the impact of fair trade practices policy on professional services lee swee seng llb, llm, mba...

Fair Trade Practices Policy

Introduction Objective Scope Prohibition Organization Structure for

Enforcement Authority

INTRODUCTION

The Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (MDTCA) has prepared a draft policy paper as well as a draft law on fair trade/competition in Malaysia.

The mandate or the formulation of a fair trade or competition policy and law is found in paragraph 16.32 (Chapter 16: Distributive Trade) of the Eight Malaysia Plan (RMK-8)

* Source: Official Website of Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs, http://www.kpdnhep.gov.my

The Plan states the need for the policy and law to prevent anti-competitive behavior such as;

• collusions• cartel price fixing • market allocation and abuse of market power

whereby a fair trade/competition will, amongst others, prevent firms from protecting or expanding their market shares by means other than greater efficiency in producing what consumers want.

* Source: Official Website of Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs,

http://www.kpdnhep.gov.my

The Fair Trade Practices Bill is expected to be tabled in Parliament by early next year (2009). Feedback was being sought from industry members, non-governmental organisations and government agencies.

The proposed Act has to be consistent with the aspirations outlined in the Asean Community blueprint, in which member countries will have its own Anti-Competitive Act by 2015.

So far there are no laws to counter monopolistic trade activities in Malaysia. Actions can only be taken if the act is contravene the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 and Consumer Protection Act 1999.

*Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/20/parliament/22124136&sec=parliament

Current Position in Malaysia

At present, there are only 2 sectors that have competition laws and regulations:

1) Communication and Multimedia• Competition regulation for the communications and multimedia sector is

enshrined in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (“CMA”). The relevant provisions that explicate the general competition practices are:i. Section 133 – prohibits anti-competitive conduct that will substantially

lessen competition in the communications and multimedia sector.ii. Section 139 – provides for the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia

Commission (“MCMC”) to direct a licensee who is in a dominant position to cease the anti-competitive conduct, which has resulted in substantially lessening competition.



iii. Section 140 – provides the Commission with authority to authorise conduct which has effect of substantially lessening competition.

2) Energy Sector• under the Energy Commission Act 2001 (“ECA”), one

of the functions of the Energy Commission is to “promote and safeguard competition and fair and efficient market conduct or, in the absence of a competitive market, to prevent the misuse of monopoly or market power in respect of the generation, production, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity and the supply of gas through pipeline”.



In the past, Malaysia has implemented four (4) main trade policies:

1) Social-economic aspects concerning exports-oriented industries that promoted foreign direct investment;

2) A policy called “National Economic Policy (“NEP”)” to eradicate poverty and to provide wealth redistribution;

3) A trade policy that places high import duties on imported products; and

4) A privatization policy.



Other Legislations - There are some legislation that have direct or indirect

control over the economic sectors, i.e:• Companies Act 1965 (“CA”)• Control Supplies Act 1983 (“CSA”)• Trade Descriptions Act 1972 (“TDA”)• Direct Sales Act 1993 (“DSA”)• Hire Purchase Act 1967 (“HPA”)• Consumer Protection Act 1999 (“CPA”)• Food Act 1983 (“FA”)• Money Lenders Act 1951 (“MLA”)• Control of Paddy and Rice Act 1974 (“CPRA”)• Electricity Act 1949 (“EA”)

* Source: http://www.kpdnhep.gov.my

OBJECTIVE

Malaysia’s fair trade practices law will soon be tabled in Parliament and enacted as legislation. The Fair Trade Practices Policy (FTPP) approved on 20 October 2005, will seek to achieve 8 policy goals:

1) Promote and protect competition in the market;

2) Create dynamic and competitive entrepreneurs;

3) Provide fair and competitive market opportunities for business.



4) Prohibit anti-competitive practices including those originating from outside the Malaysian territory and affecting the domestic territory;

5) Prohibit unfair trade practices in the economy;

6) Promote right of SME to participate in the market place;

7) Promote consumer welfare; and

8) Encourage socio-economic growth, generate efficiency and equity.



SCOPE OF FAIR TRADE PRACTICES POLICY (FTPP)

The FTPP will not cover:- Sovereign function of the Government; and All actions and measures attributable to the state that seeks

to encourage socio-economic growth and to generate efficiency and equity.

