It has been announced that Singapore’s competition watchdog will be conducting a public feedback gathering exercise in relation to the proposed acquisition of kopitiam by NTUC Enterprise. While I am heartened that the competition watchdog has finally risen to action on this issue, I am disappointed that the watchdog did not take action sooner.

If the proposed acquisition does go ahead, NTUC Enterprise will have a virtual monopoly over food from raw to cooked in Singapore and while NTUC has pledged that it is only doing this to keep prices low, a monopoly would mean that it would be difficult for the consumer to ensure that NTUC lives up to its promise.

In the transportation sector, it would be noteworthy to point out that the competition watchdog intervened almost as soon as Grab announced its intention to acquire Uber Singapore. After its investigations, the Uber and Grab deal did go ahead although the duo were fined a total of approximately SGD 13million between them. In that case, did the public watchdog conduct a public feedback gathering exercise? While there was a survey conducted by Blackbox, was there an official one undertaken by the watchdog? If not, why not?

If the watchdog saw it fit to take action in the transportation sector, why is it any different when it comes to food? Surely, it is obvious that more Singaporeans utilise NTUC and Kopitiam as compared to Uber and Grab? Surely then, it is more imperative to act when it comes to the Kopitiam acquisition? Why is the watchdog seemingly dawdling when it comes to NTUC, calling for a public feedback exercise instead of taking prompt action?

The competition watchdog is supposed to be an independent body with the powers to prevent anti-competition behaviours across all sectors and all companies. It should therefore be seen to be impartial. The seemingly difference in treatment between Uber/Grab and NTUC/Kopitiam could unwittingly give the impression that the watchdog is hesitant to take action against government-linked companies even if that is not the intention?

It is plain to see that NTUC Enterprise would have a significant market share if it acquires kopitiam and given the numbers of Singaporeans who eat in food courts, it is par for the course that there is a strong case for anti-competition behaviour in this case. Does the watchdog really need a public consultation to state the obvious?

Further, the whole point of a watchdog is to prevent mergers and acquisitions that can create monopolies. Uber and Grab’s merger in Singapore creates precisely that – a monopoly. Yet it was allowed to go ahead after a fine. For such a huge merger, SGD13million could simply be written off as the cost of doing business in Singapore with a monopoly still being created.

The whole point of a watchdog is independence and rigour. Is our competition watchdog a dog without teeth?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

扬言调查录音泄露事件 中华总商会会长亦参与人协基层工作

本月10日,贸工部长陈振声出席新加坡中华总商会(SCCCI)的一项闭门对话会。不料会议上的谈话内容被录音,音频在网络疯传。 音频中可听见陈振声,以新加坡式英语向与会者解说政府处理口罩问题面对的难处,期间更揶揄一小撮国人到超市疯抢日用品囤货、抢购口罩的行为“下衰”,认为是“白痴”(idiots)行径。 对于谈话内容泄露,新加坡中华总商会黄山忠也发表文告,谴责泄露音频者的行为,也认为此举使商会声誉遭损,以及伤害了商会与陈振声部长多年来建立的信任。 不过对于商会会长的回应,人权律师张素兰反倒有不同看法,她在脸书发文浅谈此事,希望“给商会会长一些安慰”,认为后者不必对录音泄露一事感到担忧,因为私人会议上录音政府也常做,该会会员在会上录音的行为,并不可耻。 张素兰:本来无良誉 何惧损毁? 但张素兰话锋一转,又指不必对该会成员行为可能拉低商会声誉一事,感到遗憾。“您和商会可能对贵会的“崇高声誉”过于自负。对我而言,贵会对于普通老百姓无所建树。实则贵会只对有钱有势者阿谀奉承。” 她反倒建议黄山忠不必去调查到底是谁泄露陈振声的谈话内容,“就我所知贵会也没有声誉。而且我知道,群众根本不在乎。” 她回溯2015年,他代表功能八号氏族会,为陈嘉庚的外孙傅树介医生的著作《活在欺瞒年代》,租用陈嘉庚礼堂办推介活动。她付了抵押金;但数日后被告知,理事不让租用,且没告知理由。 后来傅树介在推介礼上曾提起,身为陈嘉庚外孙,却不能租用以外公命名的礼堂,推介自己的回忆录向老人家致敬,对此他感到遗憾。“对我而言,这是一个病危社会的征兆。” 黄山忠任大巴窑中公民咨询委会主席 事实上,除了领导新加坡中华总商会,黄山忠本身是达丰控股董事经理兼首席执行官。…

BTO flats in Punggol flooded by rain, residents complain to MP

Following reports of defects which first surfaced in May at the Waterway…

Netizens dig out about PAP supporter after he publicly admits he was among the first to leak WP’s Raeesah Khan’s comments

Netizens dig out old tweets of Abdul Malik Mohammed Ghazali, who seems…

1.5 million IC numbers stolen from SingHealth but cyber security chief says no worry

It was reported on Friday (20 Jul) that cyber hackers have broken…