Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 pm

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Government's approach to consumer protection is based on promoting fair trading by businesses, and helping consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. This is a two-pronged approach. This two-pronged approach has benefited consumers and businesses which seek to serve their customers well, and helped resolve disagreements between businesses and consumers amicably.

It is important for consumers to know their rights and be alert to unfair trading practices so that they can be in a good position to make sound purchasing decisions. To this end, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) works closely with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) which plays a key role in championing consumer education and raising consumer awareness. CASE also helps consumers to resolve disputes with businesses through negotiation and mediation. The majority of consumer disputes with businesses are resolved, in fact, in this way. Consumers are also able to file claims against businesses with the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), which hears cases of up to $10,000, or $20,000 if both the consumer and the business agree.

The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) is a key pillar in our consumer protection framework. The Act provides for civil actions to stop errant businesses which engage in unfair trading practices.

The CPFTA empowers CASE and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to enter into voluntary compliance agreements (VCAs) with errant businesses to stop them from engaging in unfair practices, and to compensate aggrieved or affected consumers.

The errant businesses, where they do not comply with the VCAs and persist in unfair practices, in such cases, the CPFTA also empowers CASE and STB to apply for injunction action with the Courts to be brought against these businesses. Injunctions which are ordered by the Courts require errant businesses to cease the unfair practices. For egregious cases that involve criminal activities, they are handled by the Police who will investigate and prosecute the errant businesses under the Penal Code and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Mdm Speaker, as I have just outlined, our consumer protection framework comprises a spectrum of measures.

Consumer education is a key pillar that underlines the entire framework. When consumers encounter a problem, our consumer protection framework provides for an escalating set of measures, ranging from negotiation and mediation, which is facilitated by CASE, to assist consumers in resolving disputes, or by taking up VCAs by retailers to stop unfair practices and compensate consumers, or civil actions through injunctions issued by the Courts for errant retailers, and if need be Police investigation and prosecution of egregious cases which involve criminal activities. So, it is a set of escalating measures.

Consumer education is a key and fundamental component as it is important that every consumer makes his or her purchases with a clear evaluation of the many choices he or she is exposed to and understand the terms and obligations of the contracts he or she is entering into. As the old adage goes, "Knowledge is power". Consumers who are aware of their rights are better able to make sound purchasing decisions.

The majority of businesses engage in fair trading and seek to serve their customers well, maintain a good business reputation and aim to advance their business interests through positive sharing via "word of mouth" and, in this modern era of the Internet, through social media as well. However, a small number of errant businesses have, unfortunately, continued to engage in unfair practices and take advantage of consumers, both locals and tourists. This affects consumer confidence and dents our reputation as a shopping destination. We saw this happen during the Mobile Air incident at the end of 2014.

MTI carried out a review of the CPFTA in 2015 to study how our consumer protection framework can be further strengthened. We are conscious of the need to take a balanced approach, as overly onerous measures can impose unnecessary business costs which would ultimately be passed on to customers.

The review found that there is a gap in the current injunction process. So, along the whole spectrum, we identified a gap in the injunction process. It is slow, as CASE and STB have no investigation and enforcement powers and hence, faced operational difficulties in gathering evidence to submit their applications to the Courts to file an injunction. Some errant businesses have also side-stepped injunctions by closing their businesses and setting up new ones.

As part of our review, we studied the best practices and experiences of other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Australia. We also engaged stakeholders, including CASE, the Singapore Retailers Association, individual retailers, and the Sim Lim Square Management Committee. They are supportive of the proposed amendments, and provided views which we considered.

We also carried out a public consultation exercise over four weeks this year. The respondents to the public consultation expressed support for the proposed amendments, including strengthening the injunction process, and some of their feedback have been incorporated in the proposed amendments and finalisation of this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Bill before us is the outcome of our review. Let me now take the House through the outline of the main amendments.

SPRING Singapore (SPRING) is a Statutory Board under MTI. It is to be appointed as the administering agency for the CPFTA with investigation and enforcement powers. SPRING is the best positioned Government agency to administer the CPFTA as its mandate is to oversee the growth of enterprises in Singapore, including aspects of consumer protection, such as standards and product safety.

Currently, the CPFTA does not provide CASE and STB with investigation and enforcement powers. Hence, they face challenges in gathering evidence to file injunction applications with the Courts. Clause 8 inserts a new Part 3A on investigation powers to be conferred on SPRING to obtain information, enter premises which it reasonably believes are being used for unfair practices, and to gather evidence. Under the new Part 3B of the same clause, any person who obstructs SPRING's investigations such as by destroying documents and providing SPRING with false information, will be committing an offence.

Clause 4 which amends section 9 on declaration or injunction, and clause 5 which repeals and re-enacts new section 10, empower SPRING as the only entity under the CPFTA to submit injunction applications against errant businesses to the Courts. CASE and STB's previous roles as specified bodies under the CPFTA which can submit injunction applications will be repealed to avoid duplication of effort. CASE and STB, however, will remain the first points of contact for locals and tourists, and will focus on assisting consumers with their disputes, including obtaining redress or compensation through negotiation, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements. CASE and STB will surface cases of errant retailers to SPRING for further investigation and action.

With the appointment of SPRING as the administering agency, two consequential changes have become necessary.

First, clause 14 amends the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act to expand SPRING's functions and powers for the administration and enforcement of the CPFTA.

Second, clauses 5 and 11 abolish the Injunction Proposals Review Panel (IPRP). The IPRP's role was to ensure that CASE and STB only file applications for injunction for serious cases since these two agencies previously did not have investigation powers. As SPRING is empowered to gather evidence to file injunction applications, it is no longer necessary to retain the IPRP.

Mdm Speaker, let me now move on to the other main amendments. These relate to additional measures which may be imposed by the Courts on errant businesses as part of the injunction orders.

The Courts may make injunction orders which restrain errant businesses from engaging in unfair practices. Clauses 4 and 5 provide for the additional measures or accompanying orders that a Court may take or make in addition to an injunction order. These accompanying orders serve to raise consumer awareness of errant businesses, both business entities and individuals, who are under injunction orders. They also make it harder for errant businesses to side-step injunction orders by closing businesses and setting up new ones under another person's name. Taken together, the additional measures that the Courts may impose will enable SPRING to monitor these errant businesses and take swift enforcement action if the orders are not complied with.

For entities, clause 4 allows the Courts to require businesses to comply with additional measures.

Firstly, the Courts may require entities to publish notices of the injunction orders at their own cost in the form, manner, and frequency over a specified period. These can include notices to be put up at the shop fronts or on the landing pages of their websites.

Secondly, the Courts may require entities to notify consumers in writing of the injunction orders they are under, and obtain their written acknowledgement of the customers of that notice, prior to them entering into a transaction. Entities that breach such accompanying Court orders will be required to refund consumers who cancel their contracts within six months of the transaction.

Thirdly, all invoices issued by these entities may be required to incorporate the notice of the injunction.

Fourth, the entities may be required to inform SPRING within 14 days of any changes to the business, such as number of premises, and the addresses at which the entities operate – new branches, for example. This will enable SPRING to monitor them as part of the enforcement efforts and take timely action if they do not comply with the Curt orders.

Fifth, entities may be required to reimburse SPRING for costs incurred to publish notices to raise consumer awareness of the commencement of injunction action or injunction order.

These are all aimed at raising consumers' awareness of a business under injunction.

For individuals, be it employees or directors of the company for which an injunction order is served, clauses 4 and 5 provide for SPRING to take injunction action against these individuals, such as partners, and those who knowingly instigate and help errant businesses to engage in unfair practices. This serves to dissuade individuals from helping errant businesses side-step injunction orders by setting up new businesses and persisting with the unfair practices.

The Courts may also require individuals who are under injunction orders to comply with additional measures.

First, the individuals may be required to publish notices of the injunction at their own cost. Second, the individuals may be required to reimburse SPRING for costs incurred to publish notices to raise again consumer awareness of the commencement of injunction action or injunction order. Third, they may be required to inform SPRING as well within 14 days of any changes to their employment which involves consumer transactions. We also took in CASE's suggestion to include changes to shareholdership of businesses that engage in consumer transactions as a notifiable event to SPRING. These measures will enable SPRING to monitor these individuals as part of its enforcement efforts and take timely action if they do not comply with Court orders.

The additional measures that the Courts may impose, such as publicising of the injunction orders, are for compliance over a specified period, which is to be decided by the Courts. This period is currently capped at five years but may be extended by the Courts to 10 years if the errant business or individual fails to comply in the first instance.

Failure to comply with a Court order is a contempt of Court. This is a criminal offence which could result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

Taken together, the requirements for errant retailers to publicise the injunction orders and notify consumers of the injunction order prior to entering into a transaction, as well as SPRING working with CASE to publish injunction orders, will serve to raise consumers' awareness of retailers who are under injunction. Consumers can then decide if they still want to purchase from the retailer. This goes back to the principle of "caveat emptor", buyers beware, with consumers exercising their choice and making informed purchasing decisions.

