Does the Telecommunications Act require a building owner to provide facilities for radio-communication?

Yes, but only when IMDA issues a direction, and only for a licensee's radio-communication service. Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act 1999 is headed "Provision of facilities for radio-communication", and it lets the Authority direct a developer or owner to provide, at their own expense and within a stated period, such space, facility and access on the property as the direction specifies. It is a power IMDA exercises case by case, not a standing duty that attaches to every building, and nothing in it obliges you to make your own walkie-talkie system work inside your own building.

What does Section 20 actually say?

The provision bites where the Authority considers it necessary for a radio-communication service to be installed on a property, or to enhance the quality of the radio-communication service provided to that property. In those circumstances the Authority may direct the developer or owner to provide space or facility within or on the property, plus access to it, at the owner's expense and within the period the direction sets.

Three features of that wording matter more than the heading does. It is discretionary — the obligation crystallises when a direction is issued, not before. It is specific — the direction names the space and facility, so there is no published schedule you can design to in advance. And the cost falls on the owner, which is the same allocation Section 19 uses for telecommunication space generally. Verify the current text against the Act itself before you rely on any of this commercially; the wording has been through several revisions and the summaries in circulation are not all current.

Whose radio-communication service does it cover?

A licensee's. The provision is framed around a radio-communication service provided by a telecommunication licensee — in practice the mobile operators — which is the single most consequential limit on it and the one most often missed. A building owner reading the heading naturally assumes it reaches the security team's UHF radios in the basement carpark. It does not. Your private two-way radio network is licensed apparatus you operate; it is not a licensee's service being brought to the property, and Section 20 is not the hook that makes you cover your own stairwells.

That distinction also decides who pays for what. If IMDA directs you under Section 20, you are providing space and access so an operator can install their equipment. If your guards cannot raise the control room from B3, that is your problem, your budget and your specification to write.

Where do Section 19 and COPIF fit?

Section 19, "Provision of space or facility by developer or owner of building", is the general duty: a developer or owner who requires a telecommunication service from a licensee must provide, at their expense and to the specifications the Authority publishes, the space, facilities and access needed to operate the installation or plant delivering that service. The Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings (COPIF) is that published specification — it sets lead-in ducts, telecom equipment rooms, riser capacity and rent-free Mobile Deployment Space, scaled to the size and type of development.

So the structure is: Section 19 plus COPIF for telecommunication facilities generally, and Section 20 as a targeted power for radio-communication specifically. Neither prescribes a signal level, a coverage percentage, a test grid or a class of building for two-way radio. I have looked for that provision repeatedly and it is not there.

Then what actually obliges a building to have working radio coverage?

Contract, insurance and operational risk — in that order. On Singapore projects the coverage obligation gets into the job through the employer's requirements, a facilities-management scope, an MCST resolution or a tenant's fit-out brief, not through a statute. Which means someone has to write the acceptance criteria, because no code will write them for you. The figures worth specifying are the engineering defaults, not regulatory limits:

• Design threshold for reliable DMR voice: −95 dBm at the portable

• Fade margin: 10 dB commercial, 15 dB where the traffic is safety-critical

• Area coverage target: 95%, with critical areas called out by name

• Loss to budget against: 15–25 dB per reinforced-concrete slab, 25–35 dB through an RC core or lift shaft

• Uplink asymmetry to design around: a 40 W repeater at +46 dBm against a 4 W portable at +36 dBm, less 3 dB body loss — about 13 dB in the wrong direction

Specify both directions and a stated fade margin, or you will pass a downlink survey and fail an incident.

Related questions

Can IMDA order me to install a repeater for my own radio system?

No. Section 20 concerns space and facilities for a licensee's radio-communication service. Your own network sits under the licensing regime instead — you need the appropriate IMDA licence and type-approved equipment to operate it, but nothing compels you to build it.

If I get a Section 20 direction, can I recover the cost from the operator?

The Act puts the cost on the developer or owner, and COPIF separately prohibits charging operators rent for the mandated space. Treat cost recovery as unlikely and take legal advice on a live direction rather than budgeting on assumption.

Does a Section 20 direction mean my building now has adequate radio coverage?

No. A direction procures space and access for an operator's equipment. It says nothing about your own coverage, sets no dBm threshold, and would not be evidence of compliance in any private specification.

---

Suneast designs, licenses and installs two-way radio coverage for Singapore buildings, and on the regulatory side we are clear about what the law does and does not require. We survey the building, work uplink and downlink budgets against the −95 dBm threshold with a stated fade margin, write the acceptance criteria into a form a contractor can be held to, and handle the IMDA licence application alongside the design. For related reading, see our articles on what Singapore's Radio-communication Regulations actually require of a building owner and on whether COPIF applies to in-building two-way radio coverage at all.