**FAIR COMPETITION FOR HEALTHY ENTREPRENEURIAL
ENVIRONMENT
Loganathan Krishnan
Department of Management
Faculty of Accountancy and Management
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The business world is becoming competitive and aggressive. Hence, entrepreneurs are using
various methods and means to ensure their businesses survive and have a competitive advantage
over other businesses. Fundamentally, the legal framework has to ensure that there is a level
playing field among entrepreneurs. It should not be a case where the law allows for unfair
competition. If there is, then large businesses may affect small and medium sized businesses. In
that case, it will create an unhealthy business environment. This study attempts to explore the
current legal framework dealing with fair competition. The study then examines the benefits and
impact of having laws to govern fair competition. The study proceeds to show that the current
legal mechanisms are inadequate to ensure a robust and healthy competition among
entrepreneurs. Finally, the study concludes by looking at the legal position governing fair
competition in other developed countries as a working model for Malaysia which will benefit
entrepreneurs generally.
Keywords: Fair Competition, Entrepreneurship
1
Introduction
Nationalization, regionalization, internationalization and globalization of businesses have
significantly contributed to a dire need for fair competition not only domestically but regionally
and globally. Developed countries, namely United States of America (USA), European Union
(EU) countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have begun dealing with this issue on a
serious note. They have realized that there must be laws to ensure there is fair competition
among entrepreneurs. Consequently, fair competition has also become pivotal in developing
countries in order to compete with developed countries. Fundamentally, with the entry of China
into World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, there is increased competition at the
international forefront (Yang, 2006). Added to this scenario, is the liberalization of trade by
China and India and the fact that Malaysia is in a strategic location, between the two countries.
Current Position
Malaysia is taking various measures to achieve sustainable economic growth and development.
Thus, Malaysia practices free enterprise economy in order to compete regionally and globally.
Furthermore, Malaysia became a member of the WTO on 1st January, 1995. Consequently,
Malaysia was required to enable trade liberalization and facilitation, albeit not immediately, to
encourage open market and fair competition. However, being a member of an international body
does not necessarily mean there will be fair competition unless the domestic attitude of a nation
is inclines towards fair competition practices (Pape, 1999). Observably, in a free enterprise
economy, there will be stiff competition. Stiff competition is welcomed, as long as it is healthy.
Essentially, there must be level-playing field in the market forces i.e. fair competition.
On that score, there must be a competition law in Malaysia (Hazaldine, 1992). Thus, in 1993,
Trade Practices Bill was drafted by the Ministry of Domestic and Consumer Affairs (MDTCA),
with the intention of countering unfair competition. The bill was drafted since there is a need to
ensure there is fair competition among entrepreneurs (Economic Planning Unit, 1996).
Nonetheless, the government was concerned whether there is a real and practical need for such a
law. Although the government realized the benefits of having a competition law, it was not ready
to have such a law (MDTCA, 1999). This raises a concern because if the government has
realized the benefits of having a competition law, it should have enacted the law. In deciding
whether a competition law is necessary, the interests of the public should be taken into account
(OECD, 2004).
In 1999, a Working Committee on Competition Policy was set up to determine a suitable
competition policy (MDTCA, 2000). Although the government was not ready to enact a
competition law, it was keen in drawing up a competition policy. Nevertheless, the issue is
whether competition law and competition policy will achieve similar objectives i.e. to counter
unfair competition practices. Similarly, if the government was not ready to enact a competition
law, on what basis is the government ready to draw up the competition policy. Hence, it is clear
that the policy drawn up will not have the same objective as a competition law. The
government’s intention to draw up such a policy is to encourage competition. It is interesting to
note that since Malaysia practices free enterprise economy, the foremost question is whether
2
there is a need to encourage competition. A free enterprise economy will inadvertently create
competition. Thus, the more pressing issue is whether the policy addresses fair competition.
