What about Singtel and Starhub for bidding such huge amount for Soccer! Our entertainment on TV?
SISTIC and bid-rigging cartel fined for infringing Competition Act
SINGAPORE: Ticketing service provider, SISTIC, and a bid-rigging cartel of electrical and building works companies have been fined for infringing the Competition Act.
Passed in Parliament in 2004, the Act aims to deter anti-competitive activities such as abuse of dominance and bid-rigging.
SISTIC was slapped a fine of close to S$1 million.
SISTIC enjoys a market share of up to 95 per cent and appears to have monopolised the ticketing arena.
While dominance is not an issue, the company was found to have abused its position by blocking other players from competing.
It did this by signing agreements with the Esplanade, Singapore Indoor Stadium and 17 event promoters to be the sole ticketing agent for all their events.
The 19 agreements captured 60 to 70 per cent of the ticketing market, severely limiting competition.
The other players in the market are tickets.com, gatecrash and global ticket network.
Teo Eng Cheong, chief executive, Competition Commission of Singapore, said: "Any other potential or existing competitor who may want to have a small share of the market cannot come in at all. They have no opportunity to fight for one business from any of these 17 event promoters, or if they want to get the business of a performance which is being conducted at the Esplanade or the Indoor Stadium."
The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) said such behaviour is harmful for the market as the entire ticketing services market in Singapore loses its vibrancy and impetus for innovation and improving efficiency.
For example, SISTIC was able to raise its booking fee for ticket buyers by 50 per cent to S$3 and sustain the increase as there was little competition.
For this, SISTIC was fined S$989,000, becoming the first company to be taken to task for abuse of dominance.
The amount is between “zero and five per cent” of SISTIC's turnover from the exclusive agreements.
SISTIC must also remove any exclusivity clause by the August 4.
The company is appealing against the decision, saying it has always been committed to operating in a healthy competitive environment.
In a statement, chief executive officer of SISTIC Kenneth Tan said the company regrets the decision of the CCS.
He said: "SISTIC has always believed and been committed to operating in a healthy competitive environment and will strongly defend our case. SISTIC, a company jointly-owned by the Singapore Indoor Stadium and The Esplanade, has always competed through superior innovation and technology and by providing the best services to our clients in Singapore and regionally.”
SISTIC has appointed Senior Counsel from Drew & Napier, Cavinder Bull, to lead a legal team comprising Drew & Napier LLC and Allen & Gledhill LLP to file an appeal to the Competition Appeals Board.
In a separate case, 14 electrical and building works companies were fined S$187,592 for colluding on 10 bids.
Mr Teo said: "One of the parties may request for support bids from other companies and in essence, give higher bids, higher prices, so that the first party will have a higher chance of winning the bid."
The companies colluded on maintenance and air-conditioning contracts for commercial buildings such as the Esplanade and condominiums such as Pinewood Gardens from July 2007 to April last year.
The cartel activity was exposed after one of the companies, Arisco, stepped forward with information.
Cartels are usually secretive and it's difficult to prove their existence. So when Arisco came forward with information about the bid-rigging, it was awarded full immunity.
Under the leniency programme, Arisco was exempted from financial penalties as it did not initiate the cartel and it had cooperated fully during investigations.
The company revealed to CCS that its previous management had entered into bid-rigging arrangements with other companies to coordinate the price of quotations.
CCS then carried out surprise inspections at the premises of the companies, conducted interviews and obtained documents.
Seven of the companies made representations to CCS earlier this year.
They did not contest liability, but requested for a waiver or reduction of the fines, or asked to pay them by instalments.
Each company was fined between S$5,000 and S$45,000.
This represented about two per cent on average of each company's turnover.
SISTIC and bid-rigging cartel fined for infringing Competition Act
SINGAPORE: Ticketing service provider, SISTIC, and a bid-rigging cartel of electrical and building works companies have been fined for infringing the Competition Act.
Passed in Parliament in 2004, the Act aims to deter anti-competitive activities such as abuse of dominance and bid-rigging.
SISTIC was slapped a fine of close to S$1 million.
SISTIC enjoys a market share of up to 95 per cent and appears to have monopolised the ticketing arena.
While dominance is not an issue, the company was found to have abused its position by blocking other players from competing.
It did this by signing agreements with the Esplanade, Singapore Indoor Stadium and 17 event promoters to be the sole ticketing agent for all their events.
The 19 agreements captured 60 to 70 per cent of the ticketing market, severely limiting competition.
The other players in the market are tickets.com, gatecrash and global ticket network.
Teo Eng Cheong, chief executive, Competition Commission of Singapore, said: "Any other potential or existing competitor who may want to have a small share of the market cannot come in at all. They have no opportunity to fight for one business from any of these 17 event promoters, or if they want to get the business of a performance which is being conducted at the Esplanade or the Indoor Stadium."
The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) said such behaviour is harmful for the market as the entire ticketing services market in Singapore loses its vibrancy and impetus for innovation and improving efficiency.
For example, SISTIC was able to raise its booking fee for ticket buyers by 50 per cent to S$3 and sustain the increase as there was little competition.
For this, SISTIC was fined S$989,000, becoming the first company to be taken to task for abuse of dominance.
The amount is between “zero and five per cent” of SISTIC's turnover from the exclusive agreements.
SISTIC must also remove any exclusivity clause by the August 4.
The company is appealing against the decision, saying it has always been committed to operating in a healthy competitive environment.
In a statement, chief executive officer of SISTIC Kenneth Tan said the company regrets the decision of the CCS.
He said: "SISTIC has always believed and been committed to operating in a healthy competitive environment and will strongly defend our case. SISTIC, a company jointly-owned by the Singapore Indoor Stadium and The Esplanade, has always competed through superior innovation and technology and by providing the best services to our clients in Singapore and regionally.”
SISTIC has appointed Senior Counsel from Drew & Napier, Cavinder Bull, to lead a legal team comprising Drew & Napier LLC and Allen & Gledhill LLP to file an appeal to the Competition Appeals Board.
In a separate case, 14 electrical and building works companies were fined S$187,592 for colluding on 10 bids.
Mr Teo said: "One of the parties may request for support bids from other companies and in essence, give higher bids, higher prices, so that the first party will have a higher chance of winning the bid."
The companies colluded on maintenance and air-conditioning contracts for commercial buildings such as the Esplanade and condominiums such as Pinewood Gardens from July 2007 to April last year.
The cartel activity was exposed after one of the companies, Arisco, stepped forward with information.
Cartels are usually secretive and it's difficult to prove their existence. So when Arisco came forward with information about the bid-rigging, it was awarded full immunity.
Under the leniency programme, Arisco was exempted from financial penalties as it did not initiate the cartel and it had cooperated fully during investigations.
The company revealed to CCS that its previous management had entered into bid-rigging arrangements with other companies to coordinate the price of quotations.
CCS then carried out surprise inspections at the premises of the companies, conducted interviews and obtained documents.
Seven of the companies made representations to CCS earlier this year.
They did not contest liability, but requested for a waiver or reduction of the fines, or asked to pay them by instalments.
Each company was fined between S$5,000 and S$45,000.
This represented about two per cent on average of each company's turnover.