In addition to the two main amendments, clause 10 amends the Second Schedule of the CPFTA to clarify the definitions of the unfair practices to support SPRING's investigation and enforcement and make clear to businesses and consumers on what really constitutes unfair practices.

The amendments are referenced from consumer protection legislation in other jurisdictions and will take in CASE's feedback such as making clear that it is an unfair practice to refuse to give a consumer a copy of a written agreement if it was previously not given to the consumer.

Mdm Speaker, our approach to consumer protection is a balanced one. In drafting this Bill, we have taken great care to ensure that it is both pro-consumer and business friendly. The legislation is just one part of the entire consumer protection framework. Consumer education is the key plank in this whole process and MTI is working to operationalise the proposed amendments by the end of this year.

The proposed changes to the CPFTA address the issue of errant retailers, strengthens the spectrum of measures that may be taken against such businesses which persist in unfair practices, prevent errant businesses from side-stepping injunction orders, and more importantly, raise consumers' awareness of unfair practices and errant businesses so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

4.30 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, please allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this topic as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE). The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) provides consumers with protection from unfair practices and offers consumers a simpler recourse to civil remedies against errant retailers who engage in unfair practices.

Under the Act, the Government empowers specified bodies like CASE and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to take action against suppliers who engage or are likely to engage in unfair practice. As Specified Bodies, CASE and STB are empowered to invite a supplier to sign a VCA and even to apply to Court for an injunction against errant trade suppliers.

With the proposed amendments, the power to take injunction action would be removed from CASE and STB. SPRING will be appointed as the administrative agency for the CPFTA with powers to investigate and to enforce.

CASE supports the proposed amendments. Ever since the CPFTA took effect in 2004, CASE has entered into 20 VCAs and taken out six injunctions against retailers who had breached the CPFTA.

However, there are limitations to the operation of CPFTA when dealing with dishonest retailers. An example would be the few dishonest retail operators at Sim Lim Square who were ripping off consumers and tourists. Their antics were reported in the media in late 2014. Instead of selling their products in an honest and ethical manner, these retailers practised deception and cheated consumers and tourists, and this resulted in many cries of foul play by consumers. The actions of a few bad hats have affected the reputation of the other honest retailers in Sim Lim Square.

CASE had worked with the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) of Sim Lim Square. We helped them to set up a consumer complaint terminal, put up consumer alert notices naming retailers with the most number of complaints. However, there is little effect as consumers continued to be deceived and lured into buying products due to the perceived lower prices. Once a consumer has made payment for the product, the retailer imposes additional costs like "phone unlocking fees" or "in-house insurance" and illegally refuses to allow the consumer to collect their purchased products.

The presence of such recalcitrant retailers who flout the law and engage in unfair practices suggests that more muscle must be given to the authorities to take punitive action.

CASE does not have any power under the existing CPFTA to take criminal prosecution against dishonest retailers. The Police often classify disputes between consumers and retailers as civil disputes. They refer consumers who had lodged Police reports to CASE. The Police expects CASE to advise the consumers and retailers to resolve their disputes and to mediate a settlement. However, dishonest retailers are no respecter of the law. Due to the perceived lack of action, a small minority of retailers persist with their unfair practices and consumers suffer when they are taken advantage of.

Court injunctions are also of no effect on retailers who are not serious about their business. Out of the six injunctions taken out by CASE, every one of them had ceased operations after the injunction. Some retailers who have signed VCAs had used the names of their relatives to set up another company to operate a new business, and this defeats the intent of VCAs and Court injunctions as any restrictions imposed can easily be overcome.

Thus, I welcome the amendments to the CPFTA to give SPRING the power to investigate, require production of documents and enter premises to inspect and seize documents. These are wide powers needed when dealing with errant retailers, and once the evidence has been obtained, SPRING has the power to apply for injunctions against egregious errant retailers.

I also support the provisions for SPRING to seek Court orders that require suppliers to publicise the details of the declaration or injunction and notify the consumer about the Court orders. This will ensure that such retailers cannot try to cover up their unethical conduct. They should understand the severe consequence for breaching the CPFTA.

I am also pleased that the proposed Bill includes a provision at clause 10 for the Court to grant an injunction restraining a person from knowingly abetting, aiding, permitting or procuring a supplier to engage in an unfair practice. This means that an injunction order can be extended to third parties like employees and agents and can even extend to family members of the supplier as long as they knowingly help the supplier to carry out unfair practices. This will ensure that the injunction order cannot be side-stepped by using other people's names to start a new business.

Much as I am happy with the amendments, the proposed changes to the CPFTA are not a magic bullet to solve all consumer disputes. The reality is that consumers, too, must do their part to exercise caution when buying goods or services from suppliers. I just want to assure the Minister of State that CASE will do its part to continue to educate consumers on their duties as well.

There are a few concerns which I hope that the Minister of State can address.

First, much of the frustration in respect of the Sim Lim Square fiasco arose because the conduct of the supplier was not just about "unfair practice". The supplier was dishonest. He cheated consumers by asking them to pay for non-existent unlocking phone fees or he could ask the consumers to buy fake compulsory insurance. In such instances, any Court injunction by SPRING would be of limited effect as well.

So, may I seek an assurance from the Minister of State that if SPRING discovers evidence of criminal conduct during the course of investigation, they would not hesitate to refer the wrongdoing to the Police for prosecution? This would be a stronger deterrent to crooks, compared to a Court injunction. They face imprisonment if they continue to behave in such criminal manner. Likewise, if retailers act in breach of the Court order, can I seek the Minister of State's assurance that SPRING will take up contempt proceedings against such retailers? If SPRING does not initiate contempt action, surely, retailers will not bother with any injunction taken up against them.

Second, I notice that the proposed amendments make no attempt to discourage the taking of prepayment or deposits for future services. CASE has always been concerned at the losses suffered by consumers who had paid deposits or made prepayments to companies which subsequently became insolvent. We had received many complaints from consumers who had lost money when travel agencies cease operations or when wedding boutiques or other companies go into liquidation.

The latest company closure which adversely affected consumers is the liquidation of California Fitness. I read the report by the provisional liquidators, and I was appalled that even though the company was clearly in negative equity position of $21.7 million as at January 2015, the company continued to sell platinum memberships and collect prepayments from their customers. It was reported that one member paid $1,700 for a 26-month package just nine days before the company closed. When company managements behave in such a dishonest manner and consumers get cheated, something must be done.

I urge the Government to take strong action against the directors and management of any company whose management knowingly continues to collect large sums of prepayment when they are fully aware that the company is insolvent and cannot continue its operations. This will send a strong signal to the directors and management of a company that they must not act dishonestly or recklessly.

Third, may I ask the Minister of State whether the Government would consider issuing a "grey" list of contractual terms which the Government considers to be unfair? This can be done by subsidiary legislation. It would help consumers and businesses alike to understand which contractual terms may be considered unfair.

An example of such an unfair term which may be included in a "grey list" would be terms that require all disputes with consumers to be referred to arbitration. The use of the arbitration clause in contracts makes it near impossible for consumers to seek redress for small claims as this is because arbitration is simple too expensive when the claims are too small. Consumers also cannot turn to the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) for help due to the arbitration clause, which ousts the jurisdiction of SCT. So, one option, if I may propose, is to disallow compulsory arbitration clauses if it relates to claims below $10,000, which is similar to the limit for SCT.

I hope that the Minister of State can clarify my concerns. Before I end my speech, I wish to acknowledge my appreciation to MTI for carrying out public consultation for the proposed changes. I also thank the Minister and the staff from MTI for their strong support and constant engagement with CASE to improve consumer protection. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.40 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I am in support of strengthening existing laws to provide better protection for consumers, whether it is to protect local shoppers or foreign tourists. It will only take a few bad hats to give Singapore a very bad name, and we cannot afford that as Singapore is a major retail centre of the world.

Madam, I have a few clarifications for the Minister of State. Clause 12(i) of the Bill provides that in connection with an investigation under section 12(g)(i), the authority may have a power to enter premises without a Court warrant. It sets out the requirements of a prior written notice, for example, giving two working days' notice of the intended entry indicating the subject matter and the purpose of the investigation, and also to be accompanied by a copy of the alleged offences.

Under this provision, an investigation officer may be empowered to inspect and search the premises, take photos or videos of the premises or persons in the premises, seize or detain goods, bring necessary equipment, require someone at the premises to produce documents, or to take away information stored in digital form.

Clause 12(j) of the Bill then provides the power to enter premises under a Court warrant in cases where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are documents on the premises which have not been produced or may be required to be produced, or where officers attempted to enter under the conditions in clause 12(i), but failed to do so.