In 2005, Fair Trade Practices Policy (FTPP) was drawn up by the government. It is not per se a
competition policy but the issue of unfair competition falls within the purview of the FTPP. The
government’s intention to draw up the policy is commendable as an impetus to the enactment of
a competition law. It was proposed that a body named Fair Trade Practices Commission (FTPC)
be set up, to implement the FTPP effectively. Such a body must be independent of the
government, have access to all information which may assist them in determining competition
and have the requisite resources in carrying out its duties effectively (Clark, 2005). Nonetheless,
the FTPC can only be set up once a competition law is enacted. Since a competition law is yet to
be enacted, the FTPC remains as a proposal.
On the issue of a competition law, Malaysia does not have a single comprehensive competition
law (Zaidan, 2004). This is so although the call was made in 1992 and it is now 2008. It does not
mean that there is no need for a competition law or that there is no unfair competition.
Nonetheless, the government has enacted several legislations to deal with unfair competition.
They are namely Price Control Act 1946, Moneylenders Act 1951, Control of Supplies Act 1961,
Hire Purchase Act 1967, Trade Descriptions Act 1972, Weights and Measures Act 1972, Direct
Sales Act 1993, Gas Supply Act 1993, Control of Padi and Rice Act 1994, Guidelines for
Regulation of Acquisition of Assets, Mergers and Takeovers 1998, Malaysian Code on
Takeovers and Mergers 1998, Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and Consumer
Protection Act 1999. Conversely, the current laws which deal with competition in bits and pieces
were not intended (Cheong, 2001). Unfair competition is regulated at sectoral level (MDTCA,
2004). This means that a respective competition law only covers a specific sector of the industry.
There will be other sectors of the industry which are not covered by the respective competition
law. Hence, there may be entrepreneurs who resort to unfair competition practices to ensure that
their businesses excel, and yet are not in breach of any of the competition laws. Therefore, until
and unless there is a single comprehensive competition law, it cannot be said that the
entrepreneurs have engaged in unfair competition practices.
Furthermore, the concern is the legal justification for addressing unfair competition at sectoral
levels and not in totality. Competition is surely found in any businesses. It cannot be only present
in those industries. Arguably, certain current policies are in protection of products and services.
Hence, the government is unable to enact a comprehensive competition law as it will be in
conflict with the said policies. Therefore, in enacting a single competition law, the government
should firstly untie protectionist policies.
In 2007, there was a revival of interest by the government to enact a competition law. However it
has not found its way to the legislature. Fundamentally, the inter-role of the law and the policy is
uncertain. If a competition law is enacted, it must be determined whether the law will contradict,
replace, reproduce or be compatible to the FTPP. Nonetheless, the government, in enacting a
competition law must be certain of the objective i.e. addressing unfair competition practices.
3
Moreover, importance is given to competition law due to transformation of former government
monopolies into private monopolies through privatization (Cook, 2002). In Malaysia, the issue of
competition became important since many government bodies were privatized (Lee, 2003). The
privatization began in 1980s in notable sectors such as electricity, telecommunications, transport
and postal services. Hence, the concern is what should be the next step, after the privatization
(Lee, 2002). Privatisation is seen as a mechanism to move towards market-based economy
(Lloyd, 2000). Since the bodies have been privatized, it means that the bodies have business and
commercial features. It also means that they could compete with other organizations offering the
same products or services. Thus, naturally the issue of competition arose.
This is because although the bodies were privatized, they still had the government’s support.
Thus, this is unfair competition. Other organizations have to stand on their own feet and compete
within their own means and resources. Hence, the notion of unfair competition should not be
merely restricted to practices which one organization may resort to as against another
organization.
Definitions and Meanings
Since there is no single comprehensive competition law, reference will be made to United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Competition is defined as the
process of rivalry among businesses (UNCTAD, 1997). Essentially, rivalry among businesses are
not what they are today than what they were before the two world wars and the cold war. At the
same time, it does not mean there can be rivalry at any cost. On the other hand, competition
policy refers to policy aimed at preserving and promoting competition (UNCTAD, 1997).
