The Cartels and Leniency Review: Singapore

Enforcement policies and guidance

The Competition Act, Chapter 50B of Singapore (the Competition Act) was enacted in 2004 and is the principal statute governing the competition law regime in Singapore. The Competition Act has the objective of promoting the efficient functioning of Singapore's markets to enhance the competitiveness of the economy.

Cartel enforcement falls within the scope of Section 34 of the Competition Act, which prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices that have, as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within Singapore unless excluded by the Third Schedule to the Competition Act or a block exemption (the Section 34 Prohibition).

Agreements caught under the Section 34 Prohibition can range from hardcore cartels to concerted practices in which no formal agreement or decision was reached, and include both legally enforceable and non-enforceable written and oral agreements, as well as 'gentlemen's agreements'. All that is required is that parties arrive at a consensus on the actions that each party will, or will not, take.

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS), formerly known as the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS), is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act. The CCS was renamed after taking on the additional function of administering the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act with effect from 1 April 2018.

Financial penalties imposed by the CCCS: 1 January 2006 to 25 November 2021
Cartel caseFines
(S$ millions)
Cartel caseFines
(S$ millions)
Fresh Chicken Distributors cartel26.952Maintenance Services for Water Features cartel0.42
Capacitor Manufacturers cartel19.55Modelling Agencies cartel0.36
Ball Bearings cartel9.31Ferry Operators cartel0.29
Freight Forwarders cartel7.15Pest Control Operators cartel0.26
Express Bus Operators cartel1.70Electric Works cartel0.19
Hotel Operators cartel1.52Motor Vehicle Traders cartel0.18
Financial Advisers cartel0.91Employment Agencies cartel0.15
Electrical Services and Asset Tagging Services cartel0.63Building, Construction and Maintenance Services cartel0.03

Between 1 January 2006, when the Section 34 Prohibition came into effect, and 25 November 2021, 16 cartel infringement decisions were issued by the CCCS.

Pursuant to Section 61 of the Competition Act, the CCCS has published guidelines indicating the manner in which it will interpret and give effect to the provisions of the Competition Act. There have been two sets of guidelines to date of particular relevance to cartel enforcement, namely the CCCS Guidelines on the Section 34 Prohibition 2016 and the CCCS Guidelines on Lenient Treatment for Undertakings Coming Forward with Information on Cartel Activity 2016 (the Leniency Guidelines 2016). Both sets of guidelines first came into effect in 2006. The Leniency Guidelines were then revised in 2009 and both sets of guidelines were subsequently revised in 2016. These are applicable to all cases for which, as at 1 December 2016, the CCCS had yet to issue a proposed infringement decision (PID).

The changes in the Leniency Guidelines 2016, which represent a distinct departure from the CCCS's former leniency policy, include the following.

  1. Leniency applicants must unconditionally admit to the cartel conduct.
  2. Leniency applicants must grant an appropriate waiver of confidentiality to the CCCS in respect of any jurisdiction in which the applicant has also applied for leniency or any other regulatory authority to which it has informed of the conduct.
  3. An undertaking that has initiated or coerced another undertaking to take part in the cartel activity is now eligible for leniency for a reduction of up to 50 per cent of the financial penalty.

In addition to its revised guidelines in 2016, the CCCS has introduced the 'CCCS Practice Statement on the Fast Track Procedure for Section 34 and Section 47 Cases' (the fast-track procedure). Essentially, parties who admit liability for their infringement of the Competition Act will be eligible for a reduction of 10 per cent on the amount of financial penalty that would otherwise be imposed if not for the fast-track procedure. The procedure is distinct from the CCCS's ability to accept commitments and its leniency policy.3 It can be initiated by the CCCS prior to, or after, a PID but not after an infringement decision has been issued. The CCCS envisages that, in general, the fast-track procedure will be initiated by the CCCS prior to a PID being issued. Parties under investigation may choose to proactively indicate to the CCCS their willingness to engage in a fast-track procedure discussion. The CCCS retains a broad margin of discretion in determining whether the case is suitable for the procedure.

