In his policy address this year, the then chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, denied that there was any collusion between government and business in Hong Kong. In the same speech, he also insisted that competition policy would remain unchanged, namely, no general law would be enacted to prohibit the abuse of a dominant role, collusive deals between producers, or potentially harmful mergers. The time-worn mantra of minimal government interference in business and our status as the 'freest' economy would ensure that the benefits of the competitive process would continue to be enjoyed. However, a chorus of criticism and public discontent relating to the energy sector, and the steady stream of competition failures, including open cartels in the noodle industry, the driving-school market, and the acknowledgement that bid rigging and price fixing were common practice in the construction industry, seem to have led to a change of heart. In his budget speech, Financial Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen announced that the government would establish a committee to review the much-criticised competition policy and the workings of the toothless Competition Advisory Group. Last week, the membership of the review committee was announced, and the review will take a year to complete. Under existing policy, the government says that a general competition law to enforce a pro-competition policy would be heavy-handed interference with the free market. In any event, a small open economy, such as ours, does not need such a sledgehammer to crack the very small and limited competition problem facing Hong Kong. Rather, our existing policy to exhort business to be competitive and, where failures can be proved, the application of limited, sector-specific rules, are adequate to maintain healthy competition. Unfortunately, an increasing range of indicators seems to show that the policy is no longer tenable. Indeed, the World Trade Organisation secretariat has questioned the viability of the existing policy. Another body blow to government complacency was the defection of Singapore to the orthodox camp of developed economies that have a general competition law. The city-state had often been cited in the past by officials as another case of a small, open economy that did not need such legislation. It may turn out that the decision to legislate may be an example (telecommunications liberalisation was another) of where Singapore goes today, Hong Kong will follow tomorrow. However, the chief executive in-waiting, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, simply said in announcing his candidature that the matter of competition policy would need 'consideration'; there was no clear commitment to legislation. To produce a credible report, the review committee must allow to be presented all relevant evidence on the objectives and structure of competition-law regimes internationally. It should also objectively review existing arrangements in Hong Kong to assess whether they do, indeed, ensure that the competitive process is allowed to operate, rather than maintaining a status quo that benefits incumbent enterprises. Everyone agrees that a competitive Hong Kong economy is essential to meet the increasingly strong challenges that we will face in the future; the only disagreement is about how best to achieve that outcome. One must hope that the review committee and then the government come to accept that a general competition law is an essential part of the 'soft' infrastructure that Hong Kong will need to face future challenges. Mark Williams is an associate professor of law at Hong Kong Polytechnic University