Therefore competition policy will cover all government policies (Stewart, 2000) which promote
competition domestically, regionally and internationally.
Furthermore, the nature and types of competition has changed over the years. Competition does
not only appear between domestic entrepreneurs within a country. It can also be between
domestic entrepreneurs and foreign entrepreneurs due to regionalization, internationalization and
globalisation of businesses.
Hence, different countries will have different competition policies. Consequently, the policies
will be in conflict. The issue will then arise which policy promotes fair competition. If the
countries are members of the WTO, then reference will be made to WTO policies which serve as
a benchmark. On the other hand, the concern is whether the WTO policies are in favour of the
interests of the developed countries or the developing countries. Hence, the crux of the matter is
the difficulty in dealing with cross-border competition issues.
In the context of FTPP, fair trade practices refer to a situation where the environment favours the
consumers from various perspectives which results to consumer satisfaction (MDTCA, 2005). If
the practices are not in favour of the consumers, it can be considered as unfair competition. The
consumers’ satisfaction is used as a benchmark to determine whether a particular practice falls
within the purview of fair competition. Nonetheless, the FTPP did not lay down guidelines as to
the manner to determine the customers’ satisfaction and the way it will be used as a benchmark.
4
Fair Competition
Fundamentally, the issue of unfair competition should not be solely looked from a legal point of
view. It must also be looked at from market and economics point of view (Len, 2006). The key
to a healthy economic development is a freely functioning capital market as this will achieve an
efficient allocation of resources (Morck, Wolfenzon & Yeung, 2005). On the other hand, a freely
functioning capital market will cause a disastrous effect (Keynes, 1936).
This debate is ongoing between those countries which are protective over its goods and services
and those countries which are championing for an open and free market. Similarly, within a
country, the tussle between those entrepreneurs who are in favour of open competition and those
who wish to protect their products and services is also ongoing. The government on the other
hand has to juggle through this dichotomy not only in the interest of the nation but also the
interests of the entrepreneurs on one hand and the welfare of the consumers on the other hand.
Competition will promote economic progress in any market forces (Clark, 1940). Furthermore,
there is a need for a culture of competition in an open free market (Chakravarthy, 1999).
Nonetheless, it should not be a case of only free competition and not a fair competition.
Otherwise, the economic progress of a country will be affected.
This is because businesses and entrepreneurs directly or indirectly dictate the economic progress
of a country. Fair competition will also encourage new entrants to the business market. There
will be no restrictions, limitations or prohibitions for new entrants to the market. This will be
beneficial especially to those small and medium sized entrepreneurs as opposed to the market
which is monopolised by large companies, i.e. public companies regardless of whether they are
listed on the stock market. Thus, it can be seen that usually those who are in monopoly, will be
against a fair competition law. Furthermore, entrepreneurs can take effective measures to ensure
that resources are allocated to the consumers wisely. This is important since there have been
shortages of cooking oil, sugar, rice, chicken and diesel. Hence, effective allocation of resources
will also improve the efficiency in the market (Sya, 1995). If open competition is allowed,
businesses and entrepreneurs are given the freedom to operate their activities. They will not be
allowed to dictate the terms and conditions in the market. However, the market must work well
so that businesses will grow. Thus, competition law will also act as a protection to those
entrepreneurs who are engaged in fair competition. In the absence of competition, businesses
will remain inactive. There will be no element of entrepreneurship.
Competition will also reflect the true price of products and services in the market. In most cases,
the price will be lower since entrepreneurs are in stiff competition. This is beneficial to the
consumers as they will have a higher purchasing power. Moreover, entrepreneurs will ensure
there are varieties and innovativeness of their products and services in the market. This is to
bring down the prices and attract consumers. Consumers will have more information about the
details of the products and the services. The consumers will also have full information of the
operating market forces. Therefore, consumers will have a wider choice of selection of the
products and services available in the market.
