Generally, the Act was implemented for the purposes of ensuring the existence of fair competition in the commercial market. It is not supposed to be used as government tool to control the market. On the contrary, the Act is meant to promote competitiveness and prevent the market from being monopolised or abused by any business operator.

In a free market, if you are effective you will become more competitive. Competitiveness and effectiveness could lead you to a dominant position in that particular market.

It is not illegal per se to be dominant. The Act is an attempt to prevent dominant operators from conducting activities deemed contrary to free competition or against the spirit of the Act.

Throughout the past seven years, several attempts were made to put a definition of this term in place, but none was successful. There was at least one occasion when the Trade Competition Board proposed that the definition of dominant position be considered in terms of each particular commercial market, and not be applicable across the board.

You may recall that Honda, the motorcycle-maker, was accused of acting in violation of its dominant position under the specific definition of the term for its own industry.

A new proposed definition was submitted to the Cabinet for approval late last month. The proposal defines a dominant player as: (a) a business operator which had a market share in the previous year of at least 50 per cent, and annual sales of at least Bt1 billion; and (b) three business operators whose aggregate market share in the previous year was at least 75 per cent, and each of which has sales of at least Bt1 billion.

But certain questions still remain. Notably, what is the definition of "market"? Does it cover individual products/services?

What if one company's sales for a product are less than Bt1 billion, but there are only two makers of that particular product?

Is the company which produces, say, 80 per cent of the total output considered a dominant player?

Peerapan Tungsuwan