I am disappointed with the the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore’s (the Watchdog) finding that NTUC Enterprise’s proposed acquisition of food centre operator Kopitiam would not lead to a substantial lessening of competition. Giving the green light to this acquisition would see NTUC Enterprise buying all of Kopitiam Investment and its subsidiaries, which span 80 outlets island wide. With this in mind, this acquisition would make NTUC Enterprise the largest and dominant operator of food courts in Singapore. How can the Watchdog then conclude that this would not be anti competitive?

The whole premise of the Watchdog is to ensure that consumers get the best deal possible. In other words, prevent monopolies that could lead to reduced choices in the market. Robust competition ensures that prices are kept affordable and that businesses do not get complacent or arrogant. In permitting this acquisition by NTUC Enterprise, the Watchdog is in effect helping to create such a monopoly that it is tasked with preventing in the first place. Will permitting this acquisition affect its reputation as an effective Watchdog? Would its credibility and legitimacy as an independent and objective watchdog be tarnished?

The Watchdog has said in its findings that “in assessing the sale of cooked food to consumers in hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts within a 500m radius of the parties’ premises,  it found that NTUC sold such food only in a very limited number of stalls in these locations. Why is the bench mark 500m? That is hardly far! As it is, don’t we already have too many stalls for too few people? How did the Watchdog conclude that this would still be “sufficient competition”? What studies and data did they use and apply?

Secondly, the Watchdog has concluded that even post merger there would still be at least five other established competing operators. In my opinion, this misses the point. The question should be whether or not the merger would lead to a reduction of competition and not whether or not there are still competitors remaining? In other words, will the merger make it more difficult for the remaining five to effectively compete?

The Watchdog also concluded that the merged entity from the proposed acquisition would not have the ability or incentive to shut out competitors and to mandate purchases through central kitchens and supply chain networks. I wonder what is the basis of such a conclusion. The number of consumers remain the same and one competitor has been taken down. Surely that would increase NTUC’s bargaining power by decreasing its competitors’ abilities to compete?

Just by size alone, it would be able to stifle competition. Thing about it. The larger the enterprise, the more able it is to be able to get cheaper raw materials and the like. The larger an entity is, the more it can force its pricing on the consumer. Isn’t that common sense?

On a plain reading of what’s been reported on the news, I don’t find the findings of the Watchdog compelling or persuasive in the least.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Tan Kiat How appointed as CEO of IMDA starting from 1 January 2017

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has announced the appointing of Tan…

三款药物被揭含未经批准成分 卫生科学局吁勿购买服用

卫生科学局(HSA)提醒群众,有三款药物:‘Skinny Lolita’、‘Xtreme Candy’以及一种瓶装无标签棕色胶囊,含有未经批准药用成分,呼吁民众切勿购买和服用。 该局指Skinny Lolita和Xtreme Candy,主要出现在新马网购平台,至于无标签胶囊则被发现在红山市场小贩摊贩售。 当局指出,无标签胶囊每瓶约50颗粒,还附上以中文书写传单介绍,指胶囊100巴仙纯草药,含有辣木籽、冬虫夏草和田七花等草药,并宣称可用于增强免疫力、抗癌、高血压、高胆固醇和糖尿病等。 一名50岁妇人为了消除头疼,食用上述无标签胶囊长达三至四个月,结果出现“库欣综合征”(Cushing’s syndrome),可引起高血压、免疫力下降,体重增加,甚至“月亮脸”症状。 为妇人看诊的医生,怀疑胶囊掺有类固醇而向卫科局举报。当局则检验出胶囊内含有类固醇和其他强效药用成分如阿莫西林(一种抗生素)、氯苯那敏(一种抗组胺药)、双氯芬酸(一种止痛药)和西地那非(一种勃起功能障碍药)。 至于 ‘Skinny Lolita’…

Opposition parties deliberate contesting in Bukit Batok by-election

The Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency (SMC) seat has been left vacant…