5
Thus, one of the ways to determine whether consumers are in favour of the products or services
is to see whether they are willing to pay the price. Arguably, this is the benchmark, the FTPP
referred to. Nonetheless, this is not a satisfactory benchmark. This is because consumers do not
have similar economic background and thus do not have equal purchasing power. The
willingness to pay the price is not realistic. If petroleum is taken as an example, whether a
consumer is from low-income group, middle-income group or high-income group, he has to pay
the same price. The high-income group may be willing to pay the price since the purchasing
power is higher.
In neo-classical economic theory, the welfare of the consumer is maximized where there is
perfect competition (Lipsey, 1983). Perfect competition is where there are many buyers and
sellers in a particular market which produce the same products (Khoo, 1992). Nonetheless, the
concern is whether there can be a perfect competition. Perfect competition means that the
entrepreneurs are engaged in fair trade practices. In an open and free economy, dictated by the
desire of excelling in business especially in a world of capitalism, it will be an idealistic dream to
expect entrepreneurs to compete fairly. Thus, some form of law or policy is especially required
as opposed to expecting a perfect competition.
Therefore, the main purposes of competition law are to promote fair trade, healthy competition
and bring about benefit to consumers (Bowman, 1073). A competition law is an important way
of fulfilling the needs of the consumers. It law is needed especially in developing countries
because of their small markets and state-sanctioned barriers to entry and exit of businesses
(Maskus & Lahouel, 2000) especially in the case of Malaysia.
Addressing Unfair Competition
Fair competition law will act as a mechanism of protection for the consumers as against unfair
competition practices. Nonetheless, in enacting a single comprehensive competition law, it must
be clear what fair competition is. Although the UNCTAD and MDTCA have shed some light as
to the meaning of fair and unfair competition, they are unsatisfactory. This is because they are
too simplistic and do not address real competition.
Moreover, there can be an effective competition law only if the government is willing to enact
such a law (Parker, 2002). Thus, to counter unfair competition practices, there must be effective
laws, effective enforcement, transparent procedures and processes (Ogus, 2002). What is
important is a harmonious business environment (Stocking & Watkins, 1946).
The FTPP has set out the following objectives (MDTCA, 2005):
a. The law will not only encourage competition but it will also protect entrepreneurs from
any form of unfair competition;
b. Consequently this will produce dynamic and competitive entrepreneurs;
c. There will be fair and competitive opportunities in the market;
d. It will prevent unfair competition practices including those which originated outside
Malaysia thereby affecting the domestic market;
e. To encourage small and medium sized entrepreneurs to participate in the market;
6
f. To promote the welfare of the consumers, encourage socio-economic growth and
generate fairness in doing business.
The above objectives raise a few concerns. This is because since there is no single
comprehensive competition law, the objectives cannot be achieved. The policy is inter-dependent
on a competition law. The policy cannot operate n its own. The only laws that could achieve the
above objectives are the competition laws applicable to the respective sectors. Thus, the FTPP
will remain on the drawing board until a competition law is enacted.
Another concern is that the FTPP will be in conflict with the current economic and trade policies
drawn up by the other ministries. This is because, there are certain measures undertaken by the
other ministries to protect entrepreneurs. This can be seen especially in the agricultural sector.
Thus, it is unclear how the FTPP will be implemented effectively. In the event there are no
conflicts, one will then have to examine how will the different policies operate and interact
harmoniously.
It is also not clear the way the government will ensure compliance from the entrepreneurs not to
engage with anti-competitive practices since FTPP is only a policy. This is because if there is no
legal requirement of compliance, there is no guarantee that there will be accountability by the
entrepreneurs to the business community.
Thus, if entrepreneurs have adopted unfair competition practices, they are not in breach since the
policy does not have any legalistic aspect. Consequently, there cannot be any effective
enforcement mechanisms. The policy does not empower the government to take any legal actions
against the wrongdoers.