The Competition (Amendment) Act came into effect on 16 May 2018.4 This followed a public consultation on the proposed changes to the Competition Act, which was conducted by the CCCS between 21 December 2017 and 11 January 2018. The key aims of the amendments were to provide the CCCS with appropriate enforcement tools in line with international best practice and to streamline existing processes. Among others, Sections 60A and 60B of the Competition Act were amended to allow the CCCS to accept binding and enforceable commitments for cases involving anticompetitive agreements.

Cooperation with other jurisdictions

The Competition Act provides a mechanism by which the CCCS may enter into arrangements with foreign competition bodies, inter alia, to provide assistance and furnish each other with information required by the other party for the purpose of performing its functions. The Competition Act also provides that the CCCS need not furnish a foreign competition body with any information pursuant to these arrangements unless it requires and obtains an undertaking in writing from that body that it will comply with the terms specified in the requirement.

The CCCS's international and regional cooperation is also guided by the provisions in Singapore's multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements relating to competition. These provisions commonly require the signatories to cooperate in the development of any new competition measures and exchange information.

The CCCS uses informal cooperation mechanisms to facilitate its work. In particular, it holds frequent dialogues with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the New Zealand Competition Commission to facilitate general information sharing between the agencies. The CCCS is also a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Experts Group on Competition (AEGC)5 and a regular participant at international conferences and workshops on cartel enforcement held by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ASEAN, the International Competition Network and Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Most importantly, on a case-by-case basis, the CCCS has engaged in both regional and international cooperation with other competition authorities when investigating international cartels with cross-jurisdictional elements. Such international cooperation includes, inter alia:

  1. sharing information to coordinate dawn raids for evidence preservation; and
  2. sharing general information such as theories of harm and general categories of information between the competition authorities. Information is shared to the extent that the information is not confidential and where waivers have been granted to the CCCS to discuss the matter with other authorities and vice versa.

In sharing information, the CCCS takes into account information provided by leniency applicants, bearing in mind the possibility of private actions, discovery obligations that a leniency applicant could be subject to and the varying regimes that other potentially relevant jurisdictions operate (i.e., whether civil or criminal regimes are operated).

The CCCS has stated that '[t]he growing number of cross-border competition cases highlights the importance of cooperation among competition agencies and this is one aspect [the CCCS] hope[s] to work on moving forward.'6

A particular change in the Leniency Guidelines 2016, which is likely to facilitate further cooperation with other international agencies, is the appropriate waiver of confidentiality that the CCCS requires of leniency applicants in respect of any jurisdiction where the applicant has also applied for leniency or any other regulatory authority to which it has informed of the conduct.

Our understanding of the CCCS's current policy is that it would resist any discovery proceedings of documents in its possession, though this has not been tested in practice.

Of the 16 cartel infringement decisions issued by the CCCS to date, three involved international cartels.7 There has been, at least in one instance, a coordinated dawn raid conducted by the CCCS with other competition authorities in the case of international cartels.

To date, the CCCS has entered into the following inter-agency cooperation agreements:

  1. On 22 June 2017, the CCCS entered into a cooperation agreement with the Japan Free Trade Commission. This was the CCCS's first cooperation agreement with a foreign competition agency and the agreement contains provisions relating to notifications on enforcement activities, coordination of enforcement activities, exchange of information and technical cooperation.
  2. On 30 August 2018, the CCCS concluded a memorandum of understanding to facilitate cooperation on competition enforcement with the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition of Indonesia.
  3. On 17 September 2019, the CCCS signed a memorandum of understanding with the Competition Bureau Canada, the first between the CCCS and an overseas enforcement agency that covers both competition and consumer protection laws. The memorandum of understanding will formalise and reinforce existing cooperation and technical assistance activities between the two agencies, including case notification, enforcement coordination, information exchange, technical cooperation and experience sharing.

