蘇錦樑籲中小企 挺競爭法如跨欄

文匯報
A14 | 香港新聞 2010-12-18

香港文匯報訊（記者 黃斯昕）特區政府期望《競爭條例》草案可趕及2012年換屆前獲立法會三讀通過，故商務及經濟發展局近日忙於充當說客爭取支持票。繼商務及經濟發展局局長劉吳惠蘭約見香港4大商會後，副局長蘇錦樑昨日亦應消委會邀請，出席午餐研討會，繼續呼籲中小企業支持，並以跨欄的體育精神寄寓參與權利均等的重要。

立法會早前就《競爭條例草案》成立法案委員會，並進入審議階段。據悉，4大商會礙於草案條文欠清晰，甚至生怕條例淪為大財團打壓小商企的手段，至今仍然持保留態度，政府亦開始轉向中小企業埋手。蘇錦樑重申，制定競爭法是期望建構公平營商環境，保障中小企及消費者權益，「競爭法不會縮窄中小企的生存空間，反而為他們開拓新契機」。他又以港人關注的跨欄比賽，寄寓捍衛公平賽事的重要，強調香港有需要及早締造公平營商環境。

中小企憂慮實際執法細則

香港中小企商會聯席會議主席兼召集人黃鵬緒指出，現時反對競爭法的中小企聲音主要來自製造業，並相信大部分中小企無意全盤否定競爭法，只是憂慮實際執法細則，「針冇兩頭利，不少中小企只是認為草案不足，他們終究是支持公平競爭的精神，邊有人會容許壟斷者繼續操縱市場」。

席間，不少與會中小企業代表則對「私人訴訟」感到憂慮，生怕日後需承受龐大訴訟費。立法會《競爭條例草案》委員會副主席湯家驊重申，私人訴訟的設立只為保障市民的基本訴訟權，且只規範「妨礙、限制及扭曲」市場競爭的行為，故市場持份率低的中小企普遍觸犯有關條例的可能性極微，「倘大企業涉嫌濫用條例，審裁署亦會主動介入，甚至要求押後聆訊，予競委會進行相關調查，所以濫用機會好微」。

Competition law is still at least three years away

南華早報
EDT2 | EDT | By Tanna Chong and Dennis Eng 2010-11-22

The long-awaited competition law is not expected to take full effect until 2014 at the earliest, Undersecretary for Commerce and Economic Development Greg So Kam-leung says.

Before that a string of procedures needs to be completed, including establishing a commission to investigate anti-competitive activities and a tribunal to act on the commission's findings, and drawing up guidelines on how the law should operate.

Despite worries from business, the bill has general support. It is expected to be passed by the Legislative Council before July 2012.

So said a phased approach would be adopted to get the law working.

"The first phase is primarily about building the institutional framework. We envisage that the first phase will take a year or more to implement subject to progress of the setting up of the commission and the tribunal as well as their respective work on the preparation for the various guidelines and court rules."

A competition commission would be set up to investigate anti-competitive conduct and a competition tribunal with jurisdiction to hear and determine applications filed by the commission.

In the second phase, guidelines will be established, after a consultation. "This will pave the way for decisions on what can and cannot be done and exceptions and exclusions on business agreements under a competition law," So said. He said other countries' guidelines would be consulted.

The final phase will see the new bodies delivering judgments and imposing penalties. Some business leaders and legislators are worried about "steep and unreasonable" penalties, but So said the proposed maximum - 10 per cent of the global turnover of the business unit in the year of contravention - was in line with international standards.

"Penalties rarely reach 10 per cent in the European Union, for example," he said. "For a fine to have any deterrent effect on businesses at all, the court must be free to hand down an appropriate amount."

Multinational corporations were accustomed to this approach, he added. The bill would tackle two major types of anti-competitive behaviour. The first rule covers practices including price-fixing and market-sharing. The second combats abuse of market power, such as predatory behaviour by competitors.

So said that while penalties would be imposed only on the business unit breaching the law, the court would be looking at the involvement of a parent company in the anti-competitive conduct in question, including whether the parent company had sufficient control over subsidiaries.

Other than public enforcement through the tribunal, alternatives would exist to resolve small-scale contraventions.

Individuals could make commitments to the commission to stop anti-competitive conduct. The commission may issue an infringement notice before a case is brought.

Highlighting worries expressed by small and medium enterprises, So said de minimis approach and other measures, including allowing a transitional period for businesses to make necessary adjustments, would provide protection. People with experience of small and medium enterprises would also be appointed as commission members.

Some companies fear the complaints mechanism could be abused, but the commission will be able to refuse to investigate complaints it considers trivial, misconceived or lacking in substance. So said the new law would not apply retrospectively.

As with the introduction of other new laws, observers expect the first few cases after the bill has come into effect to have a substantial impact.

So said it "would be a great pity" if the business sector hindered the progress of the bill.

"The bill will bring economic benefits to consumers and the business sector in the long run by preserving the competitive nature of our economy," he said.

"This bill has been prepared with the benefits of the implementation experiences of other competition law jurisdictions. We believe that it presents good and balanced measures while catering to the environment in Hong Kong."

The Legco bills committee has scheduled 37 meetings for scrutiny of the terms. Committee chairman Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen said extra meetings would be inserted during the Legco's summer recess next July if progress was too slow.

