat is the Small Claims Tribunal where mediation services cost $10. The mandated mediation sessions are conducted by Registrars. Therefore, affordable mediation services conducted by neutral professionals are already available. How will the ADR improve on this and how much will the ADR charge consumers for this service?

A related and pertinent question is the funding of the ADR. What volume of cases does IMDA expect to refer to the ADR? And if small, this raises questions about economies of scale. Who will pay for the overheads, as well as the direct legal costs of engaging mediators? Will these costs eventually be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher bills?

ADR must be accessible to members of the public. Many people, especially the elderly, may be intimidated by the legal process. They might worry about costs or about complex arguments, especially if their primary language is not English. ADR must be simple enough such that aunties and uncles from the heartlands can navigate without fear.

IMDA must create a standardised process for dispute resolution with clear guidelines. For example, will there be a fixed timeline, to prevent either side playing for time? Conversely, we need to safeguard against frivolous or vexatious cases. Consumers who lodge clearly baseless cases could be penalised, but what qualifies as baseless and how will IMDA set the bar?

A second aspect of the proposed amendments to the TA deals with Mobile Deployment Spaces on rooftops. Mobile services are integral to our daily lives. We now expect to stream high definition video while sitting in an MRT train. This demand for bandwidth will only continue to grow as services and consumers get more sophisticated. An adequate network is the necessary foundation. I, therefore, laud the IMDA for securing rooftop space for deploying national infrastructure.

As we always do in land-scarce Singapore, we will need to balance competing demands for rooftop space, and rooftop space is already hotly contested. Essential utilities like water tanks, recreational facilities like rooftop gardens, and clean energy sources like solar panels – these are all potentially valid alternative uses. IMDA needs to navigate the balancing act on two levels.

First, between alternative uses of the space. How will the allocation of Mobile Development Space be determined? How will IMDA work in tandem with the other relevant agencies, such as HDB, EMA, URA and others, to determine the optimal allocation of space? And how does IMDA intend to "future proof" this? Many rooftop installations are long-term infrastructure assets that cannot easily be removed.

Commercial rooftop solar panels make this more complex. Space for services means forgone revenues – a quantifiable opportunity cost. How does IMDA intend to protect the property rights of the building owners?

Second, how will space be allocated amongst various telecommunications providers? How will we ensure that such arrangements survive future developments, such as new market entry?

We have seen infrastructure and network sharing arrangements become standard industry practice in many countries. Telcos can choose to share only the passive elements, such as towers and masts, or include the network elements in the sharing arrangements. Would IMDA consider encouraging our telcos in this direction to mitigate the space constraints that we face?

Apart from space allocation, there is also the issue of costs. Building owners may have improved their rooftops, for example, through waterproofing. The deployment of mobile assets may affect or damage such arrangements. How does IMDA intend to establish reasonable cost allocation measures?

The amendments require telcos to pay "appropriate costs of deployment", such as increasing load-bearing capacity or improving aesthetics. How will IMDA define "appropriate costs"? What happens if there are disputes? I think a clearer set of rules at the outset will help to minimise this problem in the future.

Finally, I would like to discuss the enhancements to strengthen the oversight of the telecommunications industry. It is prudent for IMDA to closely regulate mergers and acquisitions in the telecommunications industry. As previously noted, telecommunications services are an essential service and national infrastructure must be safeguarded.

At the same time, we need to maintain the effectiveness of assets to foreign investors. The telecommunications industry is fast-moving. Winners today are often forgotten tomorrow and cross-border investment is common, which can be beneficial. Our own telcos themselves are significant regional players.

How does IMDA intend to balance these two contradictory tensions – the need to protect national interests, while also extracting the benefits that cross-border investments could bring? How do we ensure that greater enforcement will lead to greater welfare, broadly defined?

The same considerations apply at the CEO or Board level. On what criteria will IMDA decide to not approve a potential CEO or board member? Will companies have sufficient insight into the process to adequately prepare their positions?

