A Merger Undone by a Contract Clock, Not a Verdict
On 18 May 2026, Singapore's Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) suspended its assessment of Simba Telecom's proposed S$1.43 billion acquisition of M1, after its review turned up evidence that Simba "may have been using radio frequency bands that had not been assigned to them to provide mobile services" — a potential breach of the Telecommunications Act 1999 and the conditions of Simba's Facilities-Based Operations Licence (IMDA press release, 18 May 2026). Three days later, the deal's long-stop date of 21 May 2026 passed with the required regulatory approvals still outstanding, and Tuas Limited — Simba's Australian-listed parent — confirmed the Sale and Purchase Agreement with Keppel had lapsed (Marketing-Interactive, 22 May 2026). No enforcement finding has been made. The investigation is still open. But the merger — the most consequential Singapore telecom transaction in years — is dead.
The Case for IMDA's Caution
The regulator's instinct to pause deserves a fair hearing before any criticism. Spectrum is a finite public resource, and Singapore's licensing regime exists precisely so that operators cannot simply seize bands they were not assigned — unauthorised use risks interference with other licensees and undermines the integrity of an auction and assignment system every carrier has to trust. M1 also operates infrastructure IMDA classifies as critical, and a consolidation review already had to weigh cybersecurity and public-interest conditions on top of ordinary competition analysis. If IMDA had knowledge of a possible licence breach mid-review and approved the deal anyway, it would have invited the far worse charge of rewarding an applicant for rule-breaking while the ink was still wet on a S$1.43 billion transaction. Pausing to establish the facts, rather than waving the deal through on a tight timeline, was the defensible call in the moment.
Where the Process Cuts Too Bluntly
The problem is what pausing actually did. IMDA has not concluded Simba breached anything — its own release describes the finding as preliminary and says "enforcement action may follow if the breach is established." Yet the mere suspension, colliding with a private contractual long-stop date neither IMDA nor Singapore's competition framework controls, was sufficient to kill the transaction outright. The Telecom and Media Competition Code review and the spectrum licensing investigation are legally distinct processes with different standards of proof and different remedies. Collapsing them into a single on/off switch means a still-unproven allegation carries the same market consequence as a confirmed, adjudicated violation. That is a disproportionate coupling of instruments, and it is the M&A parties — not just Simba — who absorb the cost: Keppel now reverts to a "Plan B" of cost-cutting and rightsizing M1 while it hunts for a new buyer, and Simba must independently complete a costly 5G build-out by the end of 2026 without the network scale the M1 deal would have delivered (Techgoondu, 19 May 2026).
Penalties Exist Already — Use Them, Don't Substitute for Them
Singapore's statute book already prices unlicensed spectrum use: unauthorised operation under the Telecommunications Act carries fines and imprisonment, with continuing-offence penalties layered on top for each day the breach persists (ICLG Telecoms Guide, Singapore chapter). IMDA does not need to conscript a merger review as a proxy enforcement lever when it has direct statutory tools — investigate, charge, and penalise the licensee — that operate independently of any M&A calendar. Using suspension-by-default as the response to an unresolved allegation effectively lets a licensing question decide a competition outcome, without the evidentiary rigor either process is supposed to require on its own terms.
What Better Process Looks Like
Regulators elsewhere have shown a middle path exists. Competition authorities routinely approve mergers subject to behavioural or structural undertakings, or with a hold-separate order pending resolution of a parallel legal question, rather than treating every open investigation as an automatic freeze on M&A activity. IMDA could have granted conditional clearance contingent on the spectrum probe's outcome, or asked the parties to negotiate a short, defined extension to the long-stop date tied to the investigation's timeline — preserving both its enforcement independence and the deal's viability if Simba is ultimately cleared. Instead, the current framework let a private contract deadline do double duty as regulatory judgment.
The Stakes for Singapore's Investment Case
Singapore markets itself on regulatory predictability as much as strictness. A framework where an unresolved licensing question can unilaterally void a billion-dollar transaction — with no finding, no hearing, and no off-ramp — sends a signal to future investors in the region's telecom sector that deal certainty is hostage to open-ended process, not to demonstrated wrongdoing. IMDA should move to conclude the Simba investigation on a fast, published timeline and, in parallel, build a formal mechanism for conditional merger clearance during unresolved licensing probes — so the next transaction doesn't die for the same procedural reason this one did.