The Malaysian Bar’s International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”) 2026 takes place from 27 to 30 Oct 2026 at MITEC, Kuala Lumpur.
By Corina Robert Mangharam, Farez Jinnah
This session, titled “The Position of Core Competition Law Principles”, was one of three concurrent streams in the Conference’s first breakout session. It addressed the position of core competition law principles in the current dynamics of legal practice and commercial relationships. Sponsored by the Malaysia Competition Commission (“MyCC”), the session was moderated by Richard Wee Thiam Seng, Managing Partner of Richard Wee Chambers, who welcomed three speakers comprising legal practitioners and regulators from Malaysia and overseas.
The first speaker, Datuk Haji Iskandar b Ismail, Chief Executive Officer of MyCC, responded to Richard Wee’s question on why merger control was not included in the recent amendments made to the Competition Act 2010 (“CA”). He noted that Malaysia is the only ASEAN Member State without merger control, one of the three pillars of competition law. After extensive stakeholder consultation, MyCC had settled on a voluntary regime. He said merger control remains on the table, since the Government’s plan to consolidate competition powers under MyCC, including those of sector regulators, would require MyCC to have merger powers. He described the recent amendments as almost a new law. Among other things, they make it a criminal offence to ignore MyCC’s information requests or to provide incomplete or false information, and allow MyCC to issue warning letters for smaller matters. They also widen the definition of “enterprise” to cover trade associations, protect and reward informants, and introduce settlement with up to 40 percent off penalties for parties that admit liability, though decisions are still published. Removing the distinction between horizontal and vertical agreements, he explained, responds to more sophisticated arrangements such as digital platforms, hub-and-spoke arrangements and algorithms, although MyCC will not investigate every agreement. He emphasised that MyCC aims to correct market behaviour rather than punish, and that its priority is cartels affecting the cost of living.
The second speaker was Yon See Ting, Partner of Christopher & Lee Ong. On advising clients on transactions without a general merger control regime, she advised practitioners to check for sector-specific merger regimes, such as in communications and aviation. She cautioned that sharing commercially sensitive information between competitors during due diligence could infringe section 4 of the CA and recommended information protocols, staged data rooms and “clean teams”. Non-compete, non-solicitation and exclusivity clauses must be justified and no wider than necessary, and deals involving global businesses may trigger foreign merger filings. On the amendments, she cautioned that responses to MyCC’s market reviews must be true, accurate and complete. She also observed that parties must admit liability before knowing their settlement discount. With “horizontal” removed from the deeming provision in section 4(2) of the CA, vertical agreements such as resale price fixing will now be deemed anti-competitive. Relief under section 5 of the CA is the only way out and it is difficult to obtain. Businesses may therefore need to review their distribution agreements before the amendments take effect and guidelines from MyCC would be welcome.
The third speaker, Winnie Ching, Group Director (Legal and Enforcement) of the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCCS”), explained that under Singapore’s voluntary merger notification regime, businesses must still self-assess whether a merger would substantially lessen competition. Parties notify for certainty, as CCCS monitors mergers and may investigate them at any time. A voluntary regime suits Singapore as a small, open economy where most mergers raise no concerns, allowing CCCS to focus on those that do. Mergers that raise concerns may still proceed with commitments. She warned that sharing confidential information before a merger is signed could still amount to an anti-competitive agreement. She noted that Singapore offers settlement discounts of up to 30 percent and does not distinguish between vertical and horizontal agreements. Although vertical agreements are excluded from Singapore’s prohibition because of their pro-competitive effects, CCCS still examines them where they facilitate collusion or raise concerns about an abuse of dominance.
In concluding the session, Richard Wee remarked that Malaysia’s competition law framework is still evolving and that competition law principles must be applied in corporate matters, particularly in mergers and acquisitions. He added that understanding the Singapore regime is important, given the number of cross-border transactions involving the two jurisdictions.
*This article reports on Breakout Session 1, Stream C: Corporate and Commercial Law.