Competition (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.46 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade)): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade), I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Competition is a key principle of Singapore's economic strategy. Competition spurs businesses to differentiate and innovate, so that they can become more efficient and productive. Consumers enjoy lower prices, wider choices and better products and services. The economy also benefits as a result of greater productivity gains and a more efficient allocation of resources.

The Competition Act was enacted in 2004 to promote efficient market conduct and to strengthen Singapore's competitiveness, for the benefit of both businesses and consumers. The Act is administered by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS), which adopts a balanced approach in ensuring a robust competition regime that supports a level playing field for businesses in Singapore, without imposing excessive compliance costs or overly restrictive conditions on businesses.

With the aim of strengthening the current competition regime, CCS has reviewed the Competition Act to identify and address existing administrative gaps and to provide greater clarity on CCS' enforcement of the Act.

As part of their review, CCS has studied the best practices and experiences of other foreign jurisdictions and engaged the relevant economic agencies and sector regulatory agencies.

CCS has also carried out a public consultation and most of the respondents have expressed support for the proposed amendments. Some of their feedback has been incorporated into the finalisation of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now outline the three key amendments of this Bill.

To start, I must explain that there are three main prohibitions under the Competition Act.

Firstly, the Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements that prevent, restrict or distort competition. This is a provision under section 34 of the Act. So, let us refer to this as the "section 34 prohibition". Secondly, the Act prohibits the abuse of dominant position under section 47 of the Act and we will, similarly, refer to this as the "section 47 prohibition". Lastly, this Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that substantially lessen market competition and this is the "section 54 prohibition".

The first key amendment of this Bill is to allow CCS to accept binding and enforceable commitments for cases involving sections 34 and 47 prohibitions.

During CCS' investigations into potential infringements under the Competition Act, an entity under investigation may come forward to voluntarily offer "commitments", or a pledge to undertake specific measures to remedy, mitigate or prevent the competition concerns which are currently being investigated. In accepting any commitments, CCS must be assured that the commitments are sufficient to address the competition concerns being investigated, can be promptly implemented and do not give rise to new competition concerns. Should CCS accept the offered commitments, CCS will cease their investigations.

Currently, only commitments offered for the section 54 prohibition are binding and enforceable. In other words, if the merger parties breach any of the voluntary commitments previously offered to CCS, CCS will be able to take action against parties for the breach, without the need to re-open fresh investigations into the anti-competitive conduct.

Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill amend sections 60A and 60B of the Competition Act, to allow CCS to similarly accept binding and enforceable commitments offered by entities for cases involving the sections 34 and 47 prohibitions. Clauses 5 and 6 amend sections 57 and 58 and are a consequence of the insertion of new sections 60A(1) and 60B(1).

Entities may also approach CCS for a decision as to whether an agreement or conduct has infringed the prohibitions in section 34 or section 47. Clauses 2 and 3 are consequential amendments to sections 44 and 51, which allow CCS to make a decision that there has been no infringement if a commitment has been accepted by CCS. This includes a commitment varied or substituted under section 60A(3).

These amendments will align CCS' approach to commitments for all the three main prohibitions under the Act and also bring CCS' practices in line with other foreign jurisdictions, such as the United States and the European Union.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now move on to the second key amendment.

CCS' current enforcement powers include the authority to require the production of specified documents or information and the authority to enter and search any premises. This is provided for under sections 63 to 65 of the Competition Act. The second key amendment is to empower CCS to conduct general interviews during such inspections or searches of premises.

Occupants of the premises being inspected or searched by CCS are currently required to only provide an explanation of the documents produced or seized on the premises or information uncovered during the inspection. CCS is not empowered to ask general questions in relation to the same investigation, without first serving a written notice, as provided for under section 63 of the Act, on the occupier of the premises or the individuals it wishes to interview. This limits the efficiency and effectiveness of CCS' investigations. In addition, it results in confusion for the individuals being interviewed, as they may have to give their statement more than once and on the same issue as well. The occupier may also be puzzled as to why CCS has to serve two separate notices for the same investigation.

Clause 9 amends section 63 to empower CCS enforcement officers entering any premises for the purposes of an investigation to orally examine any individual on the premises. The amendment does not increase CCS' enforcement powers, but addresses an administrative gap in the investigation process. CCS' scope of questioning is still limited to the subject matter and purpose of the investigation. The proposed amendment also brings CCS' practices in line with these of the European Union.