Madam, in conclusion, these amendments are important to safeguard critical communications infrastructure. The introduction of an ADR, clarification of rooftop space usage and strengthening of the oversight mechanism are important steps to create a more robust framework for the telecommunications sector in Singapore. This Bill will help to advance Singapore's position as a Smart Nation and leading telecommunications hub in the world. Therefore, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Yaacob.

1.13 pm

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the hon Members for their support and comments. My response will focus on Members' comments which are directly related to the Bill at hand.

First, Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon asked about the overall administration and design of the ADR scheme.

Madam, the proposed amendments will empower IMDA to set up an ADR scheme for both telecoms and media services, which will include appointing a neutral and independent ADR scheme operator. As mentioned in my opening speech, IMDA will hold a public consultation exercise on the operational design of the scheme once the empowering legislative framework is in place. As this is the first time such a scheme is being rolled out by IMDA, IMDA will learn from other jurisdictions with similar programmes and consult affected stakeholders to ensure that the scheme meets their needs.

Both Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon also asked how the proposed ADR scheme improves upon existing dispute resolution platforms. Today, Madam, consumers can bring their disputes to general purpose platforms, such as the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Small Claims Tribunal. Our proposed scheme will differ in two ways, Madam.

Firstly, unlike existing platforms, the ADR scheme will be dedicated to the resolution of disputes between subscribers and their telecoms or media service providers. As such, disputes usually relate to specific billing and contractual issues. Having a dedicated scheme that is familiar with the technicalities of service plans and packages will help to ensure a smoother process for all parties involved.

Secondly, Madam, the scheme will require mandatory participation for specific telecoms and media licensees. And this is unlike participation in the existing media platform which is voluntary, aside from the Small Claims Tribunal. And the ADR outcomes will also be binding where settlements are reached.

In relation to the concerns over funding and charges for the ADR scheme, IMDA's current thinking is that the licensees will provide the bulk of the funding. A nominal fee will also be paid by subscribers because we want to dissuade frivolous claims. Although only approximately 400 disputes were escalated to IMDA in 2015, the actual number of disputes is likely to be higher, as some subscribers may have given up on pursuing their disputes. So, Madam, in order to contain the costs of running the ADR scheme and, of course, to ensure its sustainability, IMDA is exploring the possibility of appointing existing mediation service providers, such as CASE, to help us in rolling out the scheme. This will allow us to share overheads and, of course, more importantly, skilled mediators across platforms. These details, Madam, will be further consulted on once the legislative framework is in place.

Madam, Mr Zaqy Mohamad also touched on several operational aspects of how IMDA will facilitate the deployment of telecoms infrastructure in buildings, such as whether there is a cap on the number of mobile operators deployed in a given building. Madam, as mentioned in my opening speech, the proposed amendments are to facilitate the deployment of telecoms infrastructure and are intended as general empowering provisions for IMDA. The details of how IMDA will operationalise these powers will still need to be studied in consultation with stakeholders, as the issues on the ground can be complex and addressing them directly in legislation will not be straightforward. So, once the Bill is passed, we will commence this consultation exercise through its review of COPIF so that we could get further feedback from the industry and the licensees.

Mr Zaqy Mohamed also asked how the amendments will affect existing contractual agreements between building owners and mobile operators for mobile deployments. Madam, I would like to reiterate that these amendments will not affect existing contracts which should carry on until their expiry. In relation to the Member's example of a mobile operator cancelling his existing contract in order to relocate to the same building so that they get rent-free, I understand that similar cases were raised when COPIF was first introduced in 2013. But since then, IMDA has not seen such cases being surfaced. Removing and reinstalling mobile equipment is, indeed, very expensive. Mobile operators are also hesitant to accept protracted disruptions to their mobile coverage while a new contract is being negotiated. The bottomline is that it is not in their favour to do the relocation.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon also asked how the optimal allocation of Mobile Deployment Space (MDS) and associated costs of mobile deployment on rooftops are determined. To clarify, Madam, the COPIF today already requires that building owners provide a specific amount of rent-free MDS to mobile operators upon request and that mobile operators compensate the building owners for the associated costs of mobile deployments. And these costs may include security escorts to rooftop access, increasing load bearing capacity of the building and the utility bills for running mobile equipment. So, with the proposed amendments, it is envisaged that building owners must provide rooftop space as MDS if the mobile operators request it.

