Publication Date



Enforcement is the backbone to any successful competition regime. The Competition Commission of Singapore in enforcing Singapore's Competition Act 2004 has performed this role steadily having issued Guidelines on Enforcement, Appropriate Amount of Penalty and Leniency Programme. This article considers the principles applied by the Commission in setting financial penalties upon an infringement of section 34 of the Act which prohibits anti-competitive agreements. Since section 34 came into force more than five years ago, three significant decisions have represented firsts' in the development of competition law in Singapore: (i) first infringement decision on 9 January 2008 involving six pest control operators for bid-rigqting or collusive tendering; (ii) decision against sixteen coach operators and their trade association for price-fixing; six parties appealed and the Competition Appeal Board made its first decision on 24 March 2011, and (iii) decision against fourteen electrical and building works companies for bid-rigging; one company was given full immunity representing the first whistle-blovintg case under the Leniency Programme. This article has three parts: setting out facts, principles of setting fines as applied by the Commission on the three cases and concluding with observations on the Commission's approach to using penalties for a deterrence objective complimented with a leniency programnme.

Document Type

Journal Article

Access Rights

ERA Access

Access may be restricted.