Analysis based on whether MyCC has met its Objectives or

not
The Malaysian Competition Commission has pushed hard ever since its establishment, to
achieve and attain its objectives. The MyCC (in its infancy) has made significant strides forward.
The previous twelve (12) months did not just represent the MyCCs first full year of operation,
but demonstrated the tireless efforts involved in creating the framework for the enforcement of
the Competition Act 2010. Appendix 1 displays MyCCs Milestones dating from 2010-2012.
The MyCC has performed hard to accumulate attentiveness and educate the Malaysian public,
businesses and government on the presence of the Competition Act 2010, in addition to exactly
what it signifies. Since the beginning of the year 2011, the MyCC has executed more than sixty
(60) seminars, focused at a wide selection of interest groups from SMEs to government
procurement officers to trade, not to forget business associations. This advocacy work persists
with SME and big-rigging roadshows planned for 2013 (Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism, 2014).
On the contrary, countless corporations are still not aware of the presence of the law, on the other
hand, others presume it does not relate to them, which becomes worrying facts. It could be that
some companies who attended the seminars have not distributed the relevant information whilst
others think that their counterparts will not be interested or it is not of their concern. To aid the
publicized at large to comprehend the Competition Act 2010, the MyCC has publicized six (6)
sets of guidelines conveying precisely how key provisions of the legislation will be interpreted
(refer to appendix 2 for a brief view of the 6 guidelines). A handbook for the general public, a
simplified non-legal guide to the Competition Act 2010 was publicized. Efforts are underway to
publish a guide for businesses that bears the capability to offer more in-depth information about
how the provisions of the competition Act 2010 are likely to be applied by the MyCC.

Malaysian Competition Commission Cases

The first case is based on, Malaysian Airline System Berhad, also known by its abbreviations as
MAS, together with two (2) AirAsia entities, specifically named as AirAsia Berhad and
AirAsia X Berhad, in which they had ventured into a Collaboration Agreement with the depicted

intention of sharpening the focus on core competencies, rendering better products and preference
for customers, and unquestionably creating greater value for all stakeholders. The Collaboration
Agreement was entered into in conjunction with a share-swap arrangement which was
subsequently unwound. The primary purpose of this agreement was to vanquish competition on
the same routes, which meant benefitting both carriers. The Malaysian Competition Commission
(MyCC) discovered that MAS coupled with AirAsia had infringed section 4(2)(b) of the
Competition Act 2010 by agreeing to share markets within the air transport services sector in
Malaysia under the Collaboration Agreement, which MyCC considered as anti-competitive. In
other words, under this law, a horizontal agreement between enterprises which has the objective
to share market or sources of supply is prohibited (Refer to appendix 3.0 for the definition of a
horizontal agreement). The proposed fine of RM 10 Million each against MAS and AirAsia was
confirmed. This case displays the actions apprehended by the MyCC in order to meet its
objectives and can be considered as an achievement.
The second Case concerns the Cameron Highland Floriculturist Association (CHFA). The
Malaysian Competition Commission (MyCC) issued a final decision against the Cameron
Highlands Floriculturist Association for contravening Section 4(2) of the Competition Act 2010
(CA2010). The MyCC found CHFA engaging in an anti-competitive agreement to increase the
prices of flowers by ten (10) percent (%). The acquisition was based on the argument that a
horizontal agreement between enterprises which has the objective to fix, directly or indirectly, a
purchase or selling price is prohibited. Nevertheless, unlike the first case (1 st), CHFA was able to
avoid a financial sanction/penalty due to the fact that they complied with the MyCCs Warning.
The MyCCs proposed Decision earlier had set out the following remedial actions;
I.
II.

The CHFA shall cease and desist the infringing act of fixing prices of lowers
The CHFA shall provide an undertaking that its members shall refrain from any anti-

III.

competitive practices
The CHFA shall issue a public statement on the above mentioned remedial actions in the

IV.

mainstream newspapers
Once a decision is made by the MyCC under Section 40 of the Competition Act 2010 and
the CHFA fails to comply according to the direction stated above, a finical penalty
amount to RM 20, 000 may be imposed. An additional Rm 1,000 will be imposed for
each or part of each following day that the CHFA fails to comply.

These cases are amongst a few out of many, and serve to demonstrate that the MyCC has met its
objectives. Since these two (2) cases only relate to horizontal Agreements (one of the MyCCs
objectives), another case will be presented where there was a scenario of predatory pricing. An
illustration of a Malaysian company in violation with the Competition Act 2010, according to
Star Publications (2013), based on the investigations carried out by the Malaysian Competition
Commission, Megasteel is the only domestic manufacturer of hot rolled coil in Malaysia and is
also involved in the production of cold rolled coil for the downstream cold rolled coil market.
The Malaysian Competition Commission alleges that Mega steels conduct of charging or
imposing a price for its hot rolled coil is disproportionate to the artificially low selling price of its
cold rolled coil and amounts to a margin squeeze that has the effect of preventing competition in
the downstream market, making it a serious breach of competition law.

References
Borneo Post (2014) MyCC probes 47 cases under competition act, Available at:
http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/09/26/mycc-probes-47-cases-undercompetition-act/ (Accessed: 6 November 2014).
Liew Jia Teng (2014) MyCC finds AirAsia, MAS guilty, airlines to appeal fine, Available
at: http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1013979 (Accessed: 6 November 2014).
Malaysian Competition Commission (2013) INSTITUTING THE COMPETITION ACT
2010 - THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES AND ACADEMICS, Available at:
http://forumwarga.usm.my/wp-content/forum-file-uploads/pentadbir_forumusmmy/2013/09/Brochure-Final-3-Sept-2013.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2014).
Malaysian Competition Commission (2014) Case, Available at:
http://mycc.gov.my/case/ (Accessed: 6 November 2014).
Malaysian Competition Commission (2014) Malaysia Competition Commission
Guidelines Chapter 2 Prohibition, Available at:
http://malaysianlaw.my/attachments/MyCC-Draft-Guidelines-Chapter-2_77042.pdf
(Accessed: 6 November 2014).
The Star Online (2013) MYCC says Megasteel violated Competition Act, faces
RM4.5m penalty, Available at: http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-

News/2013/11/01/MYCC-ISSUES-PROPOSED-DECISION-ON-MEGASTEEL/?style=biz
(Accessed: 6 November 2014).
Zaharin Mat Noor and Mohd Azhar Ibrahim (2014) MyCC: Advancing Towards A
Competitive Malaysia, Available at: http://kpdnkk.bernama.com/featuresEn.php?
id=992374 (Accessed: 6 November 2014).

Appendices
Appendix 1

Appendix 1: MyCCs Milestones dating from 2010-2012

Source: Malaysian Competition Commission Annual Report (2011)

Appendix 2
Appendix 2: Six (6) guidelines imposed by the Malaysian Competition
Commission
Source: Malaysian Competition Commission (2014)

Appendix 3
Appendix 3: Definition & Illustration of a Horizontal Agreement
Source: Malaysian Competition Commission (2014)