Madam, I would like to know from the Minister of State the rationale for having the power to enter premises without a warrant under clause 12(i) of the Bill, to search, take photos, and seize and detain goods. Would it not be more appropriate to require officers to seek a Court warrant first in all the cases, just like in clause 12(j)?

We should not be lowering the threshold for entering premises and carrying out searches or seizures for different kinds of offences. Let the Courts be a point of control and oversight to decide whether any entry, search or seizure is actually necessary. The presence of a notice, while admittedly is better than no notice at all, does not take away the fact that the powers to enter and take photos, seize or detain without a Court warrant are rather draconian.

Let us not take such searches too lightly. Carry out searches by all means, if the Court sanctions it. But do not make it easier for searches to be carried without a warrant from the Court.

Madam, next, I would like to ask the Minister of State how the new administering authority intends to ensure that retailers who are subject to injunctions should, as the injunction requires them, put up notices to all and sundry that they are objects to such injunctions and that potential customers see such notices before they enter into any transactions with the retailer. How is this going to be administered?

I am concerned that if it is not administered effectively and consistently by the authority, the injunctions will be less effective and may fail in preventing the very acts that the present Bill is seeking to prevent. It will be too late when the customer enters into the transaction and is subject to unfair practices.

Above all, consumers, local or otherwise, must be confident that when they go into any shop in Singapore, whether in Orchard Road or Sim Lim Square, or when they shop online, they can, without question, expect retailers to behave honourably and ethically and will not engage in unfair practices.

Madam, I am in support of the proposed amendments in Schedule 2 which included various forms of conduct as unfair practices, but I also wonder whether the current Act and the proposed amendment Bill may be sufficient to deal with businesses where customers sign onto a term subscription package, like gym, spa, hair or nail salon, or travel packages.

Madam, on one hand, I recognise the attraction of the bulk business that may come to small businesses with a term subscription package, and how it can help to keep customer loyalty and provide good cashflow for the business. On the other hand, I also recognise that the discounts that come with a fixed term package may be attractive to customers.

I myself signed up with California Fitness many years ago, shortly after they opened in Singapore. And as my hon colleague, Mr Lim Biow Chuan has pointed out, California Fitness was recently in the news for its sudden collapse, leaving many customers who have signed up for valuable packages in the lurch.

My wife and I have also signed up regularly for foot massage packages. Such term packages can often be a win-win deal for both businesses and customers. I am aware that CASE has the CaseTrust Accreditation Scheme which covers certain businesses, for example, renovation companies, employment agencies, spas and travel agencies. Under the scheme, some form of deposits or insurance may be required for participating businesses, but the scheme does not cover all businesses and is dependent on CASE working out the arrangements and accreditations with the relevant trade associations.

May I ask if the Minister of State has considered amending legislation to require a secured payment mode such as customers making payment to a reliable third party or body which can then dispense payment to the retailers as each of the session is utilised by the customers, or by use of a performance bond? This may already be in place by a voluntary or more limited basis than I am thinking here. But, Madam, we really should do more to prevent retailers from looking to bulk payments for packages as quick and easy solutions for business cash flow, and to give consumers peace of mind when they sign up for term subscription packages.

Alternatively, the Government maybe should consider starting a scheme to encourage and allow retailers from all industries and not just those who have signed up with CaseTrust to voluntarily opt for a secured payment or performance bond practice. Such schemes can be driven by good business incentives. The Government may even wish to consider incentives, such as suitable tax reliefs.

Madam, despite things having become more expensive in Singapore in recent years, Singapore still has a reputation as a shoppers' paradise which saw investors pouring $10 billion into retail developments here in the past five years. We must continue to maintain our reputation as a major retail centre in the world. And to do this, we must continue to improve our consumer protection laws in a fair and responsible manner.

Mdm Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.46 pm until 5.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

CONSUMER PROTECTION (FAIR TRADING) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill and would like to thank MTI for introducing the proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). The proposed appointment of SPRING to be the administering agency for the Act, with powers to investigate and require errant retailers to publicise that they are under injunction, will help to strengthen the measures that may be taken against rogue traders and service providers engaged in unfair trading practices.

Previously, CASE primarily depended on mediation between the two parties. CASE has limited powers to investigate and punish errant retailers or service providers.

In particular, I am very happy that the Bill also covers renovation contractors. During my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), I have received several complaints from my residents against renovation contractors who have collected substantial sums of money and either did not do what they promised or did such a poor job that the flat is in a worse condition than before the renovation.

Upon receiving complaints, these contractors would then be uncontactable. Some residents who pursue their case against these contractors in the Small Claims Tribunal would find that the company is only a $2-company with very little assets and the contractor could easily set up another $2-company under another trade name.

Unfair practices in the renovation industry are especially painful for consumers because the sums involved could run into tens of thousands of dollars and it may cost as much to fix a poorly renovated flat as doing everything from scratch.

I hope that SPRING will look into the possibility of publishing a list of blacklisted renovation contractors together with their contact details such that consumers have more information when deciding on which renovation contractor to appoint. Hopefully, this will also have a deterrent effect against unfair trade practices. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I thank MTI for introducing this Bill. In the past year, I have received many complaints against renovation contractors from my residents. Most of these complaints are about contractors not keeping their promises, bad services and delaying the completion date. Some contractors even become uncontactable after receiving the down payment.

The registered capital of some errant businesses is only $2. It is futile even if the resident brings them to Court and wins the suit. These businessmen can simply register another company with a mere $2.

I hope SPRING can consider publishing a blacklist of these errant businesses on the Internet. Besides the company name, it is best to make public their contact details on the Internet as well, so that consumers can stay away from these businesses.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to wish SPRING every success in its new role, and I reaffirm my support for the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

5.14 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, I support the amendment to the CPFTA. I believe this Bill has come in a timely fashion to ensure that consumers are better protected. Nevertheless, I would like to know whether this Bill, when passed, could be enforced on timeshare companies and online retailers selling goods and subscription services.

During my MPS, I have residents who had sought my assistance on timeshares which they had bought. Unfortunately, these agreements were signed before 1 April 2014, and they are not covered under the amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Regulations pertaining to cancellation of contracts.

Many victims of timeshare companies were bamboozled into purchasing a timeshare package without them taking a closer look at the fine print of the "Membership Agreement" before signing up. This marks the beginning of the horror stories associated with purchasing timeshares.

These timeshare agreements have no exit clause, much to the detriment of the consumers who are hardly savvy with legal or contract terms before signing the membership agreement. The reality is that many clauses revolve around the liability of the member, with little on the obligation and liability of the timeshare companies. Unfortunately, the amendment to protect consumers against timeshare companies came much later, after many had already been cheated.

Using the law, the timeshare companies would engage law firms to act against their customers to enforce these one-sided contracts. In fact, I am also saddened that some law firms are willing to act on behalf of timeshare companies as their clients to squeeze the hard-earned money of many ordinary people.

The timeshare business must be making good money. It is then not surprising to find many timeshare companies belonging to the same person. When complaints are lodged against a particular timeshare company, the owner would just set up another timeshare company to cheat other victims. Hence, it is not surprising to find the same legal firm acting on behalf of all these timeshare companies.

Mdm Speaker, I would also like to know whether this Bill will allow SPRING to take action against online retailers selling goods and services and whether these companies can be subjected to the same provisions provided under the Bill.

With the availability of many free mobile games that advertise subscription for paid services or some weekly lucky draws, consumers, especially vulnerable young children, playing these games using their parents' mobile devices may unknowingly subscribe to such services or lucky draws which come with recurring weekly or monthly charges. Will the Court also compel these online retailers to publicise that they are under injunction should investigation by SPRING find them guilty of deceiving customers?

Mdm Speaker, I do hope that this Bill would allow SPRING to look into the dubious and insidious practices of such timeshare companies and online retailers and serve an injunction against these companies should they be found guilty. These companies can be ethically and morally wanting and they operate just above the line on legality.

Clearly, their intention is to get members or customers to sign up and enforce prejudiced membership contracts or subscribing to their services in order to receive "easy money", without making a business commitment to deliver on their service promises.

The common modus operandi by these timeshare businesses and some online retailers is to use the legal framework as a vehicle to short-change regular Singaporeans to pay them for services not rendered or rendered in a way that does not commensurate the value that is paid to them.

Mdm Speaker, we should not allow our legal system to be exploited by dubious businesses out to take advantage of victims, all while remaining unscathed. I support the amendment to the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

5.18 pm

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Three and a half decades before the CPFTA was first enacted, the advocacy of consumer rights in Singapore had already taken root with the inception of CASE. The familiarity of local consumers with CASE is a testament to how closely it has been identified with advancing the cause of consumers against unfair business practices in Singapore.

Despite its lack of investigative or enforcement powers, CASE has achieved much through its promotion of consumer education, and an appreciation of the inter-dependence between consumers and retailers.

