Government officials will never ask you to transfer money or disclose bank log-in details over a phone call.
Call the 24/7 ScamShield Helpline at 1799 if you are unsure if something is a scam.
Home
/
Newsroom
/
Parliamentary Replies
/
2018
/
03
Second reading round up speech by SMS Koh for the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2018
Parliament Q&A
|
20 MAR 2018
Second reading round up speech by SMS Koh for the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2018
Second reading round up speech by SMS Koh for the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2018
SECOND READING ROUND UP SPEECH FOR THE COMPETITION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the
MPs who have spoken and note that all of them support the Bill, and some have raised pertinent
points that I will now address.
CCS acceptance of legally binding commitments
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, make it easier for
companies to circumvent competition law. I would like to give my assurance to
Mr Azmoon Ahmad that CCS is committed in their 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 are 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, who had previously provided the
commitment 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’s enforcement efforts to eliminate and control
anti-competitive practices in Singapore.
CCS conduct of general interviews during inspections
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’s 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. And 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’s 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. For example,
without the proposed amendments, if the scope of CCS’s
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 that email
documented one episode and without this broader scope of questioning, they are
limited in obtaining information about that one episode. For CCS to be able to
more do that, they 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’s
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 premise, 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’s requirements.
I would like to assure Mr Ng
and Mr Tay that as part of CCS’s existing investigation procedure, CCS will
verbally inform the occupier and 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 the notice.
As a further safeguard, the
subject matter and purpose of the investigation is also stated in the notice or
warrant issued pursuant to sections 64 and 65 of the Act, which CCS officers
adhere strictly 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 or PID. Parties will be able to inspect CCS’s 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’s 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.
Provision of confidential advice
as a statutory process
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’s provision of confidential
advice on anticipated merger, in the situation where information about the
merger is not yet in the public domain. In the spirit of confidentiality, 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. 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’s 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 has 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.
CCS’s work as the national
competition authority
Mr Henry Kwek also asked for an
update on CCS’s 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 5 years from 2013 to 2018, 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 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 small and medium sized enterprises or 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 economic agencies.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, Sir, 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.