On the other hand, there should be a separate body, responsible in commenting and opposing
government policies that restrict competition (Boner, 1995). The body should have the following
features (Khemani, 1994):
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Transparency of the administration, regulations and procedures;
Separation of investigation and prosecution from adjudication functions;
Expeditious and transparent proceedings that safeguard sensitive business information;
Provisions for imposing significant penalties;
Checks and balances to guarantee due process, including the right of appeal, reviews of
decisions and access to information on legal and economic interpretations.
It must also be able to participate in the formulation of the country’s economic policies which
may affect competition (World Bank, 1998).
Currently, there is no such body in Malaysia. Dissenting voices can only be heard from the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Most often than not, such bodies are viewed negatively i.e.
that NGOs are against positive development and economic progress of a country.
There are also dissenting voices from the consumers but they are not accorded due consideration.
This is because they usually voice in the media which may not represent the views and opinions
7
of the general public. Furthermore, the views of the consumers are not unison and thus it is
difficult to measure what the real interests of the consumers are.
On the other hand, there must be an effective judicial system to ensure that the law is enforced
effectively. On that point, Malaysia is seen to be grappling with difficulty since of late, the
judiciary has been considered as weak and ineffective.
Unfair Competition
There is nothing wrong for businesses to sustain their business and economic growth. It is also
nothing wrong to be at the apex of a particular industry. In fact, stockholders and stakeholders
welcome such entrepreneurship. The government welcomes such endeavours as this will
contribute to the government’s desire to push the country to the assemblage of developed nations.
Nonetheless, business excellence has to be achieved fairly in the interests of the business
community i.e. other entrepreneurs in the market place.
Since there is no single comprehensive law on unfair competition, there can be monopolies and
restrictive trade practices present in the market place. These monopolies and restrictive trade
practices are against public interest (Madieha, 2003). Thus, with the advent of being in the apex
of a certain industry, the businesses may adopt certain measures to protect their products and
services. This may be done by setting barriers as against the products or services of other
businesses.
In fact, foreign investors exhibit monopolistic behaviour (Jenkins, 1987). Thus, Malaysia being a
developing country is protecting its domestic entrepreneurs from the monopolistic behaviour of
the foreign entrepreneurs. This is in accordance with one of the objectives of FTPP i.e. to protect
the domestic market from the foreign market. Nonetheless, it is not an open and free competition.
Thus, the issue is whether it can still be considered as a fair competition. From the domestic
entrepreneurs’ point of view, it will be considered as a fair competition. From the foreign
entrepreneurs’ point of view, it will be considered as unfair competition.
Additionally, foreign direct investment (FDI) has also brought about a negative result. This is
because FDI will cause greater losses to domestic entrepreneurs since there is greater
competition (Tan, 1997). If the competition is fair based on FTPP that is acceptable particularly
to the domestic entrepreneurs. However, the FTPP will take into account the interests of the
domestic entrepreneurs. This will not be in favour of the interests of the foreign entrepreneurs. In
such a case, foreign entrepreneurs will be reluctant to increase their FDI in Malaysia.
Consequently, Malaysia will lose out to other countries which address unfair competition
effectively. Malaysia cannot solely depend on its domestic entrepreneurs.
The FTPP pointed out the following forms of unfair practices:
1. Collusion/ Vertical Cartel Actions – this will arise in cases where there are very few
producers in the market. Such exclusive business practices will empower those in the
market to secretly have agreements among themselves to fix the price, to limit production
of goods and to create a false picture of the market. In such a case, the new entrants to the
8
business market will face undue hardship and difficulties to compete fairly. These cartel
actions will particularly harm the middle parties in the heavy industries and export
industries which will increase the price and the cost for certain industries.
2. Monopoly – this will arise in cases where the market forces are placed in the hands of
certain entrepreneurs who are using that to manipulate price and supply of products or
services. Thus, the concern is over entrepreneurs who are monopolizing the business of
their products or services. If the particular entrepreneur is a dominant player in the
market, that is not an issue. However, if the dominant position is being abused and it
reduces fair competition then there is a need to take the necessary actions. The
government will particularly look out for exclusive business practices, control of supply
of products among the consumers and withholding of products.