Much has been done in this area over the years, but the lack of a Government agency to spearhead enforcement has been a noticeable gap. This gap has become even more glaring in recent years, as high-profile cases have demonstrated how the infamy of certain errant retailers easily spreads beyond our shores, threatening the reputation for quality and trustworthiness that our retail sector has painstakingly achieved among visitors from overseas.

By addressing this gap, the present amendment represents an important change that will underpin the relationship that businesses have with their non-business customers. The appointment of a Government agency to this role will provide a dedicated and prominent enforcement arm that has been lacking from our consumer protection framework to date.

Many of the most egregious examples of errant business practices were only resolved with the involvement of the Police. Getting the Police involved in conflicts arising from consumer affairs is not ideal, despite the fact that such an approach is considered normal in many other countries. At the same time, with advances in business technologies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to track those who are ready to push the boundaries of what is acceptable under the law.

Clearly, it is time that a specialist agency to spearhead consumer protection is called for. Such an agency should be capable of deploying the technological tools to match the potential threats presented by new and increasingly sophisticated forms of errant business practices.

However, we have to be cautious about adopting an overly heavy-handed approach. It would be ironic if consumer protection legislation ends up raising the costs of doing business. If the costs to sellers increase, it will also hurt the smaller businesses.

On the other hand, a lack of protection will also end up hurting responsible sellers, with those in the tourism-related sectors potentially the hardest hit. Given how far the ripples of any case can spread, it is clear that an agency with sufficient resources and scope of oversight to address any problems which arise is called for.

Mdm Speaker, we have to be cognitive of the nature of the problems that have surfaced so far. Errant retailers can impose a parasitic cost on others in their business community. By encouraging the growth of a network of shady operators engaging in unacceptable practices, errant retailers obscure the view of their neighbouring businesses about positive business opportunities, gradually sapping the confidence of those around them about their ability to expand in a positive manner.

Fortunately, relative to the size of the economy, problems with errant retailers have been confined to only a very small group. Unfortunately, reports about how certain practices have arisen to exploit loopholes have a certain repetitive ring to them. In view of this, it is important that the agency tasked with enforcing consumer protection laws takes a proactive approach. Rather than plugging each loophole as it arises or seeking to have an ironclad protection from the get-go, it may be better to address the development of such negative practices by looking at what are the root causes giving rise to them within our business ecosystem.

This is why the appointment of SPRING, with its experience and scope, is so important. It is an appropriate recognition of the challenges that come with the advanced development of our business landscape.

With the assignment of investigative and enforcement powers to SPRING, one area which I would urge the agency tasked with the new role to look into is whether the occurrences of claims and conflicts are synchronised with the general state of the economy, and, if so, whether they tend to increase or decrease as the economy weakens. Although there is no conclusive evidence that either is true, the statistics published on the CASE website about the top 10 categories in which complaints are received cover virtually all the main areas of domestic economic activity that we know. Understanding whether the frequency of complaints from consumers about errant business practices is related to cyclical business activity would help in the management and education of potential areas of conflict.

Finally, Mdm Speaker, I would like to request further clarification from the Ministry on two points.

First, at the moment, SPRING has been tasked with investigative and enforcement powers under this amendment Bill. Will it also be given the authority to address flaws or weaknesses in the business ecosystem, if its investigation of cases reveals that there are, for instance, perverse incentives which fuel the growth of poor business practices? For the same reasons that I believe that the involvement of the Police in consumer disputes is not the correct approach, I would urge the agency, when it takes on the appointment under this Bill, to explore how to promote efficient and sustainable approaches to enforcement, with a view to keeping costs as low as possible.

Second, in relation to whether the frequency of claims and conflict arising from consumer protection legislation is closely tied to the business cycle, I would like to ask whether the Ministry has considered the issue of whether stringent enforcement could exacerbate the challenges faced by businesses, especially the small ones, during times when the economy is weak. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.25 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in support of this Bill which essentially is a Bill about trust and about levelling the playing field in the marketplace. While Singapore strives to be a business-friendly hub for companies, we must also ensure that justice prevails in the marketplace, where no party is able to take advantage of another.

I am sure many of us will recall the amount of public anger stirred up in 2014 by the high-profile cases of errant companies at Sim Lim Square. That year, Jover Chew became public enemy. Citizen vigilantes took over social media to reveal his identity. A crowdfunding campaign was set up to compensate the victim, and money continued to pour in until it raised 12 times the targeted amount. This was a display of collective public action in Singapore, an angry society stirred up by a clear case of a bully taking advantage of another person. A year later, we saw BreadTalk's soya milk saga. Once again, Singaporeans were up in arms.

Madam, it is clear that the public does not tolerate a betrayal of the trust they hold towards companies. When a customer is made to pay more than he or she agreed to, or when a product is misrepresented, it is a form of injustice which hits the raw nerves of Singaporeans. In this regard, I stand in full support of this Bill to strengthen our laws to better protect consumers. However, I would like to raise a few concerns.

Firstly, to help consumers understand the additional protection they are conferred under this new law, will the Ministry be releasing publicity materials? I note that after the Lemon Laws were enacted in 2012, CASE had published accessible public awareness materials to educate consumers about their rights.

In the same way, we need education for consumers to reap the full benefits of this proposed law. For example, it would be useful to reiterate the acts listed in the Second Schedule, specifying what constitutes unfair practices. We could also explain what an "injunction" means in layman's terms and to educate consumers to stay clear from deals which seem too good to be true. If this is not feasible as a nationwide campaign, then I would recommend at least for the Government to pay special attention to hotspots where numerous complaints have been received.

Secondly, foreign workers and tourists seem to be target groups for errant companies. In 2014, Vietnamese and Chinese media picked up on these scams targeting foreign nationals, tainting Singapore's image as a trustworthy, tourist-friendly shopping hub. Can the Minister share what else is being done to protect this vulnerable group, as well as steps to assure prospective tourists that Singapore remains a safe shopping haven?

Lastly, most people I have spoken to about this Bill simply label it as a Bill that will give us peace of mind when we shop.

Madam, in the beginning of my speech, I said this is a Bill about trust. But it really is a Bill about trust lost in our society. Ultimately, we are strengthening legislation to strengthen trust in our society. While I support this Bill, I hope this is not the end goal. As I frequently mention in my speeches, legislation cannot be the end goal. We cannot legislate everything, and we cannot depend solely on legislation and enforcement of legislation for the moral progress of our nation.

We have been called a "fine city", and I am afraid there is some truth in this label. When I speak to primary school kids and ask them why they should not litter, for example, almost every reply is that you cannot litter as you will get a fine or must "pay money if you get caught". These replies depress me, to be honest. It is a sign that we have become over-reliant on laws. I wish the replies were that we should not litter because it might harm the environment, it might pollute the ecosystem, it might make it unpleasant for others, or we should not litter because someone else has to pick up the litter.

I appreciate that I sound idealistic. But where are we heading as a society if everything we do or do not do is because there is a fine or penalty attached to it? It does seem like we are doing the right things for the wrong reasons.

Fundamentally, we should have laws, but we should not solely and consistently focus on the laws. Morals and values in an ideal world should not be dictated by laws. And these cannot be taught in the classroom nor written in textbooks. Children learn by watching. So, we, as parents, need to teach by example. We, as parents, need to instil the values in our children.

Two quotes sum up what I just said. The first, and I quote, "Children close their ears to advice but open their eyes to example"; and the second, "Children learn from what you are than what you teach".

Ultimately, we cannot just depend on legislation or depend on schools to strengthen trust and reduce cheating. A high level of trust is indicative of an integrated, resilient and cohesive society, one which will require less Government intervention and fewer laws. This may sound like a fantastical utopia, and I, a foolish idealist. But I have personally encountered such a society.

In July 2012, I was in the Solomon Islands, and I shared my experience in a Facebook post more than four years ago. I wrote: "The people here show a level of trust I seldom see. We had dinner in a restaurant on the first night. We didn't have enough cash, and their credit card machine was not working. The owner said, 'Never mind, pay me another time!' We went back the next night, and we still did not have enough local currency, and the credit card machine was still not working and the owner said, 'Never mind, just eat first and pay me another time!' We were complete strangers, and he did not ask us for any ID, nothing."

In the concluding paragraph of that Facebook post, I wrote, "I felt what it was like to live amongst people so genuine, so trusting that I had to pinch myself so many times to make sure I wasn't dreaming."

In April this year, Minister Shanmugam spoke about how a 10-year-old child can take public transport alone in Singapore. There is no doubt we are a safe society and our primary focus should be our physical safety. But I hope we can focus not only on our physical safety but also on our community spirit and continue to build a society where a higher level of trust exists amongst all of us. The trust that holds society together like glue cannot, and should not, be lost in our search for economic progress. And this trust can only be cultivated by protecting the moral fabric of our society.

These are my high hopes for Singapore – strong moral values which guide our behaviour, without the constant need for Government carrots and sticks.

