It is clear that the commission, as it goes into enforcement mode, will have an appreciable impact on business behaviour and consumer expectations. But to be as effective as it should be, it will need to fill a knowledge gap. It has made a fine start with its publications and website to help the public come to grips with competition theory, the rationale and legislation as well as its own role. However, given the novelty of the issue here, the commission has to redouble efforts to educate the public on what exactly constitutes anti-competitive conduct, how a business can abuse its dominant market position and why mergers and acquisitions can reduce competition substantially. Many of these principles remain abstract to Singaporeans.

Actual cases and precedents will go a long way to explaining the more arcane concepts behind both qualitative and quantitative determination whether punitive action should be taken in a particular case. Some business people, let alone consumers, are unfamiliar with such terms as product and geographical market definition, and demand and supply elasticity and substitutability. Without disclosing any confidential information, the commission could have taken advantage of the Nets episode to elaborate beyond what its brief press release said about why Case had no case. Many people are yet to be persuaded. Its own learning curve has been steep, it concedes. So it must realise how much it has still to explain to make competition a widely understood and accepted feature of business.