The scope of FTPP will apply to competition matters throughout the economy. However, existing technical regulations and supervisions for their respective sectors will

remain under the purview of relevant institutions.



PROHIBITIONS

The proposed FTPP will prohibit the following conducts:-

• Monopolization;• Hard-core cartels;• Anti-competitive practices which do not yield

benefits to consumers; and• Unfair trade practices.


MONOPOLISATION• Existence of legitimate/legal domestic monopolies are

inevitable and acceptable for business organizations in the process of development and can maximize benefits from globalization.

• Example of monopoly that could be allowed under the FTPP are legal monopolies or monopolies earned through superiority or invention and which are usually associated with intellectual property rights.

• However, monopolistic conduct which are referred to as monopolization, such as predatory pricing, exclusive dealings, excessive pricing and tied selling can lead to inefficiencies and raise costs to the economy and the society.



ILLICIT CARTEL In a market characterized by few producers for

particular products and goods, firms might find it profitable to collude to fix prices, allocate markets, limit productions and engage in bid rigging in order to maximize their profits.

• The proposed FTPP will prohibit illicit cartels per se. Nevertheless, export cartels, which seek to expand Malaysia’s trade with its other trading partners, would not fall under the scope of the prohibition.

• The exemption of export cartels is in line with existing practice in both developed and developing countries.


ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

Anti-competitive agreements which seek to restrain and eliminate competition such as insisting on retail price maintenance or when more than one party undertakes agreements such as collusive tendering, restraints on production or sale and others would be harmful to the competition process and therefore should be prohibited.

However, anti-competitive agreements will be examined on a case-by-case basis (rule of reason approach) and if the conduct or the agreement entails benefits to consumers which outweigh the cost of the anti-competitive effect, the anti-competitive agreement will be authorized.* Source: Official Website of Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs,


UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

FTPP will prohibit unfair trade practices, which substantially lessen competition, or create unfair competition condition between competitors or harm consumer interests.

It will therefore address unfair practices including misleading advertisements, unfair dealing between small and large economic operator, false promotions, claims, statements, promotions and sales tactics.



ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE FOR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY

To implement the FTPP, a framework for an enforcement system will be set up as follows:-

Fair Trade Practices Commission (FTPC) comprising of Commissioners who are representatives of the various ministries, sector regulators, business and consumer representatives and trade unions. The Commission will be serviced by an administrative body.

Fair Trade Practices Appeals Tribunals to review decisions taken by the competition commission if referred to it by parties; and

Appeals Procedure to the High Court * Source: Official Website of Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs,


HOW IS SCALE FEES UNDER SOLICITOR’S REMUNERATION ORDER (SRO) COMPATIBLE WITH FAIR TRADE POLICY?

Professional fees are intellectual and creative products, and not commodities. Therefore, the primary purpose of scale fees is to set a benchmark to establish a reasonable level of remuneration, commensurate with the provision of professional service of an acceptable and recognized standard.

* Source: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/solicitors_remuneration_enforcement

• In a ‘free market’ situation it is often too tempting for the consumers requiring professional services to seek out the cheapest, sidelining the issue of quality of service, in particular when such quality is not immediately or easily discernible.

• This ‘shopping around’ or ‘marketing for cheaper fees’ will lead to an unhealthy widespread undercutting of professional fees.

When fees are uneconomic and do not commensurate with the level of the services that ought to be provided, it is not uncommon for the quality of professional services rendered to be compromised.

Hence, scale fees will not only benefit but will also protect the consumers, since with the scale fees professionals will then have to compete with one another on the quality of professional services, and not on pricing.

Scale fees have been an accepted and common method of charging for professional services in Malaysia. It prevents both overcharging and undercutting, and protects consumers by promoting high quality professional services.

Effective and stringent measures must be taken by the various professional bodies and boards to enforce their respective scale fees against their members in order to ensure and preserve high standards of the professional services rendered to the public.

* Sources: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/solicitors_remuneration_enforcement

UNITED KINGDOM In 1973, the UK Government enacted the Fair Trading

Act 1973 that focused on public interest. In 1980, the Competition Act was enacted focusing on

competitive effects in the conduct of individual firms and industries, which law enforcement machinery was still inadequate.