Madam, let me end with a quote, which reads: "Trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair." It is my utmost wish that we will live in a society where trust remains the norm, where the moral fabric of our nation remains strong and where we would not need to strengthen this piece of legislation again in the near future. Madam, my above comments notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

5.31 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) (CPFTA) Bill seeks to empower SPRING to become an enforcement agency to investigate, obtain and enforce Court injunctions against errant retailers. The amendments aim to deter errant retail practices and to publicise the occurrence of such practices so that consumers are aware of which retailers have received injunctions.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Sir, consumer protection is important for many reasons. Not only is it the right thing to do for the sake of fairness, it also yields economic benefits. It enhances the Singapore brand for tourism. Moreover, consumer protection, by reducing information asymmetry and imbalances and power between consumers and retailers, also enhances the efficient operation of markets. Being pro-market does not mean being simply pro-business but striking the right balance between being pro-business and pro-consumer.

Sir, this is clearly a step in the right direction. In our General Election 2015 manifesto, the Workers' Party (WP) called for the Government to be more proactive in seeking Court injunction orders against errant retailers and also provide more resources to the Government bodies tasked with this role. However, I do have a number of clarifying questions and suggestions.

First, under this amendment and according to the frequently asked questions released by MTI in May this year, SPRING will not be responsible specifically for providing redress or compensation to consumers who are victims of errant retailers. Rather, those consumers will need to find redress through legal action that they undertake and finance themselves or with the help of CASE. This is a huge concern because many consumers refrain from taking legal action even in the SCT due to their lack of experience with the legal system and concerns about time and cost.

Will CASE be sufficiently resourced to assist in all cases where consumers may need assistance to pursue their complaints? The kind of assistance that can and will be provided and the sequence of steps that can be expected when one files or requests for assistance in pursuing a complaint should be made very clear to all consumers. This is seen on the websites of some of the Australian state consumer protection agencies, like the New South Wales Fair Trading, for example.

Second, Sir, an enhanced enforcement regime presupposes that there are clear guidelines to retailers about what is and is not considered unethical or errant conduct, and that measures are taken to educate retailers about their obligations. Unfair practices are defined in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA. However, many retailers will not be aware of these provisions or how they are operationalised and practised. So, my question here is: how will retailers be educated about their responsibilities under the CPFTA, and which agency is tasked with this responsibility?

Third, and in a parallel fashion, consumer protection also depends on consumers being aware of their rights and taking action when they experience errant conduct. Which agency will be responsible for educating consumers and how? In this context, I suggest that SPRING or another agency consider requiring more operators to display consumer protection posters or signs to remind consumers about their rights in the shopping environment.

Fourth, beyond just obtaining injunctions against errant conduct, will SPRING or another organisation under MTI look into requiring merchants to implement broad-based pan-industry measures that are fairer to consumers? For example, in Australia, the Consumer and Competition Commission requires grocery stores to display unit prices clearly for the produce that they sell. That Commission also defines certain types of contract clauses as oppressive and, hence, illegal. Will this kind of proactive preventive groundwork also be done in Singapore? I suggest that an agency, which could be SPRING, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) or another agency, be tasked to proactively require the whole industry to adopt fair consumer practices on an industry level in this way.

Fifth, SPRING is primarily an investigative agency at the present moment. How would the officers of the new department be trained in law enforcement techniques? Will SPRING draw learnings from any other consumer protection agencies in developed countries which have a long track record of operation?

Sixth, how would SPRING approach the issue of offshore online retailers who may not have a legal entity in Singapore and where legal action in the Courts may thus be problematic? Such retailers can be expected to take up a larger share of e-tailing revenues in the future as new platforms emerge to connect not only large vendors but also mid-sized vendors in countries like Japan, Korea, the US and Australia with Singapore consumers? I wonder if there is a role here for an international consumer protection and enforcement network (ICPEN).

Seventh, will there be an escalating scale of severity of action taken in the case of repeat offenders, who may be companies or, as the Minister of State observed, individuals, to set up successive companies to cover their tracks? This may be necessary to create a stronger deterrent against those who are egregious offenders and who feel that they can prey on certain vulnerable and captive groups of customers.

Finally, Sir, will SPRING's new enforcement powers apply to products sold via legitimate multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes or, for that matter, via illegitimate pyramid schemes where there may be no retailers with shop fronts? MLM, Sir, is a substantial industry. Including MLM under this framework will help the legitimate MLM industry to protect its reputation, to grow and to contribute to the economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

5.37 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah(Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Singapore retail and services sector is one of the contributors to our economy. We are one of the world's top destinations for luxury retailers, attracting luxury and business fashion brands worldwide. Retail sales, seasonally adjusted, rose by 1.4% in May 2016 over the previous month. Sales of food and beverage (F&B) services increased 0.9% in May 2016 over the previous month. So, our retail and F&B industry is a thriving and important component in our economy. It is also noteworthy that many tourists come to Singapore to enjoy shopping besides visiting the various tourist attractions. Our retail industry is very much inherent in the Singapore brand. We need to not only give good service but also be honest and above board in our dealings with customers, be they local or foreign.

Last year, we saw how the years of hard work put in by everyone in the retail industry and STB were thrown to the dumps, thanks to the reckless, irresponsible and condemnable action of an errant retailer and his staff at Sim Lim Square. We gained notoriety overnight. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs even put up a notice on its website warning Chinese citizens to be careful or even avoid going to Sim Lim Square, following a series of fraudulent and unethical sales tactics by a few miscreants that caught the headlines in the world press. As a consequence, the mall also suffered from the negative publicity. Our country's reputation, too, suffered. I applaud the Government's effort for taking this matter seriously and giving SPRING more teeth to protect the consumers.

While the new initiatives are commendable, I think it may have left a gap in that there are companies, especially those in the gym, spa and beauty care sector, which are in the practice of selling packages to the public.

They seek advanced payments and lure, or sometimes coerce, customers to sign up for six-month or even 12-month packages. Just recently, we saw California Fitness go into liquidation. Many consumers would be hard put to recover their money. We are looking at a franchise that has been in operation for about a decade and was supposedly an established industry player. Customers took them in good faith in buying prepaid packages, only to find themselves locked out without prior warning. Surely, the management knew they were going belly up and yet they did not stop the sales staff from recruiting. This is a practice we must stop. This is doing something to defraud the consumers. There is a CaseTrust for the spa, beauty and wellness industry. Should all fitness gyms, beauty salons and wellness spas be required to come under CaseTrust, if they are selling prepaid services?

Prior to this year, it seems that CASE has received a number of complaints against California Fitness. Surely this should have served as a red flag. But, unfortunately, nothing was raised publicly. Additionally, I hope SPRING would pay more attention to companies that have had complaints lodged against them and, depending on the severity of the situation, possibly suspend them from selling prepaid services, or put out a warning sign to the public. It is like what the stock exchange does to flag out listed companies which are showing a sudden run-up in prices or put companies on the restricted trading list. Allow me to summarise the above two points in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Retail and service sectors are two important contributors to our economy. From the Sim Lim Square incident, we can see that one unscrupulous retailer is enough to damage the reputation of Singapore. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment to the Act to confer powers on SPRING to investigate and penalise unscrupulous retailers.

I would also like to highlight another service that many consumers have grumbles about and that is prepaid packages. For example, California Fitness was recently bankrupted and yet, before they closed down, they continued to sell many packages. This is nothing short of fraud. I hope that the Government can consider legislation to require those who sell pre-paid packages such as gyms, beauty salons, and spas, to be accredited by CaseTrust. Should there be many consumers complaining against them, SPRING can take preventive measures by temporarily barring them from selling prepaid packages.

(In English): Ultimately, prevention is better than cure and I hope that in cases of poor business practices, the problems can be nipped in the bud before a large number of people are implicated. In the case of Sim Lim Square, the mall's management subsequently did a good job working closely with the authorities to weed out the other errant retailers. It would be good if SPRING could keep in close touch with various retail watchdogs and organisations to identify problematic retail practices in advance.

Next, while I note that we are giving more bite to look into cases to protect consumers, I hope the Minister can clarify why the investigation may be carried out by an Auxiliary Police Officer, appointed under the Police Force Act, instead of the regular Police. I do not know if this will help to expedite investigations. I do not know if these officers have been involved in investigation work previously and have sufficient experience to do the task. On the flip side, if SPRING has its own investigation officers, would they be given sufficient training and the confidence to engage the culprits as some of these errant retailers can be gangsters? Otherwise, they may end up like some Land Transport Authority (LTA) officers who got into scuffles and tiffs when trying to carry out their duties.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Low Yen Ling.

5.45 pm

Ms Low Yen Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The retail industry in Singapore is large and highly variegated. It comprises more than 16,000 firms, from micro-enterprises and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to international fashion houses and large department stores, offering consumers access to a wide range of goods and services. This diversity enhances the attractiveness of Singapore to locals and visitors alike as a place to live, work and play.