In addition, clauses 10 to 11 make technical amendments to sections 64 and 65 to provide further clarity on CCS' investigation powers, such as the power to require the production of a document at such a time and place and in such form and manner as may be required.

The final key amendment of this Bill is to allow CCS to provide confidential advice on anticipated mergers as a statutory process.

As earlier mentioned, section 54 of the Competition Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that substantially lessen market competition. However, not all mergers give rise to competition issues. Many mergers can preserve, or even enhance, the existing level of competition within the market.

Singapore adopts a voluntary merger notification system, similar to Australia and the UK. This means that there is no obligation, or mandatory requirement, for entities considering mergers to notify their merger situations to CCS.

Entities who are interested to enter into a merger, but are concerned about whether the anticipated merger, if carried into effect, will infringe the Competition Act, may file a notification for CCS' formal decision; or in a situation where the information about the merger is not yet in the public domain, they can approach CCS for confidential advice. In the former instance, CCS will make their assessment and publicly release their decision on the anticipated merger. In the latter case, CCS' advice will only be released to the requesting parties.

Clause 4 introduces a new section 55A to formalise CCS' provision of confidential advice on anticipated mergers. This does not change the process by which CCS will provide their advice, but seeks to provide greater clarity and assurance to businesses which wish to consider approaching CCS for advice. This approach is also consistent with practices in Australia and the United Kingdom, which operate voluntary notification regimes similar to Singapore's.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our approach to competition is a balanced one. The Bill aims to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the competition regime in Singapore and to ensure a level playing field for all businesses. Competition law is an important tool in ensuring that our markets work well, to encourage businesses to innovate and become more productive. This also brings about benefits for consumers as they gain faster access to a wider range of newer and better products and services. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.56 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Under the current Act, the Competition Commission of Singapore may, upon entering premises in pursuance to section 64 or 65 of the Act, require any person on the premises to produce documents relating to the investigation and provide an explanation of the said documents.

Beyond the ambit of sections 64 and 65 of the Act, where other information relating to the investigation is required, section 63 of the Act provides that the Commission may, by notice in writing to any person, require that person to produce to the Commission specified information relating to the investigation. Section 63(2) of the Act further provides that such notice shall indicate the subject matter and purposes of the investigation and the nature of offences under sections 75 to 78 of the Act in the event where the person served with the section 63 notice fails to comply with the notice.

This Bill proposes to amend this position by allowing the Commission's officers to orally examine any person on the premises which they have entered pursuant to section 64 or 65 of the Act, so long as the person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances relevant to the investigation being carried out and require the person to answer any question relating to the investigation, essentially doing away with the need to serve the section 63 notice on the person examined.

According to the Commission, the aim of the proposed amendment is not to expand the investigative powers of the Commission but to streamline the process of service of the documents during inspections and searches under section 64 and 65 of the Act to allow the Commission to conduct its inspections in a more efficient manner, thereby minimising potential disruption to the business.

The pursuit of higher efficiency in investigations has to be balanced against safeguards to ensure that due process is carried out. I have some areas of concern which I would like to raise in relation to the proposed amendment.

First, given that the proposed changes have been introduced, taking into account the Commission's practical experience in enforcing the Act, would the Minister be able to share examples of how the need for service of the section 63 notice on the person to be examined at the premises entered into pursuant to section 64 or 65 of the Act has caused inefficiency in the investigation process or caused disruption to the businesses being investigated?

Second, with the doing away of the requirement to serve the section 63 notice on the person to be examined, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the person being examined is sufficiently informed of the subject matter and purposes of the investigation?

Third, under Regulation 20(3) of the Competition Regulations 2007, a person required by the Commission under section 63 of the Act to provide specified information or an explanation of a specified document in person may be accompanied by a professional legal adviser. Would a person being examined at the premises by the Commission's officers under the proposed amendment be allowed to request to be accompanied by a professional legal adviser?

Fourth, under the proposed amendment, the investigating officers may require the individual being examined to answer any question relating to the investigation. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the officers do not go beyond the allowed scope of examination?

Lastly, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the statements made by the person being examined are properly recorded, given that the Commission will rely on these recorded statements in deciding whether the Act has been infringed?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek. I think it will be in order for all of us in the House to congratulate you on the arrival of your new child. [Applause.]