3. Misleading Advertisements; Giving of Tender through Secret Business Arrangements;
Fraudulent Trade Practices - some businesses may engage in unethical, misleading,
dishonest or fraudulent advertisements to attract consumers.
The above shows that the government is fully aware of the various forms of unfair competition
practices in the market. Nonetheless, the FTPP is unable to address the unfair practices.
Entrepreneurs whether they are domestic or foreign may adopt such practices. Unethical foreign
entrepreneurs may find Malaysia a heaven to do business. In the short run it will benefit the
country. Nonetheless, in the long run it will be more damaging. To remedy the situation will
prove to be more difficult than simply enacting a comprehensive law on competition.
The result of allowing unfair competition is that there will be deficient market structures and
abusive market behaviour. The business community will be severely affected as there is no
healthy entrepreneurial environment. Unethical, misleading, dishonest and fraudulent trade
practices will be resorted to. The consumers will be at a loss. This will then taint a negative
picture of Malaysia as a fair trade country. It defeats the purpose of being a member of WTO i.e.
to compete globally. It will also be a futile attempt to compete with developed countries and
become a developed nation. The reluctance of the government in enacting a single
comprehensive competition law will be damaging the entrepreneurial community and the
consumers.
Other forms of unfair competition can also be seen in respect of public policies, foreign
exchange restrictions, quotas on imports that limit foreign competition, government linked
companies, government-sanctioned monopolies and subsidies to favoured businesses. However,
the minimum the competition law must deal with are cartels, monopoly and mergers (Scherer,
1995).
Comparative Study
Notably, there is no single fair trade agreement for the member countries of the WTO. The
DOHA round of free trade discussions which began in 2000, collapsed in 2006. Be that as it may,
some countries have adopted bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with other countries
without the involvement of the WTO. Thus, the entry level and the expectations of each country
9
as regards to fair competition will not be the same as other countries. Thus, there will be
differences of treatment by one country against another country. It will also depend on the
negotiation skills and powers of a country in drawing up a freed trade agreement. That by itself is
seen as unfair trade practices. In such a case, achieving a fair trade environment globally remains
to be seen.
International Bodies such as WTO, European Union, (EU), Asia-Pacific Economic Caucus
(APEC), World Development Bank (WDB) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) have voiced their concern that there must be competition policy and law
in every country. However, these bodies expect the member countries to adopt a standard
competition policy and law to their benchmark not realizing that some countries are developing
and some are undeveloped. Developed countries cannot expect developing and undeveloped
countries to be on par with them in terms of their concept as to what is fair and unfair
competition. Nonetheless, that seems to be the case. There are cultural, legal, economic and
institutional differences between one country and another (OECD, 2004). If the benchmark is not
reached, there could be trade sanctions which will consequently affect the businesses in that
particular country. Furthermore, the said bodies have their respective objectives and agenda.
The WTO has rejected the view that free trade will make competition law superfluous (WTO,
1997). The EU and the USA which have an open market, have the most active competition law
and that there are no anti-competitive business conduct (Lloyd & Vautier, 1999). Most
importantly there is no market crash. The entrepreneurs of those countries are faced with
aggressive competition and yet have managed to compete fairly.
In the context of regional trade agreements, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
has not adopted any regional competition law. The formation of Asian Free Trade Area (AFTA)
in 1992 is viewed as a regional open competition policy for ASEAN countries. Nonetheless, it is
protective of entrepreneurs in the ASEAN region at the expense of entrepreneurs who are not in
the ASEAN region. Thus, foreign entrepreneurs have begun operating their businesses within the
region. The regional entrepreneurs are affected by such operations. Yet the regional governments
are oblivious to such practices. It is viewed from a bigger picture of ensuring free competition.
The following table provides information on the competition laws and the relevant enforcement
body. It can be seen that the issue of unfair competition is not an overnight issue. It has occupied
the legal minds at a very early stage. There are also specific bodies responsible in enforcing the
laws. There is no dependence on government policies as they are ineffective.