Given its impact on our economy and reputation, it is essential that our retail industry engages in sound business practices. An effective and responsive consumer protection framework helps to provide this check and balance. So, I fully support the amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) (CPFTA) Bill tabled today. They are timely changes to strengthen our consumer protection framework by increasing the measures which may be taken against the few egregious players to maintain a high level of trust in our retail sector.

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry has explained that it is important for consumers to know their rights and be alert to what unfair trading practices are, to be in a good position to make sound purchasing decisions. Indeed, this principle of "caveat emptor", or "let the buyer beware" must continue as the key plank of our consumer protection framework.

To be able to make an informed purchasing decision, consumers need to know their rights as consumers and know what to look out for, including questions to ask the retailer before making a purchase. I was very happy to hear from my resident, Mr Choo Ming Yong, 69 years old. He is an avid photographer who recently bought a camera worth about $3,000. He checked out different retailers to compare the prices of the model he was interested in and he also noted the warranty terms and period before finally deciding on his purchase. This practice, he told me, has resulted in him being a happier consumer, who is more satisfied with his current buy than the previous camera purchases a few years back. For Mr Choo, being more aware as a consumer paid off. I am, therefore, strongly of the view that even as we strengthen the CPFTA, our efforts on the consumer education front must also continue. When consumers are knowledgeable, alert and aware they can make better and informed purchasing decisions.

To this end, CASE plays a key role in championing consumer education and raising consumer awareness. MTI has worked with CASE on broad-based initiatives and targeted efforts to reach more vulnerable consumer segments, for example the elderly, based on their specific concerns. With effect from this month, CASE will also work with the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) over the next three years to roll out consumer education talks and reach out to heartlanders. The talks will teach consumers what they should look out for when making purchases, especially for products and services that have attracted high volume of complaints, like for the consumers to read and understand the terms of conditions of the deal before entering into a transaction. I urge CASE to explore new channels to educate consumers and build consumer awareness, especially in areas where we are seeing more issues faced by consumers.

There are signposts to guide consumers in their purchases. For example, accreditation schemes for businesses like CaseTrust ensures fair trading practices and greater protection for consumers. We encourage more businesses to take part in these schemes as it not only demonstrates their fair trading practices, it also sets them apart from their competitors. The voluntary CaseTrust accreditation scheme requires participating businesses to have good service practices, and for certain schemes, involve prepayment protection.

Currently, over 800 businesses are CaseTrust-accredited. Beyond that businesses may go further by volunteering to provide prepayment protection if they collect advance payments from consumers. They may do so by purchasing business insurance, which is already available for spa wellness, fitness and renovation sectors. We will continue to encourage consumers to patronise accredited businesses that provide protection for prepayments. By doing so, consumers also send a signal that practices are welcome, and more businesses will come onboard to be accredited.

By enhancing the CPFTA we are strengthening the measures that may be taken against errant retailers to give greater protection to consumers. Even as such steps are in place, we need the cooperation of the consumer to be armed with the right information, to stay alert against errant sellers or service providers and be aware of their rights so as to make informed purchasing decisions. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. An informed, alert, and aware consumer is the best defence. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, Parliamentary colleagues, we all know that the fundamental of doing business is trust. Only when you are honest and trustworthy can your business last. In an era where information is widely available, a few errant businesses cheating consumers for short-term gains will not only cause losses for the consumers but also sully the reputation of the entire retail and service industry. CPFTA is to send a strong message to these black sheep that they must not cheat consumers and damage the reputation of the retail and service industry.

As the saying goes, "If you hurt others, you will end up hurting yourself". A small number of errant businesses is enough to ruin Singapore's reputation as a shopping paradise, and the consequence can be dire. Besides protecting consumers' interest, CPFTA can also penalise those errant businesses to safeguard the reputation of the retail and service industry. This is very important and beneficial to the development of our retail and service industry.

Everyone has a role to play by staying alert to those errant businesses. We can adopt a three-pronged approach, that is, consumers, the industry and the Government.

First, consumers must be alert. They should not easily believe those promotions that sound too good to be true and avoid falling into a trap. Second, the industry should put more effort into training or set up professional accreditation bodies to increase the service awareness and standard of the retailers. Third, on the part of the Government, we pass legislation, such as CPFTA, to further ensure that we provide a level playing field for all businesses to compete fairly, so that customers can buy with peace of mind the products they like and the service they need.

We all have a role to play to uphold trust in society. I hope that retailers, industry leaders and consumers can all treat CPFTA seriously and understand the meaning and spirit behind it. We must continue to uphold the highest standard so that Singapore can continue to be an attractive place for leisure, shopping, work, travel and personal development. I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

5.54 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, consumer protection is essential especially in today's context where there are many issues and challenges that consumers face from errant retailers who prey upon gullible or vulnerable consumers with a lack of knowledge of the product, quality and price at which it is sold in the marketplace or perhaps forcefully persuaded to make such purchases.

Importantly, there must be effort to empower consumers by creating awareness and educating them on how consumers can potentially fall for the gimmicks of unscrupulous retailers, even though such retailers may be far and few in numbers. We need to ensure the rights of the consumers are preserved and the principles of fair trade are embraced by retailers and also those in the e-commerce businesses.

Sim Lim Square, Lucky Plaza and People's Park Complex are some places well-known for all the wrong reasons where consumers, both locals and tourists, had had distasteful experiences in purchases. While we take precautions to protect those consumers from retailers who mislead or misrepresent information pertaining to the products, equal efforts should be made to protect the interests of consumers who make their purchases both in person, through third party or electronically as our e-commerce trading is also growing fast in this highly connected place.

It is important that we assure both locals and tourists that the products they buy are of good quality, improving the image of Singapore as a "shoppers' paradise" and not "shoppers' nightmare". For instance, the introduction of lemon laws protects consumers against defective goods that fail to conform to contract or meet satisfactory quality or performance standards at the time of purchase for a specified duration of time. Likewise, I would urge that any review and changes to the consumer laws should raise consumers' awareness of errant retailers as to who they are and where they are located so as to protect consumers' interests, especially against such errant retailers who persists in unfair trading practices and continue to violate the injunction orders.

The key amendments to the Bill, that is, to appoint SPRING Singapore as the administering agency with investigation and enforcement powers to gather evidence and file injunction applications with the Courts against errant retailers and to introduce additional measures which may be imposed by the Courts on errant businesses are a welcome move as Singapore prides itself to be a popular tourism destination. However, I would like to seek five clarifications on the Bill.

Explanation of the following, "retailer charging a price for goods or services that is substantially higher than an estimate provided to the consumer, except where a consumer has agreed to a higher price in advance". What if the retailer is charging a much higher price due to quality of service or something else? What if a consumer has agreed to purchase under undue pressure or coercion as he/she perceives it to be? Can the affected consumer raise this to be an unfair sales tactic employed by the retailer?

In this aspect, consumers, especially from a vulnerable group, must be protected and understand what difference in quality means. The affected consumers, who may be the complainants, must be educated on the consumers' rights and protection and how they can potentially prevent this from recurring. Retailers under injunction, too, must be made to attend compulsory retailing ethics sessions.

Two, regulations, section 20(2)(c), on controlling or prohibiting any practice in relation to any consumer transaction. If the errant owner starts a similar business with the same wrongful tactic, does section 20(2)(c) include a restriction based on the registered owner of business or supplier? If the errant owner embarks in other businesses applying the same wrongful tactics, is the said section applied to other businesses of the same registered owner?

Three, section 6, consumer's right to sue for unfair practices. Will there be stronger deterrence for unfair sales practices? The current amount of claim is capped at $30,000 for those who seek CASE mediation. I suggest this limit to be reviewed and raised in tandem, especially when the cost of goods is increasing over time.

Four, perishables and consumables are covered, with the presumption that defects reported within six months existing at the point of delivery will only apply up to the normal shelf life of the perishable or consumable, if the shelf life is less than six months. What happens if the consumer consumes or partially consumes the goods? The recent petition for refund for Jay Chou concert tickets due to poor sound quality is one such example. If an individual was to lodge a complaint against the concert organiser, is the Act applicable?

Five, CASE statistics showed that the complaints filed on online transactions were 159 last year, compared to 146 in 2014. There is an increasing number of online transactions, including the rise of online service providers, such as Deliveroo, Foodpanda and so on. Is the Bill applicable to complaints against online service providers, such as Deliveroo and Foodpanda food delivery and so on? Does the Bill apply to multi-level marketing? Does the Bill also cover online selling or consumer-to-consumer transactions, such as Carousell shopping? Does this Bill cover e-commerce retail businesses and purchases? Will the third party or middleman facilitating the sale be liable if the consumer complains? Examples of such middlemen include 65daigou, ezbuy, Qoo10 and Shopee, who buy and sell on mobile.

I would like to call for solid efforts and actions to empower consumers and for them to know their consumer rights and also for businesses to act responsibly with three suggestions.