5.00 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mergers and acquisitions are increasing in frequency. We must ensure that any corporate activity must keep the consumer in mind and not compromise consumer rights or positions.

Take the speculation of a deal between Uber and Grab in Southeast Asia, for instance. Will it achieve a dominance that will crowd out other taxi companies? Will we see consumers ultimately lose out?

Hence, our competition laws must be robust to ensure that corporate activities do not create anti-competitiveness or undermine our market fundamentals. As such, the Competition Bill will strengthen the CCS as a key guardian of our consumers' interest.

I welcome the expanded scope of enforcement for CCS that this Bill allows. At the same time, the move to allow CCS to provide confidential and non-binding advice is also a positive step.

At this juncture, I hope the Government can provide an update on the focus of CCS in the past few years. How many instances of corporate activities did it evaluate and how often did it act on these corporate activities?

I would also like to further suggest that CCS keep a strong focus on looking at corporate activities in companies engaging in essential services and services that touch the lives of Singaporeans daily. This will ensure that corporate activities do not negatively impact Singaporeans' general cost of living.

On a separate note, I hope the Government can consider setting up a committee that will look at profiteering, especially of essential services. The committee can also take on feedback and tip-offs from consumers. While the instance of profiteering may be few and far between in Singapore, the mere existence of such a committee will serve as a deterrence to unscrupulous merchants. With that, I support the Bill.

5.03 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, in my speech today, I will cover two areas. First, the onset of competition and its merits and demerits; and, secondly, the concerns on the proposed amendments, namely, section 60A(1A) and 60A(1B).

First, let me cover the onset of competition and its merits and demerits. Singapore professes and practises an open economy and its market is more or less driven by market forces. This should lead to healthy competition. It is believed that an open market with healthy competition will lead to competitive prices offered to consumers.

A healthy competition would also weed out the non-performers. Non-productive and non-competitive business players and retailers will automatically be driven out of the marketplace. New players will emerge and offer a more competitive product. Thus, the cycle of elimination repeats itself. Like the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest seems to be the rule of the day.

Thus, overall, the outcome should benefit the consumer and prices offered will reach its optimum and settle to an equilibrium that is low enough for consumers to benefit and high enough for business owners and retailers to profit. It is an ideal case where competition is doing its job.

While we can see this from the consumer standpoint, which is positive as the consumer stands to benefit from this scenario, there also lies the dark side to this so-called healthy competition. Open competition has resulted in many traditional and typical mom and pop retail shops being squeezed out of their traditional home-ground, that is, the heartlands, with the influx of retail giants into the heartlands.

This has caused a lot of unhappiness with small business owners. While open competition has taken its natural course, its impact can be devastating for some whose income may solely depend on this traditional business. I would like to suggest that the Ministry, while crafting future amendments to our Competition Act, might want to revisit how we can protect and preserve our traditional business. Just like when we have an Act to protect and preserve some old buildings and monuments, we might want to do the same for some of our traditional businesses. I am certain that we will be able to strike a balance between keeping our traditional businesses afloat and opening our market towards open competition.

Apart from the traditional and typical neighbourhood retailers, our small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are also facing stiff competition from global overseas players. This is inevitable as we have an open market which is riding on the global economy. While there are merits to this chosen framework, the impact on the local scene is devastating for some. Again, the survival of the fittest will weed out the smaller players. More often than not, our SMEs and small business retailers will be the victims of such an onslaught.

Our SMEs are our key workforce driver, providing more than 60% of jobs to our local workforce. It is imperative that our SMEs are protected, as they play a key role in our nation’s economic growth. While we advocate and practise open competition, we must be mindful of the impact it may bring if it brings along with it a negative impact which is detrimental to our nation’s economy. While I am not against open competition, which can be healthy, we should and must try to give some level of assurance to our SMEs and small retailers that due consideration is given to them in this competitive environment.

This delicate situation needs to be intelligently considered, as we would also like our SMEs to be able to benefit from the global market. Vice versa, our SMEs will automatically be faced with competition at home from overseas competitors, as reciprocity is expected if we are to be given the opportunity to explore overseas markets.