Country
Australia
Canada
Name of the Law
Date
Competition Law
Was Enacted
1906
Trade Practices
Act
1888
Competition Act
Enforcement
Body
Australian
Competition and
Consumer
Commission
Competition
Bureau
10
Japan
1947
New Zealand
1908
United States
1890
Anti-Monopoly
Act
Commerce Act
Fair
Trade
Commission
Commerce
Commission
Sherman Act & Department
of
Clayton Act
Justice & Federal
Trade
Commission
It should be noted that other member countries of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
which also do not have competition laws are Brunei Darussalam, Papua New Guinea, Russia and
Vietnam. Thus, Malaysia should follow the steps taken by Australia, Canada, Japan, New
Zealand and United States in enacting a single comprehensive law on competition instead of
relying on FTPP and sectoral legislations on competition. During the Asian financial crisis, there
was only a minor impact on Australia due to its comprehensive competition law (OECD, 2004).
On the other hand there was no relationship between the crisis and having a comprehensive
competition law (Singh & Zammit, 2006).
Conclusion
A fair competition for a healthy entrepreneurial environment does not solely depend on the
introduction of government policies on competition. The government must also be innate in
enacting a single comprehensive legislation on competition law in the interests of domestic
entrepreneurs. On the other hand, the rights and interests of foreign entrepreneurs should not be
neglected as that will discourage FDI in Malaysia. All policies which are in conflict with
competition policy should be revamped. Thus, the intention of the Federal Government not to
apply the National Economic Policy for the Iskandar Project in Johore is highly welcomed albeit
it should be done carefully as not to jeopardise the rights and interests of the Bumiputera
entrepreneurs. Essentially, an effective government body, entrusted with the duty of enforcement,
should carry out its role responsibly. There must be a harmonious balance struck between the
rights and interests of the domestic entrepreneurs and the foreign entrepreneurs. The domestic
entrepreneurs cannot remain protective of its products and services in perpetuity. There are other
businesses in the market. Domestic entrepreneurs should begin to learn to compete in an open
market without being accorded undue protection. On the other hand, foreign entrepreneurs have
immense experience, knowledge and skill over their products and services. Therefore, their
products and services have the ability to dominate the market at the expense of the growth of
domestic entrepreneurs. Thus, it can be seen that in essence, fair competition law is both
interventionist and protectionist. In that sense, arguably, a healthy entrepreneurial environment
can be created for fair competition and an environment conducive to make Malaysia a business
friendly region.
11
References
Boner, R. A. (1995). Competition policy and institutions in reforming economies. In C. Frischtak
(Ed.) Regulatory policies and reform: A comparative analysis. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Bowman, W. S. (1973). Patent and antitrust law: A legal and economic appraisal. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Chakravarthy, S. (1999). Role of competition policy in economic development and the Indian
experience. Monographs on investment and competition policy. No 1. Jaipur: CUTS Centre for
International Trade, Economics and Environment.
Clark, J. M. (1940). Towards a concept of workable competition. American Economic Review,
30(2), 241-256.
Clark, J. (2005). Competition advocacy: Challenges for developing countries. OECD Journal of
Competition Law and Policy, 6(4), 70.
Cheong, M. F. (2001). ASEAN competition law project (draft) Malaysia Country Report. Kuala
Lumpur: University of Malaya. 20 March 2001.
Cook, P. & Minogue, M. (2002). Introduction: Privatisation, regulation and competition in
developing countries. Annals of Public and Cooperating Economics, 73(4), 485 – 492.
Economic Planning Unit. Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996-2000 (1999). Kuala Lumpur: Prime
Minister’s Department.
Hazaldine, T. (1992). A competition policy for Malaysia? Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of
Economic Research.
Jenkins, R. (1987). Transnational corporations and uneven development: The internationalisation
of capital and the third world. London: Mathuen.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. New York:
Macmillan.
