The greatest Australian competition reforms in 20 years?
Singapore antitrust agency celebrates 10 years
1. Special Report:
Singapore
An overview of competition law in Singapore and the
Competition Commission of Singapore as the country
celebrates 50 years of independence
Policy and Regulatory Report provides forward-looking proprietary
intelligence on antitrust issues, competition law, merger review,
intellectual property, international trade and trade disputes, litigation and
FCPA/anti-bribery legislation.
2. Competition law in Singapore aimed
to make markets work well
Singapore celebrates its 50th anniversary this year and 2015
also marks a major milestone for competition law in the
country as the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS)
celebrated its 10th anniversary earlier this year.
This decade-old antitrust agency has matured significantly in
curbing anticompetitive conduct since its first infringement
decision against pest control operators for bid-rigging in
January 2008, three years after it commenced operations on 1
January 2005.
In the initial years, its role was more focused on sustaining
advocacy, in explaining to businesses the importance and
benefits of competition law. Over the years as the CCS
has gained more experience, it is striving to facilitate the
government on policy matters while continuing to enforce the
law to ensure that Singapore remains a competitive economy.
“There is no room for complacency or relying on reputation.
We need to always engage, persuade and convince”, says its
chief executive, Han Li Toh.
Given the size of its open economy, Singapore’s competition
regime is a significant enabler to sustain its competitiveness,
adaptability and innovativeness.
The evolution of the competition agency is well entrenched
in Singapore’s history. Two decades after its independence in
1965, the country witnessed the first major recession in 1985-
86 with the collapse in oil prices. Though this was followed by
a decade of economic growth, by 2003, Singapore’s economy
was again challenged by globalization, the Asian Financial
Crises and the changes in the geo-political landscape.
Against this backdrop, the idea of setting up a competition
agency was planted as depicted in the book: “10 Years of
Championing Growth and Choice”, released by the CCS to
commemorate its 10th anniversary.
The Economic Review Committee (ERC) felt the need to
ensure that Singapore’s economic strategies were in tune with
the demands of a globalized market economy, paving the way
for the enactment of a national competition law in 2005. The
idea was to create a pro-enterprise environment ensuring “a
generic competition [law] to institutionalize a regime where no
company enjoys unfair privileges, and must compete on equal
footing in the market with others”.
The importance of competition law to Singapore is also well
described in a recently released book Competition Law and
Policy in Singapore, (Second edition), where the co-authors
Cavinder Bull SC and Lim Chong Kin comment on how
“Entrepreneurs are generally free to set up businesses in any
sector in Singapore with little intervention by the Government
unless there are overriding social or political considerations.
Foreign firms and products compete freely with domestic firms
in the market. Competition drives the efficient allocation and
use of the economy’s scarce resources. Consumers in turn
enjoy the fruits of competition”.
Quoted in CCS’ commemorative anniversary book and voicing
the views of most Singaporean lawyers, Kala Anandarajah,
head competition & antitrust and trade at Rajah & Tann, says
that competition agency is viewed “as a friendly party and not
as a regulator out to get businesses”.
The CCS continues to strive ahead and is considered to be a
strong competition regulator championing the cause not only in
Singapore but across the ASEAN region, and often seen to be
the Big Brother by other member states.
Deswin Nur, head of international cooperation at Indonesia’s
Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition
describes the CCS as being “creative, efficient and swift”.
Highlighting the agency’s efficiency despite its limited
resources, Nur is quoted in the book saying that the Singapore
authority reacts swiftly, “sometimes in a manner of seconds.”
With the change in chairmanship at the CCS from Chuan Leong
Lam to Aubeck Kam in 2015, the agency proclaims a new
mission and vision from “championing competition for growth
and choice” to “making markets work well”.
Its new chair, Kam explains that while competition today is a
familiar concept among practitioners in the field, to the layman,
it is often perceived as an abstract concept. Hence the new
mission statement reflects on how competition will create
new opportunities for growth through innovation, and also
emphasizes that competitive markets bring more choice for
consumers and businesses.
Infringement involving hard-core cartels - both domestic and
international - as well as abuse of dominance cases, will
continue to remain top enforcement priorities for the authority.