As such, just like I have mentioned before, it would be wise, I think, if we revisit the Competition Act, to consider this aspect towards our local SMEs and small retail businesses, when making future amendments. I hope the relevant Ministry will be able to consider this suggestion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in a free market economy which we adhere to, the market forces should determine the market trajectory itself. Expansion and collapse of business entities are left very much to market forces and individual business decisions. While there could be instances of bailout situations, perhaps due to extreme and detrimental cases, more or less, private business entities decide on their course of action. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) may be one of the inorganic growth strategies undertaken by private business entities in trying to expand their business in the market.

However, if left unchecked and unmonitored, the impact of M & As can be detrimental. Having gone through personally three M&A events during my career, I have witnessed both the upside and downside of an M&A. While it is expected to bring positive end results for business in an M&A, more often than not, the downside will be on the restructuring process which will most probably result in manpower redundancy.

More worrying is the impact to the market after an M&A on competition. Will the result of a particular M&A make the competition healthier which results in a better situation for the customers and end consumers? If yes, then it is deemed as a good M&A. However, if otherwise, then this may result in an unhealthy market situation, which is not preferred.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in such an unhealthy case, it would be wise that some sort of regulation and monitoring mechanism to be put in place, so as to ensure that an M&A will not result in such a situation. Therefore, the Competition Bill and the amendments that are being put in place are highly welcomed. It is important to note that while we would like to regulate, it must not stifle the open market framework with the aim towards healthy competition for the larger benefit of the consumer.

Thus, the Competition Bill and its proposed amendments are welcomed as they are intended to ensure that the healthy competition landscape is being safeguarded.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to go to the second point of the 15 proposed changes to the Competition Act made through the Competition (Amendment) Bill. I would like to highlight significant amendments in sections 60A(1A) and 60A(1B). These provisions empower the Commission to accept commitments for cases involving:

(a) Agreements, decisions or concerted practices that may have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore; or

(b) Conduct on the part of one or more undertakings that may amount to abuse of a dominant position in any market in Singapore, in addition to the current power to accept commitments for mergers which may result in a substantial lessening of competition within Singapore.

My question is: does this mean that the Commission can still decide that the merger is prohibited under section 57 after giving advice to the contrary earlier?

Take note section 57 states that a party to an anticipated merger must notify the Commission and apply to it for a decision. The Commission will then decide if such a merger is lawful. And also note the difference between an advice under section 55A and the decision under section 57.

Mr Deputy Speaker, another point which I would like to highlight is the proposed amendment in clause 7(a). Currently, the Commission may only require companies to undertake commitments for the prohibitions under section 54. With the replacement by the new section 60A(1A) and 60A(1B), this will allow the Commission to require and accept from companies a commitment where they have been found to restrict competition under section 34 and require and accept from companies a commitment where they have been found to abuse their dominant position in a market under section 47.

Here is my next question: will this make it easier for companies to bypass the competition law now that commitments may be accepted with respect to all the prohibitions of the original Act?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to hear from the Ministry if the above questions I posed are valid and correct. Could the Ministry shed some light on this matter?

Healthy competition is expected to benefit consumers by and large. As mentioned earlier, the outcome of healthy competition should reach an optimum offer to consumers and settle to an equilibrium: low enough for consumers to benefit and enough for business owners and retailers to profit. It is an ideal case where competition is doing its job. Therefore, it is imperative that we should strive to achieve a healthy competition scenario, striking a balance between an open and free market economy against a regimented one.

Like many situations, an acceptable and optimum condition can only be achieved if the surrounding parameters are monitored and managed. The Competition Bill and its amendments are intended to do so. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the comments and suggestions I have made, I support the Bill.

5.14 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the amendment relating to the provision on application of confidential advice by the Competition Commission on whether an anticipated merger is likely to lessen competition within any market in Singapore and thereby falling foul of the Act is very welcomed.

I understand that this seeks to codify an already available procedure. Statutory force is likely to further assure businesses approaching the Commission for such advice that such an approach will be treated on a confidential basis.

Sir, I only have one clarification for this Bill. The one aspect of the proposed amendments that is of concern is the powers of persons entering into premises with or without a warrant for the purpose of investigations.

Currently, investigating officers, inspectors and other authorised persons may enter into premises with or without a warrant for the purpose of carrying out investigations. Persons on the premises can be required to:

(a) Produce documents relating to any matter relevant to the investigatons;

(b) Provide an explanation of that document, if it is so produced; and

(c) State to the best of his knowledge where any such document is found.

