On 10 June 2026, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”) issued a public consultation paper on proposed targeted amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
One proposal deserves close attention from competition perspective. MCMC is proposing to align the general competition practices provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 with Malaysia’s wider competition law framework. This includes the Competition Act 2010 and the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia Act 2017. MCMC said in the consultation paper that the proposed targeted amendments further seek to support coordinated enforcement and consistent standards across regulated sectors and promote fair market conduct.
This may sound technical. It is not. For businesses, the proposal points to a broader shift in Malaysia competition law. Sector regulators may be moving towards more consistent competition standards.
Current competition provisions under Part VI (Economic Regulation), Chapter 2 (General Competition Practices) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA 1998”)
The CMA 1998 already contains a standalone competition framework for the communications and multimedia sector.
Under the current CMA 1998, a licensee must not engage in conduct which has the purpose of substantially lessening competition in a communications market. The CMA 1998 also contains specific prohibitions. A licensee must not enter into any understanding, agreement or arrangement, whether legally enforceable or not, which provides for:
- rate fixing;
- market sharing;
- boycott of a supplier of apparatus; or
- boycott of another competitor.
The CMA 1998 further prohibits tying or linking arrangements. In simple terms, a licensee must not make it a condition for supplying a product or service in a communications market that the customer must also acquire or not acquire another product or service from the licensee or another person.
The CMA 1998 also allows MCMC to determine that a licensee is in a dominant position in a communications market. Where a licensee is dominant, MCMC may direct the licensee to cease conduct which has or may have the effect of substantially lessening competition and to implement appropriate remedies.
The current CMA 1998 framework is therefore sector-specific. It is built around MCMC’s licensees and communications markets.
Current competition practices provisions under the Competition Act 2010 (“CA 2010”)
The CA 2010 is the general competition law framework for most commercial sectors. It is enforced by the Malaysia Competition Commission or MyCC. However, commercial activities regulated under certain sectoral legislation are excluded from the CA 2010, including the CMA 1998 and aviation legislation.
The CA 2010 is structured around two main prohibitions:
- anti-competitive agreements
- abuse of dominant position
Section 4 of the CA 2010 prohibits horizontal or vertical agreements between enterprises that have the object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in any market for goods or services. Certain horizontal agreements with the objects to fix prices, share markets or sources of supply, limit or control production, market access, technical development or investment, or perform bid rigging are deemed to have the object of significantly preventing, restricting, or distorting competition in any market for goods or services.
Section 10 of the CA 2010 prohibits an enterprise from engaging, whether independently or collectively, in conduct that amounts to an abuse of dominant position. Examples include unfair pricing or trading conditions, limiting production or market access, refusing to supply, discriminatory treatment, tying, predatory behaviour and buying up scarce inputs without reasonable commercial justification or reasonable commercial response.
Under Section 6 of the CA 2010, an enterprise may apply to the MyCC for an individual exemption with respect to a particular agreement from the prohibition under Section 4. Under Section 8 of the CA 2010, if agreements which fall within a particular category of agreements are, in the opinion of the MyCC, likely to be agreements to which section 5 applies, the Commission may, by order published in the Gazette, grant a block exemption to the particular category of agreement.
The CA 2010 also contains mechanisms such as investigations, proposed decisions, final decisions, undertakings and leniency.
Current aviation competition framework under Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia Act 2017 (“CAAM 2017”)
The aviation sector has its own competition regime. Historically, this was governed under Part VII of the Malaysian Aviation Commission Act 2015, which covered anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position and mergers in aviation service markets. Civil Aviation Authority Malaysia (“CAAM”) states that, effective 1 August 2025, functions and responsibilities previously managed by MAVCOM have been fully assumed by CAAM.
CAAM’s current competition provisions describe the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements in aviation service markets. These include agreements involving price fixing, market sharing, limiting or controlling market access, limiting technical or technological development, limiting investment, and bid rigging.
CAAM also recognises the prohibition against abuse of dominant position in aviation service markets, while noting that conduct with reasonable commercial justification or a reasonable commercial response to market entry or competitor conduct may not be prohibited.
The competition vocabularies in the CAAM 2017 are closely aligned with the CA 2010. A key difference between the competition framework in the CAAM 2017 and the current CA 2010 is merger control. The aviation competition framework includes provisions for mergers and anticipated mergers in aviation service markets. Whereas CA 2010 still does not contain any merger control provisions. For this reason, the aviation framework is useful when considering the proposed amendments to CMA 1998.
A step towards harmonised competition regulation in Malaysia?
As can be seen from above, Malaysia does not have a single competition law framework that applies in the same way to every sector. The CA 2010 is the main competition law legislation for many commercial sectors. It is enforced by the Malaysia Competition Commission or MyCC. Competition in communication market is regulated by MCMC under the CMA 1998 and competition in aviation services is regulated by CAAM under the CAAM 2017. This means competition law risk may arise under different statutes, depending on the sector. This can create complexity for businesses, especially for a company operating across sectors may need to consider more than one competition regime.
The proposed alignment of the CMA 1998 with the CA 2010 and CAAM 2017 is therefore significant. It suggests a move towards harmonised competition regulation and greater consistency in how competition principles are understood and enforced in Malaysia.
However, harmonisation does not mean that every sector will be regulated in exactly the same way. That would not be practical. Communications markets have their own features. Aviation markets have their own features. General consumer and industrial markets have their own features. Be that as it may, the core competition principles should be consistent. Businesses should be able to understand what amounts to anti-competitive conduct, when market power may become a concern, how regulators assess competition harm and how enforcement risk may arise. A more coherent framework can help reduce uncertainty. It can also help businesses make better decisions when entering into commercial arrangements, joint ventures or mergers.
Why the proposed amendments matter beyond communications and multimedia sector?
The communications and multimedia sector is not a simple market. It involves networks, content, applications and digital services. It affects almost every business in Malaysia. Because of these features in communications and multimedia sector, competition regulation in the communications and mulitmedia sector cannot be viewed in isolation. A decision by one major player in communication market may not only affect other players in the communication market, but it could also affect businesses in other sectors. For example, if access to essential digital network is restricted, the effect may not be limited to players in the communication sectors. It may also affect startups, fintech companies and downstream businesses in other sectors.
This makes regulatory coordination more important when competition issues in communications and multimedia sector can have a wider economic impact. A harmonised framework can help competition regulators look at these issues more coherently. If competition principles under the CMA 1998 become more closely aligned with the CA 2010, businesses should expect more structured and coherent analysis of market conduct and consumers can expect more holistic enforcement.
Concluding remarks
The proposed alignment of the general competition practices provisions in the CMA 1998 with the CA 2010 and CAAM 2017 is a welcome step. It may support a more coherent and consistent competition law framework in Malaysia.
These proposed targeted amendments to the CMA 1998 are also timely as digital markets increasingly cut across traditional sector boundaries. As markets become more connected, competition enforcement should also become more coordinated, predictable and responsive to how businesses and consumers interact in the digital economy.
For businesses, clearer alignment may provide greater certainty on how market conduct from competition law perspective will be assessed by regulators. Businesses can take this proposed alignment as a useful prompt to self-assess whether current commercial practices remain fit for compliance with competition law purposes. This includes reviewing dealings with competitors, customer access terms and other high-risk commercial decisions. Taking these steps early to make self-assessment can help businesses reduce enforcement risk and improve internal governance and compliance.
This update is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
Please reach out if you have any questions.