First, consumers to be able to call a hotline number to report immediately should they experience any unfair consumer trading practices which they manage to avoid or even potential acts which they hear of so that the administering agent can record and investigate on this matter, especially when the number of alerts for the same retailer shows a rising trend.

Second, retailers under injunction should be made to go for awareness programmes to know their "do"s and "don't"s or ethics of sales of goods or services to consumers. For that matter, even before a company is registered, this must be made compulsory. This acts as prevention, in addition to deterrent measures. In the programme, we must reinforce the positive, too, and make them realise that fair trading practices will enhance their business reputation and help sustain their business.

Third, we should clearly and visibly label retailers under injunction so that consumers especially tourists, are aware and will not fall into any follies. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding these, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

6.02 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to enhance the protection for consumers and members of public who are faced with rouge traders and businesses. I draw attention to three specific areas of the amendment Bill which can be further elucidated.

First, with reference to sections 9(4)(a), (b) and (c), the intention of these sections is to make it known to the public and potential consumers that there has been a declaration issued, or an injunction granted against the supplier for having engaged, is engaged or is likely to engage in an unfair practice. The actions required in these sections are thorough.

However, can I suggest two much simpler ways that can be included if the intent of these provisions is to make it publicly known that a declaration had been issued, or an injunction had been granted against the supplier? One is to require the supplier to display prominently in the premises a notice that a declaration has been issued or an injunction granted against the supplier; and two, is to require the supplier to include on its website a notice of the declaration or injunction. This would also make it easier for STB to check for compliance with the publication requirement.

Second, for sections 9(4)(e) and (f), I seek clarification on what is meant by the term "individual"? Does "individual" include a sole proprietor and anyone else who supplies goods without having a registered business?

With more and more people doing online shopping with overseas suppliers, some have taken advantage of this by becoming so-called "agents" to assist local buyers, especially when the websites are in foreign languages. Customers pay these "agents" a fee for procuring items for them. The "agents" will source for the desired items and translate the description of the items into English. All transactions are between the customers and the "agents". Can these "agents" also be classified as suppliers since they procure the items for the customers from another source and sells directly to the customers, bearing in mind that these so-called "agents" are not agents nor are they representatives of the foreign suppliers?

For sections 9(8) and 9(9), again, a distinction is made between "supplier" and "individual". Who is this "individual"? The Act defines "supplier". However, why is a distinction now made between "supplier" and "individual"? Will "individual" be defined in the Regulations"? Does "individual" have the same meaning as for sections 9(4)(e) and (f) and again in sections 10(6)(C) and 10(9)?

Third, in section 9(10), the only penalty here is the extension of the specified period. But is this sufficient to deter the supplier or individual from non-compliance? If the recalcitrant supplier or individual has reached the last few years of the specified period, he can wilfully choose not to comply with any orders, knowing that it would be only another one or two years till the end of the specified period and nothing else would be done against him.

For example, a recalcitrant supplier has been imposed with the maximum 10 years and during the last one or two years, he did not comply with an order under sections 9(4)(a) to (d) or sections 9(4)(e) or (f), can there be an extension of the specified period to more than 10 years under this provision?

What if there had already been an earlier extension of the specified period to 10 years and the supplier or individual did not comply with the order under the above sections? Does this provision mean that there can be a further extension of the specified period to more than 10 years? How many extensions of the specified period can there be? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The amendments are a positive and welcome step towards greater protection of consumers. But I have two suggestions here. First, set up a one-stop centre or hotline so that consumers can easily report unfair practices. Second, enforcement against those "black sheep" retailers should be targeted and robust.

(In English): To conclude, the amendments are a positive step towards greater protection of consumers. I suggest that a one-stop centre, both physical and virtual, and a hotline for aggrieved customers be set up. In the same vein, enforcement against rogue businesses and traders should be speedy, resolute and robust. This is so that consumers can be better protected and not left in the lurch. SPRING must take ownership with its new powers.

In short, I hope these questions and suggestions can be addressed for greater clarity and effectiveness. With that, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

6.07 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I am certain that consumers will welcome the proposed changes, as it would level the playing field between them and errant retailers. Honest and ethical retailers will also welcome the stronger deterrent measures that will be taken against the minority "black sheep" among their industries.

The case of Mr Jover Chew, who was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment last year for cheating over $16,000 from 26 victims, most of them foreign workers and tourists, while operating a mobile phone shop in Sim Lim Square made international news in neighbouring countries and was widely shared on social media. Some tourism websites even had comments warning others to be careful when purchasing electronic goods from the mall. Some comments went as far as to say, "Be careful when you buy things from Singapore".

Sir, we cannot let a small minority of errant retailers tar the reputation of Singapore as a retail and shopping haven. It is heartening to note that the Bill will empower SPRING to gather evidence, file injunction applications with the Courts against persistent errant retailers and enforce compliance with injunction orders. This sends a strong signal to retailers that there is someone with teeth keeping an eye out for unfair trading practices. Consumers will be able to shop with greater ease, knowing that action can and will be taken by SPRING against those who persist in taking advantage of consumers.

One of the key proposed amendments is for the Courts to have the power to order errant retailers to publicise that they are under an injunction. The Courts may also require the retailers to inform the administering agency of any changes in employment involving consumer transactions to prevent them from side-stepping injunction orders by setting up new entities. Such a measure will only be effective if there are regular spot checks conducted on the ground against errant retailers. SPRING must also impose stricter penalties on those who persistently flout the Court orders.

I would also like to urge SPRING and CASE to place greater emphasis on public education. In order for people to shop at ease, they must be aware of their rights as consumers. Many, especially the elderly, foreign workers and tourists, may not have adequate knowledge about their rights as consumers and they are the ones most likely to fall prey to unethical and errant retailers. Information about consumer rights and unethical business practices should be made readily available on both traditional and digital media. It is only when all consumers are armed with information about their rights will they be able to prevent themselves from being victim to a dishonest retailer.

In fact, we can all play a part in generating public awareness about consumer rights and ethical business practices. The proliferation of technology and social media allows us to come together as a community to share our "first-person" experiences, both the good and the bad. This enhances awareness among consumers, and retailers will inadvertently be pushed towards delivering positive service experiences and providing quality products to every customer. After all, satisfied customers can become powerful brand ambassadors.

I would like to take this opportunity to request MTI and the relevant agencies to look into how we can offer better protection to consumers. There are three areas of concern. The first pertains to consumers who are the initial victims of an errant retailer. Under the revised Act, potential consumers would benefit from the injunction orders as it allows them to steer clear of the errant retailers. But what about the victims in the first instances? How would they obtain compensation? Cost and complexity of process are often reasons given by victims for their reluctance in pursuing compensation.

My second concern is whether the revised Act covers online retailers, both registered and unregistered entities. Currently, it seems like the Act is only able to act on brick-and-mortar retailers, which does not reflect the current landscape of the retail sector.

My third concern is the sudden business closures that impact consumers, particularly in the fitness and beauty industries. More can be done to better protect the interests of customers of businesses that abruptly close. It is a common practice among fitness centres and beauty salons to sell "lifetime memberships" and packages spanning several years. Thousands of dollars are paid upfront before any services or products are utilised. While such business models are not illegal, customers will lose their hard-earned money when a gym or a salon closes down suddenly, much like what happened with California Fitness recently. Even when the company undergoes liquidation, the chances of customers getting their money back are remote.

For many victims, legal avenues are the only way that they could possibly be able to get some of their money back, so laws should be strengthened to protect them, regardless of whether the transaction is with an online or a brick-and-mortar retailer. If the Minister could share some thoughts on whether there are any upcoming plans to address these issues, it would be much appreciated.

Sir, the proposed amendments in the Bill serve to help create a more level playing field between retailers and consumers. It serves to keep errant retailers in check, which will, hopefully, enhance our nation's reputation as a retail and shopping haven. However, consumers are still vulnerable against errant retailers, and I urge for more to be done to address this disparity. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

6.14 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill, which I feel touches the hearts of many, as not only were we at times at the receiving end of unfair practices but also from public feedback. The events in the last 12 months have seen a clamour for tighter laws so that the likes of Jover and others like him would not resurface to haunt innocent shoppers. I can still recall the pitiful look of the Vietnamese tourist who begged for the return of his money from the shop. This must never happen again in Singapore. We must come down hard on such operators. However, in this fast-moving modern age, I feel consumer protection is one topic which will need a recurring review.

I am pleased that the Bill would put a stop to the practice of unscrupulous retailers who open multiple outlets so that they can continue with their malpractices after they are caught. The new section under 12(G) would give STB and its investigation officers very wide-ranging investigative powers, from pursuing the culprits to seizing their goods for investigation. The amendment also gives the Court the powers to require the errant retailers to notify consumers that it is under an injunction order. However, speed is of the essence in any investigation.

I hope, with the passage of this Bill, the authorities will be able to move more expeditiously so that the errant retailers can be dealt with swiftly and expeditiously and those who are wronged can get early redress. There should be wide publicity so that the public knows where they can go to to make reports against errant retailers.

