TRADE POLICY REVIEW, 14 – 16 JULY 2008, GENEVA

CLOSING STATEMENT BY HEAD OF DELEGATION, MR RAVI MENON, SECOND PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, SINGAPORE, 16 JULY 2008

Mr Chairman, let me begin by thanking the discussant, Amb Shinichi Kitajima, for his insightful comments and questions on Monday, which helped to prompt a fruitful discussion.

Let me also thank the twenty Members who spoke on Monday. We are gratified by their interest in Singapore’s trade policy review, and appreciate their positive comments as well as constructive suggestions. On Monday, I responded to questions pertaining to macroeconomic policies, economic restructuring, social safety nets, trade measures, and government-linked companies. Today, I would like to respond to comments raised by Members in the areas of competition policy, intellectual property rights, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

First, competition policy. Several members lauded Singapore for enacting a comprehensive Competition Act and establishing the Competition Commission of Singapore to enforce the Act. Amb Kitajima and the EC have asked about the impact on the economy of the new competition framework and our experience with the functioning of the Competition Commission.

The aim of the Competition Commission is obviously to promote competition. We believe that greater competition will enhance the functioning of the market, improve efficiency, spur innovation, and strengthen Singapore’s economic competitiveness.

The Competition Commission promotes competition in two ways: enforcement and advocacy. Despite its infancy, the Competition Commission has not shied away from taking tough enforcement action where necessary. Let me cite a recent case. In January this year, the Commission issued its first infringement decision under the Act against six pest control companies for infringing Section 34 of the Act, which prohibits, amongst other things, bid-rigging or collusive tendering. Financial penalties totaling some S$260,000 were levied on the six companies.

Equally important is the advocacy role played by the Competition Commission. It works actively with business chambers, educational institutions, professional and trade associations and governmental agencies, to help enhance the awareness of business and the general public about competition law and the need to continually ensure that their actions are conducive to competition.

On intellectual property rights, the Swiss Ambassador raised a question concerning the use by Singapore businesses of the Swiss name and the Swiss flag when in fact they are not connected with Switzerland. These issues are currently under active discussion between Switzerland and the Singapore government, in particular, the IP Office of Singapore. However, the larger point remains: our IP laws are fully compliant with TRIPS. In fact, we have gone beyond TRIPS in many instances, by assuming obligations under numerous IP treaties and FTAs. 

Lastly, on SPS measures, we appreciate the EC’s question on our implementation of SPS measures especially with regard to complying with OIE guidelines. Singapore takes its international obligations seriously, and we are in compliance with the relevant obligations in this instance. We have submitted a detailed response in writing and we would refer the EC to it.

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to Members for their remarks concerning our contribution to the WTO and the Doha Development Agenda. We remain fully committed to playing our part in ensuring a successful Ministerial next week.

Thank You.