I.

ANTI-COMPETITION LAW OF OTHER COUNTRIES

The Philippines is a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations

(ASEAN) countries which also includes Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam,

Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei.
The ASEAN Member States (AMS) have committed in the ASEAN Economic
Blueprint to introduce nation-wide competition policy and law by 2015. The objective is
to ensure that a level-playing-field and a culture of fair business competition are
fostered for enhanced regional and economic performance in the years to come. The 10
nation members of ASEAN have committed to implement an ASEAN Economic
Community (AEC) by 2015.
One of the objectives of the AEC is to create a competitive economic region
which fosters a culture of fair competition in all ASEAN Members by 2015.

Of all the ASEAN members, Cambodia, Brunei and Laos are the only countries
which do not have a generic competition law as of this report.
This section discusses briefly on the existing competition laws of each ASEAN
Member.
A. Singapore
The Singapore Competition Act 2004 serves as the generic competition law of
Singapore. The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted
practices; abuse of dominant position; and mergers and acquisitions that will
substantially lessen competition within any market. The Act is administered and
enforced by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS).
1 Competition laws in ASEAN: A South-East Asian perspective. Rodyk and Davidson
LLP

Agreements, decisions or concerted practices which have the object or effect of

preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore are prohibited under
Section 34 of the Act. Examples of violations of Section 34 are price fixing, bid rigging
and collusive tendering. Anti-competitive agreements or decisions against Section 34
are void (i.e. of no effect) to the extent of the infringement. There are also penalties and
civil liabilities for infringement of the Act.
Any conduct of any undertaking which amounts to the abuse of a dominant
position in any market in Singapore, is prohibited under Section 47 of the Act. The
relevant market must be determined (see below) to assess whether an undertaking is
dominant. An undertaking will not be considered dominant unless it has substantial
market power. Abuse of dominance occurs in situations where the dominant firm uses
tactics such as sustained extreme low pricing to take unfair advantage of its position to
drive out existing and potential competitors.
Section 54 deals with the prohibition of mergers which have resulted or may
result in a substantial lessening of competition within any market in Singapore for goods
and services. Officers or members of corporations and associations and partners of
partnerships, if implicated (whether by consent, connivance or neglect) in the offence
will be guilty of the offence together with the corporation, association or partnership as
the case may be.2

B. Malaysia

2 Competition Law Guide. Answers to your questions on the Competition Act of

2004. (Rodyk and Davidson)

The Malaysian Competition Act 2010 took effect on 1 January 2012. The Act
contains prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance, although
it does not provide for competition law regulation on merger control. The Act is enforced
by the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC), a corporate body established under
the Competition Commission Act 2010.
The Act prohibits horizontal and vertical agreements between enterprises that
have the object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition
in any market for goods or services. Provisions in agreements that infringe the Act will
be unenforceable as such provisions are considered illegal pursuant to the Contracts
Act 1950. Agreements that are deemed anti-competitive include, but not limited to, price
fixing, limit or control of production and bid rigging.
The Act also prohibits an enterprise, whether independently or collectively, from
engaging in any conduct that amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in any market
for goods or services in Malaysia. Abuse of dominant position include under subsection
10(2), include unfair trading condition, limiting production or market access, refusing to
supply to particular enterprises and limiting new market entries or market expansion.
On finding an infringement under the Act, the MyCC may impose a financial
penalty of up to 10 per cent of the enterprises worldwide turnover of an enterprise over
the period during which the infringement occurred. Liability may be imputed on the
parent company if its subsidiaries do not have autonomy to determine their actions on
the market.3
C. Thailand
3 The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review 2015. Malaysia: Overview by Sharon Tan, Zaid
Ibrahim & Co.

