| Bid rigging is in principle anti-competitive in nature, since it can be contradictory to the actual purpose of tenders, which is to obtain goods or services at the most favourable price and conditions for the organizer of the tender concerned. Bid rigging in Indonesia is prohibited in accordance with Article 22 of Law Number 5 of 1999. The Supervisory Commission of Business Competition (KPPU) has already made guidance in the implementation of Article 22. The business actors are prohibited to perform bid rigging with other business actor to arrange and determine the winner of the tender which resulting in unfair business competition. In Singapore, the bid rigging prohibition is regulated in the Competition Act Chapter 50B. The bid rigging prohibition stipulates in Section 34 of the Competition Act. The institution which has the authority to investigate bid rigging cases in Singapore is the Competition Commission Singapore (CCS). This thesis elaborates concerning the comparison of bid rigging regulation under the Indonesian and Singaporean competition law, particularly the approach to prove bid rigging, the law enforcement procedure and sanctions for bid rigging. Based on the research, Indonesia and Singapore have different approaches in proving bid rigging. Indonesia uses the rule of reason approach and Singapore uses the per se illegal approach. |