Jurisdictional limitations, affirmative defences and exemptions

The Section 34 Prohibition applies to agreements made outside Singapore or where parties to the agreement are outside Singapore, so long as the agreement has the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore.8 The CCCS recognises that where a single economic entity infringes competition law, liability for an infringement can be attributed to the single economic entity as a whole.9 In parent–subsidiary relationships, in which a parent company exerts decisive influence on a subsidiary company's commercial conduct at the time of an infringement of Section 34 of the Competition Act, liability can be imputed to the parent company even if the parent does not participate directly in the infringement,10 and the CCCS has found parent entities and their subsidiaries to be jointly and severally liable for an infringement.11

The CCCS can issue directions to bring an infringement to an end, which includes modifying or terminating the relevant agreement for parties to cease the cartel conduct. Directions can also include requirements to report back periodically to the CCCS on certain matters or even structural changes to an undertaking's business. Directions may also be imposed on entities other than the infringing parties. For example, directions may be addressed to a parent company that, although not the actual instigator of the infringement, has a subsidiary that is the immediate party to the infringement.

The CCCS can apply to register a direction with a district court in accordance with the Rules of Court.12 A district court shall have jurisdiction to enforce any direction, regardless of the monetary amount involved. Any person who fails to comply with a registered direction without reasonable excuse will be in contempt of court, where normal sanctions for contempt of court will apply (i.e., the court may impose a fine or imprisonment).

There are no specific industries that are exempt from cartel enforcement. The Minister for Trade and Industry, acting on a recommendation by the CCCS, may exempt, by order, categories of agreements from the Section 34 Prohibition. However, such agreements must contribute to improving production or distribution, or promoting technical or economic progress, to meet the criteria for a block exemption.

On 14 July 2006, the Minister for Trade and Industry issued the Competition (Block Exemption for Liner Shipping Agreements) Order, which exempted a category of liner shipping agreements from the Section 34 Prohibition until 31 December 2010. This was subsequently extended until 31 December 2021, and again until 31 December 2024.

The Third Schedule to the Competition Act further sets out exclusions to the Section 34 Prohibition, including but not limited to:

  1. an agreement made to comply with a legal requirement, which is any requirement imposed by or under any written law;
  2. specified activities within the supply of postal services, supply of public transport, cargo terminal operations, etc.;
  3. purely vertical agreements;
  4. agreements with net economic benefits; and
  5. agreements directly related and necessary to the implementation of mergers, including ancillary restrictions (e.g., non-compete clauses).

Leniency programmes

The Competition Act does not contain express provisions in respect of a leniency policy. The details of the CCCS's leniency programme are contained in the Leniency Guidelines, the latest version of which took effect on 1 December 2016. The CCCS's leniency programme is available only for infringements of the Section 34 Prohibition.

Under the Competition Act, there is no personal liability for individuals (including an undertaking's employees) for infringements of the Competition Act. However, there are general offences under the Competition Act for individuals, such as in relation to obstruction and the provision of false and misleading information, as set out in Section V.

Where there is no conflict of interests, the counsel may represent and act on behalf of both the corporate entity and the individual.

i Total immunity from financial penalties

Full immunity from administrative penalties is available in Singapore. An applicant stands to benefit from total immunity from financial penalties if it is the first in line to provide the CCCS with evidence of the cartel activity before an investigation has commenced, provided that the CCCS does not already have sufficient information to establish the existence of the alleged cartel activity, and the applicant has not initiated or coerced another undertaking to take part in the cartel activity.

All leniency applicants must satisfy the conditions set out below:

  1. provide the CCCS immediately with all the information, documents and evidence available to it regarding the cartel activity. The information, documents and evidence must provide the CCCS with a sufficient basis to commence an investigation;
  2. grant an appropriate waiver of confidentiality to the CCCS in respect of any jurisdiction in which the applicant has also applied for leniency or any other regulatory authority that it has informed of the conduct;
  3. unconditionally admit to the conduct for which leniency is sought and detail the extent to which this had an impact in Singapore by preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore;
  4. maintain continuous and complete cooperation throughout the investigation and until the conclusion of any action by the CCCS arising as a result of the investigation; and
  5. refrain from further participation in the cartel activity from the time of disclosure of the cartel activity to the CCCS (except as may be directed by the CCCS).