Lehmann, M. (1989). Property and intellectual property – Property rights as restrictions on
competition in furtherance of competition. IIC, 20, 1 – 15.
Khoo, E. (1992). The porous veil – A study on the influence of EEC and US competition law on
Australian trade practices law. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 19, 17.
Lee, H. K. (2003). Implementing competition policy in Malaysia. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
12
Lee, C. (2002). Telecommunication reforms in Malaysia. Annals of Public and Cooperative
Economics, 73(4), 521-540.
Len, D. (2006). A comparative study of competition law: What’s in store for Malaysia? Current
Law Journal, 2, i.
Lipsey, R. (1963). An introduction to positive economics (6th ed.). London: Weidenfeld.
Lloyd, P. J. & Vautier, K. M. (1999). Promoting competition in global markets: A multinational
approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lloyd, P. J. (2000). Competition policy in the Asian-Pacific region. Asian-Pacific Economic
Literature, 14(2), 1.
Madieha, I. (2003). Some thoughts on the interface between copyright and competition policy:
The Malaysian Perspective. Current Law Journal, 2, xvii.
Maskus, K. E. & Lahouel, M. (2000). Competition policy and intellectual property rights in
developing countries, The World Economy, 23(4), 595-611.
Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. (2000). Malaysia country paper. Paper
presented at course on competition law and policy: Cross-Country approaches and experiences,
Singapore, 14-20 May 2000.
Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. (2005). Fair Trade Practices Policy. Kuala
Lumpur: Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs.
Morck, R. Wolfenzon, D. & Yeung, B. (2005). Corporate governance, entrenchment and growth.
Journal of Economic Literature, XLIII, 655-720.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (2004). The benefits of competition
law and policy for developed and developing countries. Journal of Competition Law and Policy,
6(1) & (2), 40.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The goals of competition law and
policy and the design of competition law and policy institutions. Journal of Competition Law
and Policy, 6(1) & (2), 78.
Ogus, A. (2002). Regulatory institutions and structures. Annals of Public and Cooperative
Economics, 73(4), 625 – 646.
Pape, W. (1999). Socio-Cultural difference and international competition law. European Law
Journal, 5(4), 441.
Parker, D. (2002). Economic regulation: A review of issues. Annals of Public and Cooperative
Economics, 73(4), 493 – 519.
13
Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs.
Competition law and policy in Malaysia. Competition Seminar. Bangkok. 13-14 December 1999.
Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. The challenge
for the establishment of competition policy and laws in Malaysia. 24 November 2004.
Scherer, F. M. (1996). International trade and competition policy. In E Hope (Ed.). Competition
policy in an integrated global economy. London: Routledge.
Singh, A. & Zammit. A. (2006). Corporate governance, crony capitalism and economic crises:
Should the US business model replace the Asian way of doing business. Corporate Governance,
14(4), 220.
Stewart, T. (2000). Globalisation, competition policy and international trade negotiations:
Considerations for developing countries. Monographs on investment and competition policy, No
4, Jaipur: CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics and environment.
Stocking, G. & Watkins. M. (1946). Cartels in Action: Case studies in international business
diplomacy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
Sya, L. S. S. (1995). Competition policy in the EC: The role of the treaty provisions relating to
state aids and public undertakings, Current Law Journal, 2, lv.
Tan, T. S. (1997). Measuring the benefits and costs of foreign direct investment – with reference
to Malaysia. Asian Economic Journal, 11(3), 227.
UNCTAD. (1997). Empirical evidence of the benefits from applying competition law and policy
principles to economic development in order to attain greater efficiency in international trade and
development, (TD/B/COM.2/EM/10). 18 September 1997.
World Bank, OECD (1998). A framework for the design and implementation of competition law
and policy. Chapter 6, 93.
World Trade Organisation. (1997). Annual Report 1997(1). Geneva: World Trade Organisation.
Yang, Y. (2006). China’s integration into the world economy: Implications for developing
countries. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 40.
Zaidan, Z. (2004). Report on structural reform, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of
International Trade and Industry.
14