These are specific questions relating to documents relevant to the investigations. If the Commission or Inspector wishes to ask other questions on matters relevant to the investigation, the person must be served with a notice in writing under section 63.

The new section 63(4A) allows a person found on the premises to be orally examined and required to produce answers relevant to the investigation. The statement has to be recorded in writing, read over in a language understood by the examinee and signed by him under the new section 63(4B).

However, as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned earlier, there is no need for such an examinee to be served with a notice under section 63 even though the examinee can now be made to answer a broader scope of questions equivalent to that under section 63.

My concern is that notices will never be served on persons found on premises when they are questioned on relevant matters beyond documents relating to the investigation. The requirement for notice allows time for a person required to act under it to consider the request made and perhaps seek legal advice on it. Why deprive these persons of this right? Can the Senior Minister of State clarify again why we are making this amendment and perhaps why did we have this requirement for serving a notice in the first place?

Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State.

5.16 pm

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken and note that all of them support the Bill. Some have raised pertinent points that I will now address.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked if the proposed amendment to allow CCS to accept legally-binding commitments for cases involving the section 34 and section 47 prohibitions makes it easier for companies to circumvent competition law. I would like to give my assurance to Mr Azmoon Ahmad that CCS is committed in its efforts to ensure a robust competition regime to enable well-functioning markets that support a level playing field for businesses in Singapore. Commitments offered to CCS must remedy, mitigate or prevent the adverse effects of the anti-competitive conduct that is currently being investigated. And in assessing their acceptance of commitments, CCS must also be assured that the commitments are sufficient to prevent the recurrence of such anti-competitive conduct.

The proposed amendment allows CCS to take more timely action against a party, which had previously provided but breached a commitment, so they do not then need to re-open fresh investigations into the anti-competitive conduct itself. This strengthens, rather than limits, CCS' enforcement efforts to eliminate and control anti-competitive practices in Singapore.

Mr Patrick Tay has asked about how the need for the service of the section 63 notice on the person to be examined during CCS' inspections and searches conducted pursuant to sections 64 and 65 of the Competition Act has resulted in an inefficient investigation process or caused disruption to the business being investigated. In addition, Mr Tay has asked about the safeguards to ensure that the person examined is sufficiently informed of the subject matter and purposes of the investigation.

The notice or warrant issued pursuant to sections 64 or 65 of the Competition Act respectively, allows CCS to obtain documents relating to the investigation and require any person to provide an explanation of these documents, including where to locate the documents if they are not on the premises. Prior to entering the premises, CCS has to serve the section 64 notice or section 65 warrant on the occupier of the premises. This notice or warrant states the subject matter and the purpose of CCS’ investigation, which will be explained to the occupier as well. CCS will also make clear the occupier’s and the occupants' obligations and rights, such as it being an offence if they provide false or misleading information to the investigating officer.

However, CCS may, sometimes, need to also ask general questions that are related to the subject matter and purpose of the investigation, but which do not relate to the explanation of the documents obtained at that point in time.

For example, without the proposed amendments, if the scope of CCS' investigations is on bid-rigging and CCS uncovers an email correspondence chain relating to the rigging of a tender during an inspection, they would only be able to require any person to explain what the email correspondence is about, but would not be able to ask about what other related projects the parties in the email may also have been involved in. So, it could well be many, many bid-rigging episodes but the email documented one episode and, without this broader scope of questioning, they are limited in only being able to obtain that information about that one episode.

For CCS to be able to do more than that, it would need to first serve a separate section 63 notice on the individual they wish to examine and re-explain the necessary obligations and rights to the individual again – a redundant duplication of work, both for the agency and for the individual.

This prolongs the duration of the inspection or search and results in a longer than necessary disruption to the business being investigated. It also results in two separate statements being recorded from the same person, one pursuant to the powers under section 63 and the other under section 64. The proposed amendment thus seeks to streamline CCS' investigation process, to enable CCS to serve a single notice to enter the premises to obtain documents and also ask questions pertaining to the documents found on the premises, as well as require occupants to provide information relating to the subject matter and purpose of the investigation.

Mr Patrick Tay also asked whether a person being examined would be allowed access to legal representation, about the safeguards that the statements are properly recorded and that CCS officers do not go beyond the allowed scope of questioning. Mr Louis Ng also raised a concern about the individual having sufficient time to seek legal advice on CCS’ requirements.