Perhaps the best way to depict CCS’ growth would be to
highlight some of the key cases over the past 10 years. While
the pest control case marks the first bid-rigging infringement
decision issued, SISTIC was the first decision issued against
abuse of dominance in June 2010.
The Express Bus cartel is equally symbolic as it earmarks the
first appeal decision issued by the Competition Appeal Board.
The ball bearings cartel is indicative of CCS’ maturity in its
first international cartel infringement decision in 2014. This
was closely followed by its decision in the international freight
forwarders cartel case.
The Parkway/Radlink merger is important as it is the first
merger blocked by the authority, while the SEEK/Jobstreet
merger was cleared conditional upon behavioural-cum-
structural commitments.
There are a whole host of 34 live cases presently under
investigation, mostly pertaining to alleged cartel behavior.
As the CCS enters the second decade, it proposes to
streamline some of the regulations and guidelines given the
3. Coverage
PaRR offers global coverage across Asia-Pacific, Europe,
the Americas and the Middle East/Africa.
We have on-the-ground teams of specialized journalists
based in the regulatory capitals of the world. In Asia, we
have 50 journalists covering mainland China, Hong Kong,
Australia, South Korea, Japan, India, Taiwan, Singapore,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India and Pakistan.
Leveraging an extensive network of sources among
regulators, policy-makers and global experts, PaRR
delivers unrivalled coverage of global competition
matters. We help our readers stay ahead of the market
and their competitors, providing insight into merger
filings and investigations, connecting the dots globally,
and analyzing regulatory developments and their impact
in Asia-Pacific.
How you can benefit from PaRR:
• Keep up to date with ongoing developments in other
jurisdictions
• Anticipate decisions on investigations and regulatory
reviews of mergers
• Search for precedents across all jurisdictions and
industries
• Identify new business opportunities
Areas of focus
We focus on the intersection of global competition
law with intellectual property, trade and sector-specific
changes that can directly impact fair-market practices of
governments and corporations worldwide.
In Asia, PaRR delivers in-depth, predictive intelligence
on government ministries and agencies, including
competition regulators in jurisdictions ranging from China
to Australia, and their reaction to inward and outbound
investment activity.
We focus on these key areas globally:
• Merger review
• Cartel investigations
• Abuses of dominance
• FCPA/anti-bribery issues
• International trade and trade disputes
• Intellectual property
• State aid and public programs
• Key legislation
• Sectoral policy developments
changing antitrust environment and as more jurisdictions
introduce competition law.
The agency is also looking at enhancing enforcement tools,
Toh tells PaRR, with the aim of striking a balance between
fully mitigating the effects of anticompetitive practices
versus a more prompt resolution of a case that would benefit
Singapore’s public, business and economic interests.
Given the limited staff strength and increase in the number
of cases, the CCS is studying the feasibility of implementing
settlements or other types of fast-track processes, common in
many established jurisdictions.
With the increase in the number of leniency applications,
particularly from multinational companies, alleged to have
engaged in cartel behavior, the CCS is reviewing its leniency
guidelines.
The legal fraternity anticipates a change in the market
dominance threshold to be brought down to around 40% from
the prevailing 60%. There have also been discussions over the
possible removal of exemptions granted to vertical agreements,
in respect to resale price maintenance.
All in all, the CCS wants to ensure that its policies are in line
with the best practices in developed jurisdictions.
The agency however, is not resting on its past laurels. Toh tells
PaRR that the three most important goals for the authority
going forward are: to be a credible and respected enforcer;
a good advocate and adviser of competition policy to the
government; and promote a competition culture in Singapore
and the region.
by Freny Patel
Editor (Asia)
![Competition law in Singapore aimed
to make markets work well
Singapore celebrates its 50th anniversary this year and 2015
also marks a major milestone for competition law in the
country as the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS)
celebrated its 10th anniversary earlier this year.
This decade-old antitrust agency has matured significantly in
curbing anticompetitive conduct since its first infringement
decision against pest control operators for bid-rigging in
January 2008, three years after it commenced operations on 1
January 2005.
