Why CCS not taking action against.....

[leetahbar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_535936.html

Hmm... does the CCS police the Singtel/Starhub deals, which make consumers pay-and-pay-more?
Posted by: spfairley at Sat Jun 05 07:45:39 SGT 2010

there are many monopolistic bizs - transport, telcos, utilities, hdb conservancy etc in sgp which r... milking us dry :(, what have been done to restrain them? nothing when they can cough out lame reasonings.See MoreSistic handed big fine
www.straitstimes.com
<p>
TICKETING giant Sistic was fined $989,000 yesterday, the heaviest sanction handed down by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) since it began policing the Republic's entrepreneurial landscape in 2006 to ensure a level playing field.</p> <p>The CCS ruled that... Sistic had abused its dominan...

 

[Watchman]

1 million is pocket change to them !

 

[Brightkid]

The petrol cartel has been at it for donkey years, rotating price increase between each of them and setting the same price throughout at any point in time.

CCS do not know about it ? chey !

What more do you want......<someone pls add the famous rejoinder from one of the MIW to this question> ?

 

[leetahbar]

so we ask:

WHAT THE HELL IS ACTUALLY CCS really doing? just like CASE. if u lodge a complaint with them, there is so many procedures to adhere to first b4 they take up your case. u gotta be their member and pay $50.....which makes one wanna complain against CASE too!!:oIo:

 

[leetahbar]

dunno whether this is valid or not.

what about the excessive money every singaporeans is paying to the minitoots? profiteering from our blood and sweat??:p

 

[leetahbar]

for those who are irritated by SDP IB losers and cowards spamming clones, just click the IGNORE key and perusing would be made much easier and least offensive.

 

[leetahbar]

another wayang show??

MTI says no to excluding doctors' Guideline on Fees from Competition Act
By Claire Huang | Posted: 07 June 2010 1103 hrs

SINGAPORE: The government has thrown out the Singapore Medical Association's (SMA) request for its guidelines on fees to be excluded from the Competition Act.

After consulting the Ministry of Health (MOH), the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has determined that the guidelines could create anti-competitive behaviour, and cannot be excluded from the Competition Act.

The guidelines were introduced in 1987 by SMA and the Association of Private Medical Practitioners of Singapore (APMPS), following the MOH's calls for a guide on medical charges.

This was to equip patients with pricing information on consultation and surgical fees, and to prevent private doctors from overcharging.

In April 2007, the SMA removed the guidelines voluntarily on legal advice that they could contravene the Competition Act.

It then sought to have the guidelines excluded from the Act.

The MTI said in a statement that in the absence of other information, the guidelines would have been useful in providing information to patients on medical fees.

But the MOH is already publishing actual medical fees at hospitals on its website.

In May this year, the government announced that all hospitals making Medisave claims will have to submit basic billing information from early next year.

Public hospitals have been doing so for the last seven years and this is part of the government's plans to make pricing more competitive and realistic in the private sector.

Dr Chong Yeh Woei, president of SMA said: "We hope that the mechanisms to protect the patients will be sufficient, but the downside of this is that there will be a risk that there'll be an erosion of trust between the public and the profession.

"Now, it doesn't matter whether it's the private sector or public sector, the public will perceive it to be an industry-wide sort of situation."

While he admits that there are black sheep in the industry, Dr Chong pointed out that most doctors still charge reasonable fees.

SMA said it will continue to publish data on specialists' fees to give patients some information on pricing in the private medical sector.

It had filed a separate notification with the Competition Commission of Singapore in February last year, and the commission said it

 

[leetahsar]

for those who are irritated by SDP IB losers and cowards spamming clones, just click the IGNORE key and perusing would be made much easier and least offensive.

hum ka charn

dui lei lo mo fa hai!

 

[saratogas]

R u questioning CCS's productivity? Faster, cheaper n better.
Before they check they need to look at who is Singtel n Starhub investors. Cannot any how offend BIG shots. Any way almost all Sinkies are Singtel shareholders, hurt the company means hurt ur own pocket.

 

[leetahbar]

R u questioning CCS's productivity? Faster, cheaper n better.
Before they check they need to look at who is Singtel n Starhub investors. Cannot any how offend BIG shots. Any way almost all Sinkies are Singtel shareholders, hurt the company means hurt ur own pocket.

goh cheok tong once boasted that Singtel shares shall fly like SIA. did that really happen? not even closed! just like SWISS STANDARD he so ambitiously how lian about. did that happen? wages are down, inflation is up ....kampong era or worst caveman period are more likely. :(

 

[leetahbar]

competition commission of s'pore has alot of looking in to do. they gotta be fast to take action. one day delay means every singaporeans suffer a loss due to unfair monopoly and profiteering.

the culprits are so obvious but nothing seem to be done, highlighted or corrected.

by the way, how long does it take for CCS to finally decide to censor SISTIC? how much excesses have been sapped from consumers?

would they look seriously into petrol companies fuel cartel, singtel, sbs, smrt, pub, hdb, ura (domination over rentals and land prices), gov hospitals etc to see if anti-competition practices are also rampant?

 

[leetahbar]

what about SGX? it's the sole monopoly biz which leeches from an array of charges and commission sapped from investors. is this fair?

they cook up a host of reasonings but in the end protecting investors from unscrupulous practices from listed companies seems to be the last thing in their mind.