By Ray Steinwall

The countries which comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) collectively represent the world’s fourth-largest economy, behind only the United States, China, and Germany. ASEAN sits at the intersection of some of the world’s major trading routes. 

ASEAN also houses some of the newest competition regimes in the world, including the competition law of its newest member (Timor Leste), scheduled to commence later in 2026.  

Despite ASEAN’s significance, its competition laws remain underexplored in spite of increasing activity. Rather, the limited focus on ASEAN competition law has been on how best the laws of the ASEAN member states should be harmonised, rather than on the substantive features of its law and its place in the global competition landscape.

Influences and divergences

ASEAN competition law has been heavily influenced by the jurisprudence of the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), the United States, Australia and other jurisdictions. 

Singapore has largely followed the approach of the UK and the EU, a position which Brunei has also adopted. Others have adopted some features from the EU and adapted them to their unique circumstances. Vietnam and Laos have charted a different course and included provisions which are not typically seen in the established competition landscape. 

Agreements, dominance and mergers

Reflecting the influence of the EU, all ASEAN member states regulate anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance. All (except currently Malaysia) also regulate mergers. However, there is a considerable divergence in the treatment of these prohibitions across member states. 

For agreements, there is some uncertainty over the categories of agreement to which the laws apply, the application of per se and a rule of reason approach and the market thresholds that are used to assess whether a competitive impact is appreciable. Brunei and Singapore exclude vertical agreements altogether. 

There is also divergence across member states in what constitutes dominance and the thresholds applied as a presumption of dominance, including thresholds based on market share alone. Also, there is inconsistency in the exclusionary and exploitative abuses which are regulated.

Indonesia extends its law to both the abuse of dominance and the related, though separate prohibition on monopoly. Myanmar contains a provision addressing ‘monopolization on market’ prohibiting specific acts, but not dominance itself.  

Vietnam is unique in having a separate provision that prohibits an enterprise that holds a monopoly position from engaging in practices that are similar to an enterprise holding a dominant market position.

With some exceptions, the member states broadly apply an effects test to the assessment of mergers. However, there is no consistent treatment of efficiencies across member states and a lack of clarity on the application of substantive rules to regional merger control, including the treatment of cross border mergers. 

A number of member states have published documents which describe the procedures they will apply in receiving and considering mergers, including documentation and timelines. Most member states also provide for compulsory pre-merger notification, post-merger notification or both, broadly based on asset values, revenue, transaction size or a combination. The exceptions are Brunei, Myanmar and Singapore which have a voluntary notification system. 

‘In his sweeping compendium of the competition laws of each of the 10 ASEAN countries, Ray Steinwall writes that in the context of their treaties and cultures, this region “deserves much more attention in the west than it receives”. This book should indeed help to secure a place for ASEAN and its competition laws in the jurisprudence of the international competition law community’

– Eleanor Fox, Professor Emerita, New York University, USA

Exemptions and investigations

The nature and extent of exemptions vary across member states and are considerable. Consistent with other newer competition jurisdictions, member states provide exemptions for particular sectors (notably energy, financial services, labour, telecommunications and transport) and in other specific circumstances.

Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore are unique in adopting the approach of the UK in having a block exemption power, the ability to seek an individual exemption where there is a net economic benefit and an exemption for an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly.

All member states have established rules applying to the investigation of breaches of the competition law. This includes specifying the scope of investigations, the information sought during an investigation (including the use of statutory powers), the timelines within which they are conducted and procedural safeguards applied during investigations. However, in many cases those rules and timelines are inflexible for both the enforcement agency or the entity under investigation.

With the exception of Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore, the member states provide limited or no recourse to private remedies for breaches of the competition law.

Why this matters

As I observe in my book Competition Law in ASEAN, the substantive competition laws of this vibrant and dynamic region deserve much more attention than they receive. 

The book is the first to comprehensively examine the competition laws of ASEAN and to treat ASEAN competition law as a cohesive body of law within the global competition law discipline. 

It examines in depth the approach of member states to anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance and mergers, how competition investigations are undertaken, the scope of exemptions, penalties and enforcement, private remedies and rights of appeal to courts and tribunals. The book draws on law and practices from within and outside ASEAN in particular the EU, the UK, the United States and Australia to analyse and explain ASEAN competition law. 

The book is also the first to examine and resolve inconsistencies in the principal and delegated legislation of some of the member states by applying principles of statutory construction familiar to the common law, but not widely seen in the literature on ASEAN competition law. 

The aim is to provide a full picture of the scope and application of ASEAN competition law to support business, competition agencies, policy makers and academics, including those examining ASEAN’s competition law harmonisation efforts.

---

Ray Steinwall is an Attorney at the High Court of Australia, he is also a Member at the Australian Competition Tribunal and an Adjunct Professor at UNSW Law Sydney