However, Madam, the total amount of MDS aside, the principles of allocating MDS amongst multiple mobile operators and the framework for compensating costs associated with the mobile deployments will remain consistent with existing COPIF practices for a start. Any unresolved dispute between the building owners and mobile operators over issues, such as competing uses or compensation, can also be escalated to IMDA. IMDA will then work with relevant agencies to strike a balance between the property rights of the building owners and the provision of good quality telecoms services to the public.

So, whenever there are disputes, we will step in. We will basically bring the parties in and see what is the best solution possible. I agree with the Member that we need to provide the best coverage possible for our consumers.

Finally, Madam, in relation to Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Ong Teng Koon's question whether to encourage our telecommunications operators to have more infrastructure sharing arrangements, particularly when there are space constraints or the potential for economies of scale, I would like to share with this House that it is already being practised. In fact, IMDA facilitates the sharing of certain infrastructure amongst licensees where it is technically challenging to replicate or there are physical constraints. And this includes the sharing of spaces on existing monopoles and cell towers, as well as sharing mobile deployments in places, such as MRT tunnels. For MDS in buildings, the COPIF currently limits the total amount of mobile deployment space that is set aside. And where there are multiple operators competing for the same space, this space must be shared amongst them. If additional space is required, the mobile operators would have to commercially negotiate for more from the building owners.

Madam, Mr Louis Ng asked for specifics on the notification and objection processes for telecommunications licensees to access buildings to deploy their infrastructure. On average, Madam, IMDA receives about 30 such objections every year from building owners or occupiers involved in this process. IMDA has been able to resolve most cases through informal mediation, without having to issue any formal directions for the works to be carried out. As for timelines, the TA does not state a fixed timing for resolving disputes. Each case is unique and IMDA will set a reasonable amount of time for all parties to reach a happy resolution. Thereafter, if the dispute remains unresolved, the telecommunications licensee will inform IMDA and IMDA will typically hold an inquiry within the next 14 days. So, we will step in as quickly as possible to make sure we can resolve the dispute.

Lastly, Mr Ong Teng Koon asked how IMDA balances between the benefits of foreign investment and the need to protect national interests when regulating mergers and acquisitions, as well as when approving CEO and Board of Director appointments. First, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that Singapore has a liberalised telecommunications market whereby IMDA does not impose restrictions on foreign ownership and control in telecommunications licensees. However, IMDA does maintain oversight over such transactions and appointments to ensure that they do not cause significant harm to market competition, consumers and public interest.

Mr Alex Yam raised concern about section 32(d). I wish to clarify that the amendments will specify the exact laws which can be overridden by directions issued under section 32(d). This is narrower than the existing section 32(d) as directions could previously take effect despite any written law. And these amendments were presented during public consultation but we did not receive any comments on this part.

Finally, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Alex Yam asked about minimum guaranteed mobile broadband speeds and allowing consumers to use third-party routers for Internet access, as well as health and safety in relation to mobile deployments. As these issues are not directly related to the Bill at hand, I invite the Members to file separate Parliamentary Questions and I would be happy to discuss these in Parliament.

Madam, in conclusion, with telecommunications becoming an increasingly integral part of the economy and everyday life, it is important that our laws keep up with the fast-paced developments in the industry. I am confident that this Bill will ensure that the TA continues to remain relevant and effective for regulating the telecommunications industry.

Moving forward, my Ministry and IMDA are committed to working closely with the industry and various stakeholders to develop and implement these amendments in detail and to creating a conducive regulatory environment for both businesses and consumers. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.