ii Reduction of up to 100 per cent of financial penalties

If an applicant does not qualify for total immunity because the CCCS has already commenced an investigation, it may still stand to benefit from a reduction in the financial penalty of up to 100 per cent if:

  1. the applicant is still the first to provide the CCCS with evidence of the cartel activity;
  2. the information is provided before the CCCS has sufficient information to issue a proposed infringement decision under Section 68(1) of the Competition Act;
  3. the information adds significant value to the CCCS's investigation;
  4. the applicant has not initiated the cartel or coerced another undertaking to take part in the cartel activity; and
  5. the applicant satisfies the general conditions for applicants set out in the Leniency Guidelines 2016.

iii Reduction of up to 50 per cent of financial penalties

If an applicant is not the first in but provides useful evidence before the CCCS issues written notice under Section 68(1) of the Competition Act of its intention to make a decision that the Section 34 Prohibition has been infringed, or the applicant does not fulfil the criteria for total immunity or a reduction of up to 100 per cent of the financial penalties because it either initiated the cartel or has coerced other undertakings to take part in the cartel (but otherwise fulfils the general conditions for applicants as set out in the Leniency Guidelines 2016), it may still be granted a reduction of up to 50 per cent of the financial penalty.

Any reduction in the level of the financial penalty under these circumstances is discretionary and the CCCS will take into account (1) the stage at which the applicant came forward, (2) the evidence already in the CCCS's possession, and (3) the quality of the information provided.

iv Marker system

The CCCS provides a marker system for 'first-in' leniency applications. If a first-in applicant is not able to provide the CCCS with all the evidence relating to the suspected infringement available at the time of the application, the applicant may apply for a marker to secure its position in the leniency queue. The grant of a marker is discretionary. However, the granting of a marker is expected to be the norm rather than the exception.

In the Leniency Guidelines 2016, the CCCS requires that an applicant define the market in which the cartel activity occurred and detail the impact of the conduct on the identified relevant markets in Singapore. Sufficient details of the cartel activity, including the parties to the cartel and the estimated duration of the cartel activity, must also be provided.

To perfect a marker, the applicant must provide information, documents and evidence that meet the requirements for a grant of conditional immunity or leniency.

There are no set deadlines for the perfection of a marker in the Leniency Guidelines 2016. When a first-in-line marker is granted, the applicant will discuss the timing and the process of perfecting the marker with the CCCS. The length of time given by the CCCS can range from two weeks to one month and varies on a case-by-case basis. The CCCS has stated that it will work with leniency applicants who genuinely cooperate with the CCCS, to set reasonable time frames for providing information and evidence in relation to the reported cartel.

v Grant of conditional immunity or leniency

When the CCCS considers that the conditions for conditional immunity or leniency have been met, it will issue a letter to the applicant confirming the grant of conditional immunity or leniency. The letter will state the conditions and continuing obligations that the applicant has to meet to maintain its conditional immunity or leniency. Failure to abide by the conditions and obligations may lead to the CCCS revoking the grant of conditional immunity or leniency.

vi Leniency plus system

The CCCS has a 'leniency plus' programme to encourage cartel members cooperating with an investigation by the CCCS in one market (the first market) to report their involvement (if any) in a completely separate cartel activity in another market (the second market).

An applicant can qualify for leniency plus if the CCCS is satisfied that both:

  1. the evidence provided by the applicant relates to a completely separate cartel activity; and
  2. the applicant would qualify for full immunity or a reduction of up to 100 per cent of the amount of the financial penalty for its activities in the second market.

Under leniency plus, an applicant can be granted a further reduction in the financial penalties imposed on it in relation to the first market, in addition to the reduction that it would have received for its cooperation in the first market alone. The applicant does not need to have applied for or received leniency in the first market and can benefit from leniency plus as long as it is receiving a reduction in the first market by way of cooperation as a mitigating factor. In determining the appropriate amount of penalty, the CCCS will take into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The CCCS Guidelines on the Appropriate Amount of Penalty in Competition Cases 2016 (the Penalty Guidelines 2016) provide that mitigating factors include cooperation that enables the enforcement process to be concluded more effectively and speedily.

vii Domestic submissions and domestic discovery

While information such as written submissions and supporting documents provided by any immunity or leniency applicant may also potentially be included in the CCCS's inspection files to which defendants are granted access, it is understood that the CCCS does not grant access to files by third parties seeking damages.