The Thailand Competition Act of 1999 is the generic law for competition in
Thailand. The Thai competition Act aims to promote fair and free trade, to control anticompetitive practices and to enhance economic efficiency. The main provisions are
abuse of dominant position, merger, collusion and unfair trade practices..
Section 25 imposes various restrictions on market-dominating business
operators. A restriction to a market-dominating business operator includes unfairly
fixing or keeping buying or selling prices of goods or services; unfairly setting conditions
in a manner to force, directly, or indirectly, other business operators who are their
customers to restrict their services, production, purchase, or distribution of goods, or
their opportunity to choose the purchase or sale of goods, the obtaining or providing of
services or the procuring of credits from other business operators; unreasonably
suspending, reducing, or limiting services, production, purchase, distribution, delivery
and import, destroying or damaging goods in order to make their supply less than
market demands; or unreasonably intervening other persons business operations.
Section 26 states that any merger that may create monopolistic power or reduce
competition are prohibited, unless the merger get permission from the Commission in
the case that it is necessary in the business and beneficial to the economy.
Section 27 prohibits a business operator from conspiring, colluding or
collaborating with another business operator in order to create monopolistic power, or
reduce competition. In the case where it is reasonably necessary in the business and
has no serious harm to the economy, the business operators shall submit an application
for permission to the Commission. The Commission has already approved forms, rules
and procedures to apply for permission of any kinds of anti-competitive agreements.

The enforcement body of the Act is the Trade Competition Commission. Failure
to abide by the above provisions of the Competition Act could result in jail terms of
between one to three years and/or fines ranging from two to six million baht. 4

D. Vietnam
The Vietnam Competition Act (no 27-2-4-QH11) is the main legislation that
governs competition law in Vietnam. The Act provides for provisions which control
agreements in restraint of competition, abuse of dominant market and monopoly
position, and economic concentration which include merger, consolidation, acquisition,
joint ventures and other forms of market concentrations. The two regulators in charge of
regulating competition are the Vietnam Competition Administration Department (VCAD)
which falls under the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and the Vietnam Competition
Council (VCC).5

E. Indonesia
Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopoly and Unfair Business
Competition Practices (Indonesian Competition Act) was introduced in March 1999 and
entered into force in the year 2000. Under Law No. 5 there are three categories of
prohibitions: prohibited contracts, prohibited activities, and a prohibition against the
abuse of a market dominant position. Law No. 5 prohibits contracts that have the
purpose or effect of oligopoly, price fixing, dividing territory, boycotting, cartelization,
4 OECD Global Forum on Competition, September 26, 2001. Contribution from
Thailand
5 Vietnam Competition Act (no 27-2-4-QH11)

trust, oligopsony, vertical integration, or exclusive dealing, as well as contracts with

foreign parties that may result in monopolistic practices or unfair business competition.
Law No. 5 prohibits monopoly, monopsony, market dominance, and conspiracy.
However, unlike prohibited contracts, prohibited activities can apply to a single
entrepreneur.
The prohibition against the abuse of a market dominant position centers on
interlocking directorates, share ownership, and mergers, acquisitions, and dissolutions.
Law No. 5 holds that entrepreneurs occupy a market dominant position if any one
entrepreneur, or one group of entrepreneurs, controls at least 50% of the relevant
market share, or if two or three entrepreneurs, or groups of entrepreneurs, control at
least 75%.
The national competition agency known as Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha
(KPPU) regulates competition law in Indonesia. Violation of the Law may result to
criminal and civil penalties, revocation of business license, ban on individuals holding
management positions and termination of certain activities that cause losses to other
parties.6
F. Myanmar
On February 24, 2015, Myanmar enacted its competition law (The Pyidaungsu
Hluttaw Law No. 9 /2015). The Competition Law sets a foundation for creation of a
regulatory body with investigative and adjudicative powers, addresses the three
standard pillars of competition law (agreements that restrain competition, abuse of
dominance and mergers) as well unfair trade practices (UTP), establishes a
6 Washington University Global Studies Law Review: An Overview of Indonesia's
Antimonopoly Law by Hikmahanto Juwana

comprehensive penalty regime with the potential for private damages, conviction of
senior managers and a leniency policy. The principal regulatory authority under the
Competition Law will be the Competition Commission. Activities that are not allowed by
the law include price fixing, agreement to limit competition, bid rigging and controlling
access to a relevant market.7

G. Brunei
Brunei Darussalam does not have generic legislation which regulates competition
law but implements its competition policy on a sectoral basis. Competition-related
provisions have been implemented in the telecommunications sector under the Authority
for Info-communications Technology Industry of Brunei Darussalam Order 2001 (the
AITI Order) and the Telecommunications Order 2001. Both the AITI Order and the
Telecommunications Order apply to all commercial entities that have obtained a license
to operate as a service or infrastructure provider in the telecommunications industry.8

7 Myanmars new Competition Law: an important first step in the right direction by
DFDL Legal & Tax
8 Competition laws in ASEAN: A South-East Asian perspective by Rodyk & Davidson
LLP