Competition Commission of Singapore Part 2

In Jun 26, 2007, CCS, the anti-competition unit cleared Nets of the unilateral fee hike as being anti-competitive activity after the matter was raised by CASE to CCS.

Four heartland merchant associations, with about 4,000 members, have told the media that Nets has offered to charge them a lower rate, but only if they do not have other debt or credit payment facilities.

Isn't this clearly anti-competitive behaviour?

Are you experiencing of a restriction of your rights given the strength/dominance of a certain service provider in a particular market segment?

Mr Leong Sze Hian highlighted in his letter to Business Times' forum dated Jul 6, 2007 that when Microsoft did something similar by requiring vendors to not offer competitors' software, it was fined billions of dollars in several countries all over the world.

As a consumer, we have to be conscious of the development in this area before it becomes too late a few years later.

During a casual event with some CASE staff, I expressed my following views:-

• It is unhealthy to have a sole provider being overly dominant in its handling of its customers.
• On the other hand, Singapore, as a market, is just too small to support too many providers.
• These recent incidents are good at getting CCS to define / clarify their roles and responsibilities.