There may be a possibility for a third-party claimant (pursuing a future claim against an undertaking or defendant based on rights of private action arising out of a CCCS infringement decision) to apply in the context of civil proceedings for:

  1. discovery against one or more defendants in a CCCS infringement decision (i.e., against the undertakings subject to an infringement decision by the CCCS and that were granted access to inspection files by the CCCS) to require the defendants to furnish copies of documents taken or copied by these defendants from the CCCS's inspection files; and
  2. third-party discovery against the CCCS to require the CCCS to disclose the documents in its inspection files or any document withheld from the inspection files, although this has not been tested in practice.

To date, there have been no claims in civil proceedings in Singapore courts under a right of private action by third parties arising from infringement decisions by the CCCS and, accordingly, the possibility of civil litigants applying for discovery against infringing undertakings or the CCCS (or both) remains untested.


Undertakings participating or that have participated in cartel activities are liable under Section 69 of the Competition Act to a financial penalty. Cartel activities are not criminal offences under the Competition Act.

A financial penalty not exceeding 10 per cent of the turnover of the business of an undertaking in Singapore for each year of infringement may be imposed for a maximum period of three years where there is an intentional or negligent infringement of the Section 34 Prohibition. The Penalty Guidelines 2016 provide that the CCCS will calculate the financial penalty based on an undertaking's relevant turnover, which will be the turnover for the financial year preceding the date when an undertaking's participation in an infringement ends. The Penalty Guidelines 2016 also provide that the CCCS will adopt a six-step approach to determine the financial penalty amount, which will take into account factors such as adjustments for immunity, leniency reductions or fast-track procedure discounts.13

The CCCS's six-step methodology for setting the appropriate amount of the penalty is as follows.

  1. Step one: calculation of the base penalty, with regard to the seriousness of the infringement (expressed as a percentage rate) and the turnover of the business of the undertaking in Singapore for the relevant product and relevant geographical markets affected by the infringement in the undertaking's previous business year.
  2. Step two: adjustment for the duration of the infringement.
  3. Step three: adjustment for other relevant factors (e.g., deterrent value).
  4. Step four: adjustment for aggravating or mitigating factors.
  5. Step five: adjustment if the statutory maximum penalty under Section 69(4) of the Competition Act is exceeded.
  6. Step six: adjustment for immunity, leniency reductions or fast-track procedure discounts.

Under the Competition Act, there is no personal liability for individuals (including an undertaking's employees) for infringements of the Competition Act. However, individuals should be aware of the general offences under the Competition Act, which also apply to individuals and are punishable, on conviction, with a fine not exceeding S$10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. They include:

  1. providing information that is false or misleading, particularly knowingly or recklessly, either to the CCCS or to another person such as an employee or legal adviser, knowing that it will be used for the purpose of providing information to the CCCS;
  2. obstructing any agent of the CCCS by refusing to give access to, assaulting, hindering or delaying the agent;
  3. failing to comply with any requirement imposed under Sections 61A, 63, 64 and 65 of the Competition Act (which set out the CCCS's formal powers of investigation), including refusal to provide any required document or information, unless compliance is reasonably not practicable or a reasonable excuse for failure to comply can be provided;
  4. intentionally or recklessly destroying or otherwise disposing of or falsifying or concealing a document production of which has been required under Sections 61A, 63, 64 and 65 of the Competition Act, or causing or permitting its destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment; and
  5. wilfully, without lawful excuse, misstating information or refusing to give information or produce any document or copy thereof required by a CCCS officer or employee pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Competition Act or failing to comply with the lawful demand of a CCCS officer or employee in the discharge of his or her duties under the Competition Act.

'Day one' response

The CCCS has the power to launch a surprise investigation on suspected anticompetitive practices and enter any premises in connection with such an investigation.