The Competition Act enacted in 1998 became effective in 2000 with the law on restrictive agreements and of dominant position conforming to the prohibition approach of the European Union (“EU”)

* Sources: http://www.cljlaw.com/membersentry/articlesdisplayformat.asp?A_2006_01

Competition in market for goods and services is essential for economic efficiency. The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) considers that the principles of competition policy and law should be applied to the business and market activities of all professions as they apply to other business activities.

However, important exclusions remain in place for professional rules. Nonetheless, Government policy is to increase competition and some of the professions have themselves, in this period, embarked on reforms designed to foster competition in their various business activities.

Freedom to advertise and to set prices competitively is widely accepted in the professions in the UK.

* Source: http//www.oecd.orgdataoecd3541920231.pdf

The Competition Act 1998 administered by Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) introduces two (2) prohibitions:

(1) (“Chapter 1”) of agreements (whether written or not) which prevent, restrict or distort competition and which may effect trade within the UK

(2) (“Chapter 2”) of conduct of undertakings which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position and which may effect trade within the UK.

• In the meantime, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) will continue to act to influence improvements to the competitive structure of the professional services sector under the DGFT’s existing competition powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973, and using the advisory role given to it in relation to lawyers under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and its territorial equivalents.


The Competition Act 1998 (Chapter 1) deals with restrictive practices engaged by companies operating within the UK that distort, restrict or prevent competition.

These are primarily in the form of horizontal agreements (agreements to collude between firms on the same level of the supply chain such as retailers or wholesalers). These agreements could be to limit output, collusively share information, fix prices, tender collectively and share markets out. Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is responsible for prosecuting such firms who engage in these activities.

Exemptions from prohibition are available if the firm can demonstrate that these practices are in the interest of the consumer through increasing market efficiencies or advancing technical progress.

* Source: httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiCompetition_Act_1998

The Chapter 1 prohibition will apply in principle to the rules and decisions of professional bodies in the same way as it does to those of other associations of undertakings, subject however to certain important exclusions.

o The exclusion from the Chapter 1 prohibition only applies in relation to professional services which are designated. A list of designated professions is in Schedule 4 of the Competition Act 1998. There are 18 categories.

A professional body is capable of being an association of undertakings within the meaning of the Chapter I prohibition. As such, the rules and decisions of professional bodies are subject to the application of the Chapter I prohibition.


The following rules and guidance issued by the Law Society (UK) were identified as potentially restrictive of competition:

1) Fee guidance for non-contentious work such as probate and conveyancing. The guidance is indirectly based on the Solicitors’ (Non-Contentious Business) Order 1994.

2) Prohibition on advertising fees by making comparisons with fees of another solicitor.

3) Prohibition on seeking business by telephone from potential clients (‘cold-calling’).

4) Prohibition on making or receiving payment for referring a client to a solicitor.

* Source: http//www.oft.gov.ukshared_oftreportsprofessional_bodiesoft385.pdf

The Law Society has been active in addressing the issues raised. The Law Society has abolished the prohibition on comparative fee advertising and also removed the prohibition on ‘cold calling’ to business. The prohibition remains in respect of non-business clients.

The Law Society argues that the restriction is necessary to protect consumers and highlights the area of personal injury litigation as one in which, in the absence of the prohibition, public detriment might result. OFT accept this point.

The Council will consider proposals later this year (2002) to amend the prohibition on payment of referral fees. The restriction hampers the development of new forms of marketing that could bring clients and professionals together.

* Source: httpwww.oft.gov.ukshared_oftreportsprofessional_bodiesoft385.pdf

The Law Society has indicated that it is willing to withdraw the fee guidance currently issued in relation to probate and conveyancing work.

While only some of the restrictions have been removed, amended or justified, OFT consider that for the time being, the most effective way to achieve the aims is to encourage the Law Society to proceed with its programmes of reform and to review progress regularly to ensure that the Law Society is proceeding in a timely and appropriate manner. So long as self-deregulation is proceeding effectively, public action is not immediately necessary.