In the initial years, its role was more focused on sustaining
advocacy, in explaining to businesses the importance and
benefits of competition law. Over the years as the CCS
has gained more experience, it is striving to facilitate the
government on policy matters while continuing to enforce the
law to ensure that Singapore remains a competitive economy.
“There is no room for complacency or relying on reputation.
We need to always engage, persuade and convince”, says its
chief executive, Han Li Toh.
Given the size of its open economy, Singapore’s competition
regime is a significant enabler to sustain its competitiveness,
adaptability and innovativeness.
The evolution of the competition agency is well entrenched
in Singapore’s history. Two decades after its independence in
1965, the country witnessed the first major recession in 1985-
86 with the collapse in oil prices. Though this was followed by
a decade of economic growth, by 2003, Singapore’s economy
was again challenged by globalization, the Asian Financial
Crises and the changes in the geo-political landscape.
Against this backdrop, the idea of setting up a competition
agency was planted as depicted in the book: “10 Years of
Championing Growth and Choice”, released by the CCS to
commemorate its 10th anniversary.
The Economic Review Committee (ERC) felt the need to
ensure that Singapore’s economic strategies were in tune with
the demands of a globalized market economy, paving the way
for the enactment of a national competition law in 2005. The
idea was to create a pro-enterprise environment ensuring “a
generic competition [law] to institutionalize a regime where no
company enjoys unfair privileges, and must compete on equal
footing in the market with others”.
The importance of competition law to Singapore is also well
described in a recently released book Competition Law and
Policy in Singapore, (Second edition), where the co-authors
Cavinder Bull SC and Lim Chong Kin comment on how
“Entrepreneurs are generally free to set up businesses in any
sector in Singapore with little intervention by the Government
unless there are overriding social or political considerations.
Foreign firms and products compete freely with domestic firms
in the market. Competition drives the efficient allocation and
use of the economy’s scarce resources. Consumers in turn
enjoy the fruits of competition”.
Quoted in CCS’ commemorative anniversary book and voicing
the views of most Singaporean lawyers, Kala Anandarajah,
head competition & antitrust and trade at Rajah & Tann, says
that competition agency is viewed “as a friendly party and not
as a regulator out to get businesses”.
The CCS continues to strive ahead and is considered to be a
strong competition regulator championing the cause not only in
Singapore but across the ASEAN region, and often seen to be
the Big Brother by other member states.
Deswin Nur, head of international cooperation at Indonesia’s
Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition
describes the CCS as being “creative, efficient and swift”.
Highlighting the agency’s efficiency despite its limited
resources, Nur is quoted in the book saying that the Singapore
authority reacts swiftly, “sometimes in a manner of seconds.”
With the change in chairmanship at the CCS from Chuan Leong
Lam to Aubeck Kam in 2015, the agency proclaims a new
mission and vision from “championing competition for growth
and choice” to “making markets work well”.
Its new chair, Kam explains that while competition today is a
familiar concept among practitioners in the field, to the layman,
it is often perceived as an abstract concept. Hence the new
mission statement reflects on how competition will create
new opportunities for growth through innovation, and also
emphasizes that competitive markets bring more choice for
consumers and businesses.
Infringement involving hard-core cartels - both domestic and
international - as well as abuse of dominance cases, will
continue to remain top enforcement priorities for the authority.
Perhaps the best way to depict CCS’ growth would be to
highlight some of the key cases over the past 10 years. While
the pest control case marks the first bid-rigging infringement
decision issued, SISTIC was the first decision issued against
abuse of dominance in June 2010.
The Express Bus cartel is equally symbolic as it earmarks the
first appeal decision issued by the Competition Appeal Board.
The ball bearings cartel is indicative of CCS’ maturity in its
first international cartel infringement decision in 2014. This
was closely followed by its decision in the international freight
forwarders cartel case.
The Parkway/Radlink merger is important as it is the first
merger blocked by the authority, while the SEEK/Jobstreet
merger was cleared conditional upon behavioural-cum-
structural commitments.
There are a whole host of 34 live cases presently under
investigation, mostly pertaining to alleged cartel behavior.
As the CCS enters the second decade, it proposes to
streamline some of the regulations and guidelines given the]()