Under the Competition Act, the CCCS has powers to:

  1. require the production of specified documents or specified information;
  2. enter premises without a warrant;
  3. enter and search premises with a warrant; and
  4. orally examine any individual on the premises who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances relevant to the investigation that is being carried out and require the individual to answer any question relating to the investigation.

The CCCS has the powers to raid domestic premises if they are used in connection with the affairs of an undertaking or documents relating to the affairs of an undertaking are kept there.

The investigating officer14 is not entitled to (1) use force against any person, (2) examine or copy documents that are not relevant to the purpose of the dawn raid, or (3) examine or copy documents that are marked as legally privileged.

Compliance with the dawn raid

During a dawn raid, the in-house counsel department should send out an email informing employees of the raid and instructing employees to cooperate with the investigating officers.

The in-house counsel department should also emphasise to employees that there must be no deletion, destruction or concealment of documents or data and that employees should not inform any third parties about the dawn raid.

See Section V for related offences that are punishable with a fine not exceeding S$10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.

Private enforcement

The right of private action for infringements of the prohibitions in the Competition Act is enshrined in the Competition Act itself. Unlike jurisdictions such as the United States and Australia,15 the right of private action in Singapore exists by way of a follow-on claim, which precludes independent stand-alone action by claimants.

The quantum of damages that an individual aggrieved party seeks would affect the economic incentive to sue if the expected benefits are weighed against the costs of commencing a civil lawsuit. A collective redress mechanism thus seeks to address the misalignment of incentives by enabling aggrieved third parties to join claims with others to pursue damages for harm suffered through competition law infringements, if the cost of acting individually would have otherwise acted as a deterrent.

The class action regime does not exist in Singapore and the only process available for collective redress is through a representative action. The procedure for representative action is governed by Order 15, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court,16 which enables a representative party to bring a claim on behalf of all others having the 'same interest' in the proceedings.

In the context of loss arising from a competition law violation, the calculation of loss or damage suffered often involves a complex exercise in adducing economic evidence.17 The amount of quantitative loss largely depends on factors such as the price elasticity of the demand and the information available on observed movements in prices. As precise quantification is extremely difficult, this leaves an estimation of damages as the next best alternative.

Where economic evidence is crucial to proving the quantum of damages, evidence law in Singapore admits the opinion of an expert witness to assist the court in reaching a proper conclusion on a matter that requires the application of a special skill or knowledge.18

Under Singapore's civil procedure rules, Order 40A, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court provides for a concurrent expert evidence procedure that allows, with the mutual consent of the parties, for expert witnesses to appear as a panel, to give their views on other panel members' evidence, to question other panel members and to be cross-examined as part of a panel.

Since the right of private action in Singapore exists by way of a follow-on claim, an admission of liability, a guilty verdict or other administrative findings during the CCCS's investigation and appeal stages may encourage private action.

With limited exceptions, Singapore law currently restricts the funding of proceedings to the parties involved. In 2015, the Singapore High Court confirmed that litigation funding may, in the context of insolvency and under the appropriate circumstances, be permitted in Singapore. To date, there have been no precedents for follow-on claims or any private litigation funding in the context of antitrust in Singapore.

Limitation period

A private claim for damages arising from an infringement of the Competition Act must be brought within two years of the infringement decision or the determination of any such appeal, whichever is later.19

Current developments

Following the covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the CCCS issued a guidance note on 20 July 2020 to provide businesses with greater clarity on collaborations between competitors in relation to the supply of essential goods or services in Singapore (the Covid-19 Guidance Note). Pursuant to the Covid-19 Guidance Note, the CCCS assumed that collaborations that sustain or improve the supply of essential goods or services in Singapore (as defined in the annex to the Covid-19 Guidance Note), and that fulfil the following criteria, were likely to generate net economic benefits and, therefore, were unlikely to infringe the Competition Act:

  1. the collaborations do not involve price-fixing, bid rigging, market sharing or output limitation;
  2. the collaborations improve production or distribution, promoting technical or economic progress: the efficiency brought about by the collaborations must be objective and quantifiable and there must be a direct causal link between the agreement and the efficiency;
  3. the agreement or restriction must be indispensable: the collaborations and any restrictions imposed must be necessary to help increase supply or bring about more efficiencies than in their absence, and there are no better alternatives available to do so; and
  4. competition is not eliminated in respect of a substantial part of the good or service: the collaborations are limited in nature to a particular good or market and limited in time to deal with the effects of covid-19. Competition should remain in the market as far as possible.