I would like to assure both Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay that as part of CCS' existing investigation procedure, CCS will verbally inform the occupier and the occupants of the purposes of their investigation as well as their obligations and rights, which includes the right to legal representation, prior to entering the premises. If an individual that CCS wishes to examine expresses his will to be interviewed in the presence of his legal advisor, CCS will provide a reasonable amount of time to allow the legal advisor to arrive at the premises. In addition, where a written notice is addressed to an individual, it is not acceptable for another person to respond on that individual’s behalf. But this does not prevent the individual from obtaining legal advice in relation to that notice.

As a further safeguard, the subject matter and purpose of the investigation are also stated in the notice or warrant issued pursuant to sections 64 and 65 of the Act, which CCS officers strictly adhere to. Hence, they will only ask questions related to the subject matter. Furthermore, the statement given by the individual has to be read to the individual in a language he understands, before he signs the statement. The individual also has the opportunity to correct the statement, if necessary.

In addition, should CCS rely on the statement for their decision, CCS will first issue a Proposed Infringement Decision (PID). Parties will be able to inspect CCS' evidence and make representations to CCS, including if they feel that CCS has gone beyond the scope of investigations during the interview, in response to the PID. CCS will take into consideration parties' representations, before issuing their final decision in an Infringement Decision or ID. If parties disagree with CCS' decision in the ID, they may appeal to the Competition Appeal Board, which is an independent body, comprising members appointed by the Minister for Trade and Industry.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad has asked whether CCS is still able to make a decision pursuant to section 57, which provides for the process that an anticipated merger has infringed the section 54 prohibition, after providing confidential advice to the contrary earlier. The introduction of new section 55A formalises CCS' provision of confidential advice on anticipated mergers in the situation where information about the merger is not yet in the public domain. In the spirit of confidentiality, therefore, CCS will base its assessment of the anticipated merger on the information provided by the merging entities. CCS will not request for information from any third party, such as the applicant's main customers or competitors, or conduct any public consultation to assist in their assessment because it is meant to be confidential advice. As such, the advice that CCS issues under the new section 55A is not binding on CCS.

In the situation where information about an anticipated merger is already in the public domain, merging entities may make an application for CCS' formal assessment of whether the anticipated merger, if carried into effect, will infringe the section 54 prohibition. This is provided for under section 57 of the Competition Act. Notwithstanding that CCS issues a favourable decision that the anticipated merger will not infringe the section 54 prohibition, CCS may take further action if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that information on which CCS had previously based its decision was materially incomplete, false or misleading, or if a party who had provided a commitment has failed to adhere to it. This is provided for under the existing section 59 of the Act.

Mr Henry Kwek asked whether the speculated merger between Uber and Grab will achieve a dominance that will crowd out other taxi companies, causing consumers to ultimately lose out. CCS has the power to review any merger which may result in a substantial lessening of competition in any market in Singapore and is monitoring this matter.

Mr Henry Kwek also asked for an update on CCS' focus over the past few years. CCS continues their efforts to ensure effective enforcement of the Competition Act and to raise awareness of competition law in Singapore. This includes their work in assessing merger notifications and conducting market inquiries, in order to ensure that markets work well for both businesses and consumers. Over the past five years from 2013 to 2017, CCS has investigated into nearly a hundred cases of potential infringements of the Competition Act.

I also note Mr Henry Kwek's feedback on asking the Government to consider setting up a committee to look into profiteering. I would like to assure Mr Henry Kwek that the Government will monitor the situation and take the necessary measures against businesses found to be profiteering.

In addition, Mr Azmoon Ahmad has suggested for the Government to take into consideration, in our future reviews of the Competition Act, the need to protect our traditional businesses, as well as our SMEs. The Government notes the feedback and I also wish to clarify that the Competition Act is a broad-based legislation targeted at promoting efficient market conduct to protect consumers and businesses from anti-competitive activities. In this regard, there may be more targeted ways to help our SMEs, such as through the support given by our various economic agencies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the concerns of the Members.

The proposed amendments seek to address existing administrative gaps, in order to strengthen the current competition regime. Competition law is an important tool to ensure well-functioning and healthy markets, to ensure a level playing field for all businesses to compete and innovate, such that they can become more efficient and productive, which is essential for Singapore's next phase of innovation-driven economic growth. With that, Mr Deputy 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. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon].

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