* Source: httpwww.oft.gov.ukshared_oftreportsprofessional_bodiesoft385.pdf

Chapter II deals with the abuse of a dominant position by a firm who uses practices such as predatory pricing, excessive prices, refusal to supply, vertical restraints and price discrimination to maximise profit, gain competitive advantage or otherwise restrict competition.

In investigating alleged breaches of chapter II a two stage process is involved.

1) Firstly it must be identified if the firm actually possesses a dominant market position.

2) Generally if a firm is found to have a market share in excess of 40% then it is considered a threat to competition.

There are no exemptions to chapter II as by its very definition as "abuse" of a market position, one must be guilty of wrongdoing for the chapter to apply.

* Source: httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiCompetition_Act_1998

Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there are 3 approaches laid down:

1) Achieving the desirability of maintaining and promoting competition;

2) The interest of consumers and users with respect to price and quality of a product would create a healthy competition; and

3) Promoting production efficiency and innovation.


The Office of Fair Trading under the purview of the Director General of Fair Trading stated that their goal was to make markets work well for consumers. Markets work well when there is vigorous competition between fair dealing businesses.

When markets work well, good business flourish.


AUSTRALIA In October 1992, an Independent Committee of Inquiry was

established by the Prime Minister following agreement by all Australian governments on the need for a national competition policy.

In August 1993 the Independent Committee of Inquiry reported to the heads of Australian Governments (‘the Hilmer Report’).

In its submission to the Hilmer Inquiry, the then Trade Practices Commission, argued strongly in favors of universal application of Australia’s competition law – the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA), and therefore application of the competitive conduct rules of the TPA to the business activities of the professions. * Source: http//www.oecd.orgdataoecd3541920231.pdf

In February 1994, the Council of Australian Governments (‘COAG’) meeting in Hobart agreed to enact legislation to achieve the universal application of competition laws to all business throughout Australia as recommended in the Hilmer Report.

In particular, the aim was to apply the competition laws to unincorporated business and government businesses, including all of the professions.

Since then, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Parliments have passed laws to apply Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the State equivalent – the Competition Code, to achieve universal application of the competition laws to everyone in business in Australia. These changes came into effect on 21 July 1996.


Policy of The Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA)

The overall policy of the TPA can be shown by looking at 3 different aspects of the TPA. (1) The first is: •Part IV - headed "Restrictive Trade Practices". - The policy underpinning that Part of the Act is to promote competition. (2) The second aspect is: • Part IVA - headed "Unconscionable Conduct"; and• Part V - headed "Consumer Protection". - The policy underpinning those two parts of the Act is to ensure competition is fair. *Source: http//www.accc.gov.aucontentitem.phtmlitemId

(3) The third aspect is: • Part VII - headed "Authorisations and Notifications in respect

of restrictive trade practices"; and • Part IX - headed "Review by Tribunal of determinations of

Commission”.

- The policy underpinning those two parts is to allow the ACCC to authorise some forms of anti - competitive conduct which would otherwise breach the competitive conduct rules (ie breach Part IV of the Act). If the ACCC (Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) authorises the anti - competitive conduct it gets immunity from Court action. The related policy reflected by Parliament through Part IX of the TPA is to provide a mechanism for people affected by a Commission determination to seek independent review of that determination from the Australian Competition Tribunal.

*Source: http//www.accc.gov.aucontentitem.phtmlitemId

APPLICATION OF THE TPA TO THE PROFESSIONS

• The result of the competition policy reforms is that all business activities of the professions are now covered by the restrictive trade practices provisions (Part IV) of the TPA, which prohibits:

1) Anti-competitive agreements and exclusionary provisions, including primary and secondary boycotts and price-fixing;

2) Misuse of market power;3) Exclusive dealing;4) Resale price maintainance; and5) Mergers which would have the effect, or likely effect, of

substantiality lessening competition in a substantial market


Authorisation.

• The ACCC also has a relevant adjudication function. Recognizing that, in some instances, anti-competitive practice do deliver offset public benefits which can outweigh the anti-competitive detriments, the TPA empowers the ACCC to authorize some forms of anti-competitive conduct ( with the exception of the misuse of market power) that would otherwise be at risk of contravening Part IV of the TPA. If the ACCC authorizes such conduct, it is immune from legal action by the ACCC or by private parties.


PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF CONCERN.

• The ACCC has identified several forms of regulation of professional markets that are likely to inhibit competition and therefore raise concerns under the TPA. These form of regulation impact competition in two ways: through their effects on the structure of the relevant professional market; and on the market conduct of professional practitioners.

• Structural regulations of professional markets include those which:

• Regulate entry into the market (including the imposition of educational and competency standards, licensing and certification requirements, and restrictions on entry by foreign professionals and para-professionals);

• Define the field of activity reserved for licensed or certified professional practitioners;* Source: http//www.oecd.orgdataoecd3541920231.pdf

Separate the market functionally into discrete professional activities (including those performed by accredited specialist such as insolvency practitioners, barristers and medical specialist); and

Impose restrictions on the ownership and organization of professional practices.

Conduct regulations include those which:• Limit the fees professionals may charge, or require the

application of fee scales, for particular professional activities;

• Prohibit certain kinds of advertising, promotion or solicitation of business by professional practitioners; and

• Specify professional and ethical standards to be observed by, and disciplinary procedures to apply to, professional practitioners.


SINGAPORE In February 2003, the Economic Review Committee noted

that while Singapore have rules against anti-competitive activities in specific sectors like energy and telecommunications, there is no national competition law that covers the other sectors.

The Committee thus recommended that a national competition law be enacted to create a level playing field for businesses big and small to compete on an equal footing. This will make for a more conducive business environment.

The Government accepted the Committee's recommendation, as a national competition law will help to reinforce a pro-enterprise and pro-competition policies, enhance the efficiency of the markets, and strengthen the economic competitiveness.

* Source: Official Website of Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore, http//www.app.mti.gov.sgdefault.aspid=570

The objective of the competition law (Competition Act 2004) is to promote the efficient functioning of the markets and hence enhance the competitiveness of economy. The law seeks to prohibit anti-competitive activities that unduly prevent, restrict or distort competition.

Instead of attempting to catch all forms of anti-competitive activities, the principal focus will be on those that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in Singapore or that do not have any net economic benefit.

In assessing whether an action is anti-competitive, Singapore also give due consideration to whether it promotes innovation, productivity or longer-term economic efficiency. This approach will ensure that Singapore do not inadvertently constrain innovative and enterprising endeavors.

* Source: http//www.app.mti.gov.sgdefault.aspid=570

Competition Act 2004 apply to commercial and economic activities carried on by private sector entities in all sectors, regardless of whether the undertaking* is owned by a foreign entity, a Singapore entity, the Government or a statutory body.

However, as the intent of competition law is to regulate the conduct of market players, it will not apply to the Government, statutory bodies or any person acting on their behalf.

[* undertaking means any person, being an individual, a body corporate, an unincorporated body of persons or any other entity, capable of carrying on commercial or economic activities relating to goods or services.]


The Section 34 prohibition: This section prohibits agreements, decisions and practices which prevent, restrict or distort competition in Singapore. These include agreements between competing firms to fix prices, reduce the quantity of goods and services sold, or share markets. The provision(s) of any agreement or any decision that infringes this prohibition will be rendered void on or after the date the section 34 prohibition comes into force to the extent of the infringement.

However, Section 36 of the Competition Act empowers the Minister to make an order, following the recommendation of the Competition Commission, to exempt certain categories of agreements from the section 34 prohibition. This is provided that they improve production or distribution, or promote technical or economic progress, without imposing undue restrictions or substantially eliminating competition.


The section 47 prohibition: This section prohibits firms from abusing market power in ways that are anti-competitive and which work against longer-term economic efficiency, for example, predatory behaviour towards competitors.

The section 54 prohibition: This section prohibits mergers and acquisitions which substantially lessen competition and have no offsetting efficiencies.


The Competition Commission of Singapore administers and enforces the competition law. The Competition Commission has the power to investigate and adjudicate anti-competitive activities. The Competition Commission is also empowered to impose sanctions, such as requiring the offender to modify or terminate the agreement or conduct, pay a financial penalty, and carry out structural remedies. Structural remedies will be calibrated based on the redress needed to stop the anti-competitive activity in question.