The Covid-19 Guidance Note was valid from 1 February 2020 to 31 July 2021. The CCCS will evaluate collaborations that ended after the Covid-19 Guidance Note expired using the criteria applicable under normal circumstances.

In 2021, the CCCS proposed issuing a guidance note to provide businesses with greater clarity on ways to collaborate without harming competition (the Business Collaboration Guidance Note). The Business Collaboration Guidance Note will focus on six common types of business collaborations, namely: information sharing, joint production, joint commercialisation, joint purchasing, joint research and development, and standardisation. The Business Collaboration Guidance Note includes guidance on the assessment factors that CCCS would generally consider in determining whether a collaboration complies with Section 34 of the Competition Act; when specific types of collaborations may give rise to competition concerns; and the conditions under which competition concerns are unlikely to arise. The CCCS invited comments and views on the proposed amendments from 30 July 2021 to 27 August 2021.

On 10 September 2020, the CCCS announced that it had conducted a review of its guidelines on the Competition Act and proposed changes to six guidelines. The key proposed changes to the guidelines include updates to provide greater clarity on:

  1. the interface between intellectual property law and competition law;
  2. issues relating to market definition, the assessment of market power and types of potentially abusive conduct in the digital era; and
  3. the merger filing procedures and to reflect the CCCS's current practices on merger filings.

The key proposed changes to the guidelines also include updates to reflect the CCCS's current practices on substantive and procedural matters in assessing commitments and remedies.


1 Daren Shiau, Elsa Chen and Scott Clements are partners at Allen & Gledhill LLP.

2 The penalties imposed by the CCCS in the Fresh Chicken Distributors cartel case are currently subject to pending appeals being heard by the Competition Appeal Board.

3 See CCCS, CCCS Guidelines, 'CCCS Practice Statement on the Fast Track Procedure for Section 34 and Section 47 Cases'.

5 The ASEAN Experts Group on Competition was established in August 2007 as a platform to look into competition policy and law issues in the ASEAN. The AEGC is an official body comprising representatives from the competition authorities and agencies responsible for competition policy and law in ASEAN Member States.

6 CCCS Chief Executive Toh Han Li, in the Singapore chapter of Global Competition Review's The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review 2015.

7 See CCS 700/002/13, Infringement of the Section 34 Prohibition concerning the market for the sale, distribution and pricing of Aluminium Electrolytic Capacitors in Singapore, CCS 700/002/11, Infringement of the Section 34 Prohibition in relation to the supply of ball and roller bearings, and CCS 700/003/11, Infringement of the Section 34 Prohibition in relation to the provision of air freight forwarding services for shipments from Japan to Singapore.

8 See 'CCCS Guidelines on the Section 34 Prohibition 2016'.

9 Air Freight Forwarders at Paragraph 90.

10 ibid. at Paragraph 92.

11 Ball Bearings at Paragraph 358; ibid. at Paragraph 371; Air Freight Forwarders at Paragraph 525.

12 Chapter 322, Rule 5.

13 See 'CCCS Guidelines on the Appropriate Amount of Penalty in Competition Cases 2016'.

14 This refers to any officer of the CCCS who is authorised to exercise the power to enter premises for inspection without a warrant under Section 64(1) of the Competition Act.

15 Section 4, United States of America Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 USC Section 15; Section 82 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 No. 51 of 1974 of the Commonwealth of Australia.

16 Rules of Court (Rev. Ed. 2014), Section 80 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 322 of Singapore (Rules of Court).

17 This is illustrated by the Commission Staff Working Document, 'Practical Guide on Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union', C (2013) 3440.

18 Section 47 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 97 of Singapore.

19 See Section 86(6) of the Competition Act; Paragraph 5.3 of the 'CCCS Guidelines on Enforcement of Competition Cases 2016'.

The Law Reviews content