王岸然：豈可轉移視線否定競爭法

信報財經新聞
P22 | 時事評論 | By 王岸然 2010-11-17

大家很難理解，凡事都批評與挑剔政府的筆者會為政府護航。嚴格來說，今次也不是。

只是筆者也算是倡議香港要立「反壟斷」或「不公平競爭」的法例十多年，政府今天似乎已經有了清楚的立法意圖。不過，香港這個資本主義社會已經邪惡化，一直有大資本家的邪惡打手千方百計要破壞有關的立法；更可怕的，就是連本來支持的泛民中人，由於近來與中央及建制改善了關係，有打倒昨天的自己加入邪惡集團反對立法力量的勢頭，筆者無法不在本欄力斥這些謬誤。

不盡不實抹黑草案

誰是人，誰是資本家的打手，一眼就可以看出來。那個什麼要鼓吹自由經濟的學會由於水平太低，表演也太爛，相信只能弄巧反拙，商家已經不再靠他們（節省些公關費用吧，要找自由主義代言人也找些真正學者，別找這些會員只有學士學位的學會吧）；要在這一刻拉倒《競爭條例草案》的人，最少是立法會議員，當然是有民意的直選議員更好，泛民的更佳。筆者也不點名，大家講道理更有益吧，政治已經太多低質素的謾罵了。

不過，民主黨的李華明還是要點名批評的。李華明十多年來一直負責為民主黨研究跟進《競爭條例草案》的立法，對所有問題都應該很清楚，不應該說些似是而非、不盡不實的意見，這樣只會起到抹黑草案的功用，變相是在幫資本家，出賣自己的政綱與選民。雖然民主黨自從與中央有枱底接觸之後，已經不甚可靠，筆者總不希望你們什麼都可以賣。

據報道， 「民主黨李華明也在昨天會議指出，原意為保護中小企不被大企業欺壓的法例，最終令不少中小企『好驚』， 『話會傷害到中小企』」，質疑當局推銷不力，令中小企難以理解條例內容。

李華明理應清楚知道，中小企要麼沒有質疑，因為法例不是針對他們；要麼就只是有少數人被反法例的資本家打手誤導及利用，有人企圖利用法例是針對中小企的歪理誤導輿論。李華明身為清楚知情的議員，理應直斥其非，而不是加入「說些似是而非的話誤導公眾者」之列。

財團欺壓以大吃小

法例當然是要針對大商家利用不公平手段，侵害中小企，這點在香港已經是鐵一般的事實。若法例會侵害中小企，大資本家應該很高興才對，老虎焉會為羔羊的利益而着急？

現時的條例草案安排是很安全的，中小企可說是百分之一百置身事外，只會是受益人。第一，競爭事務委員會（具有個案調查的決定權）會安排中小企代表，令到委員會能理解中小企的運作情況，不會胡亂起訴；第二，作為中小企，根本就不會佔有市場的大比例，亦根本無法阻止大企業加入行業競爭，請問報業小販的聯會可以阻止各大便利店及超市割價賣報紙嗎？有能力在市場具相當優勢的定義就不可能是指中小企，這是不說自明的道理；第三，法例草案留有權力給競委會及審裁處，就算大企業以私人行動興訟或作出投訴，競委會及審裁處有權不予受理。

法例之內， 亦有相當的豁免及豁除機制（exemptions andexclusions），政府亦表明可以清楚寫下一定低比例的市場佔有率可以不受影響，照顧中小企的機制可說十分完善。

議員亦應知道，全世界的經驗，都是大企業在迫害中小企，而不是相反；全世界都是失去了競爭空間的中小企在抗議投訴，而不是相反。就算法例真有不善之處，議員要做好的是提出修改以填補漏洞，而不是加入鼓吹「老虎為了保護羔羊所以反對立法」的謬論！

罰款上限國際慣用

另一大謬誤與誤導，是指摘違法的企業要受到一年營業額百分之十的罰款是過高之事。據草案第91 條，營業額（turnover）是指某業務實體在香港境內或境外得到的總收入；這當然是指當業務有跨國情況之時。法例並無指明包括「母公司」，只是有這個可能性，但葉劉淑儀拿這一點大做文章，成為報刊的關注點；而蘇錦樑可能由於準備不足，不能有條理答辯，議員成功製造了恐慌效果。

不過，百分之十的企業一年營業額罰款，英國、歐盟皆採用這一國際性的上限，有何問題？何高之有？是多是少，由法庭決定，若不用這個寫法，跟英國的上限又如何？那是最高額64 萬鎊，大約7 億多港元，也不是很高吧？更有趣的是營業額10%的罰則，在香港法例中早有類似安排，分別在《電訊條例》（第106 章第36C 條）及《廣播條例》（第562 章第28 條）。這麼簡單清楚的事情，蘇錦樑也詐作不知，不好好解說，難道蘇副局長也是別有用心，早就在枱底加入了反對立法的邪惡集團？

筆者在上面說誰是人，誰是大資本家的邪惡打手，希望將《競爭條例草案》拉下馬來，一看便知，因為有心的人、支持法例的人、肯做功課實事求是的人，不會故意誇大小事情，而令到立法失敗。就算法案的草稿有問題，正確的態度是協助修改而不是借故拉倒。香港的大資本家，也實在太惡了。

王岸然