HONG KONG In May 2008, the Hong Kong Commerce and Economic

Development Bureau published a three-month public consultation paper, entitled “Detailed Proposals for a Competition Law” (“Consultation Paper”).

The consultation, the second on the subject, is set to end on 5 August 2008, with the government then planning to introduce a competition bill during the 2008-09 legislative session.

The legislation is only likely to regulate anti-competitive agreements and abuse of market position and may not include merger control, but it will still make a big difference to the jurisdiction -- as current rules only cover telecoms and broadcasting.

* Source: http//www.law.comjsparticle.jspid=1202421427645&pos=ataglance

The salient features of the proposed new ordinance include the following:

1. It will focus on anti-competitive conduct such as exclusionary agreements and abuse of dominance.

2. An independent Competition Commission will be established to enforce the new ordinance and investigate alleged violations.

3. A Competition Tribunal will be established to review the Competition Commission’s decisions and adjudicate private actions.

* Source: http//www.hellerehrman.comdocsenHong%20Kong%

4. Private parties will have a right to pursue both stand-alone actions and follow-on actions (following government enforcement) - including representative actions.

5. Both the Competition Commission and the Tribunal will have the authority to issue financial penalties and fashion other civil remedies.

6. Tribunal decisions may be appealed to the Hong Kong courts on limited grounds.

7. A leniency program will be established to aid enforcement.

8. The law will also include potentially expansive exemptions and exclusions.

9. There remains a lack of clarity regarding the regulation of mergers and acquisitions.


PROHIBITED CONDUCT Rather than itemize specific prohibitions, the

Consultation Paper proposes a general prohibition of:1) agreements and concerted practices that have the

purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition; and

2) abuse of substantial market power with the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition.

• Although the Consultation Paper declines to identify “per se” illegal agreements, it states that price-fixing, output restriction, market allocation, bid-rigging and other similar “hard core” agreements will almost always have the effect of substantially lessening competition and will likely be a violation of the new law.


EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Under the proposed ordinance, the Competition

Commission may grant block exemptions for certain categories of agreements, and may also create one-off exemptions where the anticompetitive harms of an agreement are outweighed by its economic benefits. The Consultation Paper also proposes to exclude from enforcement:

1) any party entrusted with the operation of public services of general economic interests like public transport, water and power supply, and postal services;

2) any conduct that the Chief Executive-in-Council believes should be excluded because of public policy reasons; and

3) the Hong Kong government or statutory bodies.


CONCLUSION

The Fair Trade Policy of many countries cover the regulation of fees of professional bodies

In many countries, concerns have been raised that professional regulation has the direct or indirect effect of restricting competition in the market for professional services, raising the price and limiting variety and innovation in professional services.

In addition, where a professional association is delegated with certain regulatory powers, such as the power to discipline its members, concerns have arisen that professional associations may use these powers as a tool to restrict entry, fix prices and enforce anti-competitive co-operation between its members.

One of the anti-competitive practices which may give impact on the Fair Trade Practices Policy is the application of fee scales in professionals services. These facts can be observed from various Policies or Acts that govern competition in the market which classify the scale fees as a potentially restrictive of competition.

Thus, the so-called restriction should be removed and cannot be practised, or the relevant professional bodies be at risk of contravening the Fair Trade Policy/Competition Law.

The practice of fees fixing of professional services by the professional bodies is prohibited for reason that it will restrict the competition, limiting the performance and expansion of the professions

There are also other restrictions that concern the professional services other than the application of scale fees such as the licensing and qualifications. However, in some countries, there are some exemptions and exclusions provided for the relevant professions for them to justify the rules and regulations that they created. It has to be for the interests and benefits of the consumers and to ensure market efficiencies. With a few exceptions, the competition law applies to the professions.

As part of their enforcement activities, some competition authorities have responsibility to review and approve rules of professional associations prior to implementation, giving the competition authority the opportunity to oppose any anti-competitive arrangements.

the impact of fair trade practices policy on professional services lee swee seng llb, llm, mba...

Documents

ministry of domestic

distributive trade

trade descriptions

competition policy

multimedia act

fair trade practices

anticompetitive act

competitive market