Now that SPRING will be the administering agency after the Bill is passed, it would hopefully allow for faster action to be taken and for consumers to be aware about the types of unfair practices and are able to seek redress more easily with one single agency.

In taking on this additional role, I believe SPRING will see to it that its investigation team is backed up with the infrastructure to ensure that they are able to carry out their duties. Investigation work, as many of us may not realise, is more than just acting on complaints and recording statements. It is also about collating evidence and often this requires some strategising, maybe even surveillance work, so that the culprits can be caught with some element of surprise. While I know it will tap on the resources of the Auxiliary Police Force, there should also be a team of officers from SPRING who can coordinate and liaise with the field officers. The work of the officers will be keenly followed by the public and I hope they will rise to the occasion when the time comes.

This is the age of consumerism. People work hard, earn more and spend more. As a result, more and more of these issues arise between consumers and retailers. I am sometimes at a loss as to why, despite much publicity, consumers are still taken in by glib-tongued marketers. For example, the timeshare industry was in the limelight with numerous complaints being lodged to CASE by people who were cheated. Often, the victims would be lured with offers of being the lucky ones to win prizes, or specially selected in a draw, or the often-used trick of stopping someone to say, "Today is your lucky day and you are selected" and so on. Many horror stories appeared in the media year after year, yet we still get people duped into various schemes. I have, from time to time, also seen a few residents of mine, housewives and retirees with families, become victims of these.

Another nagging area I would like to raise is the question of online trading practices. Besides travel, the other most common purchases are fashion, lifestyle and food products as well as services. We are in an era where we are more reliant on technology for everything that we want. While technology may make it more efficient in the execution of a process, it often leaves gaps and many questions unanswered at times. It is quite impossible to seek clarification under such circumstances and replies are often less than satisfactory.

Today, we have colourful and interactive websites selling products and services online. The sellers post photos, drawings, all kinds of media gimmicks, littered with superlatives. But what you see therein may not necessarily be what they actually represent. I am aware that there is such a thing as a "return policy" for online shopping but this is not the norm. Buyers are at the mercy of sellers who find it perfectly acceptable to not offer a return or exchange policy. If they do, they would indicate, but in small print. So, you make the click and add it to your cart and you are off to spending good money for bad.

Also, in the case of errant online retailers, how will injunction orders be enforced? Worse, some online transactions are cross-border, so it probably creates some issues with the voluntary nature of publicising injunction orders on foreign-based websites. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, can I ask if pre-owned goods are covered by this amendment to the law? This can cover anything from bicycles, musical instruments to old furniture and antiques.

Some people buy used goods not because they cannot afford new ones, but because they would like certain older designs that have a classic look. I hope the Minister can consider a provision where the buyer can ask for repairs or replacement of the product if it is misrepresented to the buyer. And, if this still cannot result in an acceptable resolution to the dispute, the buyer can choose to keep the goods but with a price reduction. The third option is to be able to return the item and get a full refund.

Another point I would like to raise is my request that the Bill limit the period in which companies can ask a consumer to sign for advanced payment for services contracts. We should limit all such payments to not more than six calendar months. Operators should not ask clients to sign for packages that last for so long and lure them with discounts.

This practice is especially prevalent in the healthcare and fitness industry and I feel that we should nip this problem in the bud rather than allow the public to continue to be fleeced by unscrupulous operators.

Often, the operators know that their ship is sinking yet they failed to inform their staff to stop signing on more customers. While the frontline sales staff may not know the financial health of the company, the owners should be required by law to stop any further marketing once they know they are financially in dire straits.

(In English): Lastly, we are in an age where scams are quite prevalent. Maybe SPRING could look into having a certain platform where people can be alerted to scammers, including foreign ones, so that at least the buyers can get some form of warning. Otherwise, the spread of word via WhatsApp, e-forums, Facebook and so on may go unnoticed and people are also wary of believing whether what was posted was true or just a prank. At the end of the day, I feel that there is so much that the authorities can do but as consumers, we too must be vigilant and do not fall for the freebies and other gimmicks.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

6.21 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, one of Singapore's strengths is that people around the world trust us. We have a reputation for clean Government and clean business practices, by and large. We stand for the rule of law, which means that when there is misconduct, when there is fraud, we take firm action.

Trust is also a competitive advantage for any economy, especially advanced economies which can no longer compete on being the lowest cost venue alone. But when there is a shortage of trust, consumers become afraid, consumers are worried, customers become scared. Some might say, "Let the buyer beware", or, in Latin, "caveat emptor". But taken too far, this becomes harmful. In a market with too little trust, buyers are fearful – caveat emptor becomes "timet emptor". Instead of "Let the buyer beware", it becomes "Let the buyer be afraid". Or to put it another way, without adequate safeguards, caveat emptor can become "bo cheng hu", if Mr Deputy Speaker will allow me to use the vernacular. When the market is short on trust, consumers miss out on potentially good offers, while sellers miss out on potential sales. There can be market failure.

Trust is also a shared common good for the whole community. In a shopping mall, the whole business community benefits when the mall has a good reputation collectively for honourable merchants and shop owners. But there is also the problem of freeloaders and, in particular, what I will call "reputation polluters" – shops which treat consumers badly and unfairly, making unfair profits, polluting the reputation of neighbouring businesses and the entire mall. And, as we have seen in the past, dishonourable operators evading legal injunctions by changing the name of the company, finding proxies. Other Members in this House have pointed this out.

So, in this context, the Bill is a welcome improvement: making sure there are fewer loopholes, ensuring that dishonourable operators cannot escape enforcement.

But I wonder if there is room for the Ministry to go further. There have been cases in the media involving prepaid packages, where consumers pay a significant amount upfront for goods or services which have yet to be provided. Even if a copy of the contract is provided to the customer, it may be too late to seek justice once the contract has been signed. So, will the Ministry consider introducing a cooling-off period for prepaid packages, especially those involving large amounts of payment upfront? This has precedent in the insurance industry. If I may now continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, in a fair and just society, we need to protect the people. The law and the law enforcement agencies have a very important role.

The modern economy brings international challenges and international competition. Singapore is a developed economy. Goods and services in developing countries are cheaper than ours. Therefore, in the 21st century market, Singapore's competitive advantages include skills, science and technology and reputation.

Our reputation is precious. It is worth our effort to cultivate and protect the trust of travellers and consumers in our market, our shops and department stores. We must stay vigilant and not let a few black sheep ruin the collective reputation of an industry or sully our national reputation.

(In English): Let me now end in English. Overall, this Bill is a positive step towards a fairer and more equitable marketplace for consumers. It is a progressive policy, because those who benefit most are those most in need of protection – those who are less well-informed, less literate, less aware of the industry norms and buyer experience. Step by step, Mr Deputy Speaker, progressive policies help us build a fairer and more just society. And for these reasons, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Koh.

6.26 pm

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and note that all of them supported the amendment to the Bill. Some Members have raised pertinent points which I will now address.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan has suggested that the regulations under the CPFTA include a list of unfair contract terms, such as requiring that all consumer disputes be referred to arbitration. I would like to clarify that the current Unfair Practice No 11 in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA already makes it clear that it is an unfair practice for a retailer to take advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided as to be unconscionable. The current Unfair Practice No 20 in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA already provides that retailers have to make material information clear to consumers prior to transactions.

It is important that consumers read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions before making the purchase. Consumers do have a choice to walk away from the transaction if they think that the terms and conditions are unfair or overly onerous and this is where consumer education plays an important role in helping consumers to understand what the terms they are signing up for mean to them.

Ms K Thanaletchimi asked if it is an unfair practice for the retailer to put undue pressure or coercion on the consumer. I would like to clarify that taking advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services is already an unfair practice under No 12 of the Second Schedule in the CPFTA. A consumer who encounters such an unfair practice may provide feedback to, and seek assistance from, CASE to obtain redress from the retailer concerned. Ms Thanaletchimi also may wish to know that CASE has already been actively educating consumers on pressure-selling tactics and what consumers should look out for.

Ms Thanaletchimi also raised a question about what if the retailer is charging a much higher price due to the quality of service and so on. Well, the term in the Bill did say that a retailer charging a price for goods or services that is substantially higher than the estimate provided to the consumer, except where the consumer has agreed to a higher price in advance. This means that the consumer must believe that the higher than estimated quoted price is good value for money.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Melvin Yong, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted the recent case of the closure of California Fitness and asked if the Government can do more to protect consumer prepayments, such as limiting the amount of prepayments that businesses can collect to just six months. I would like to say that it is common practice for businesses to offer various choices to their customers which include prepaid packages, early bird discounts and maybe even limited time offers. This is a reflection of the diversity of our retail landscape, as retailers are constantly thinking of new ideas, good ways to attract and to serve customers. Pre-payments are, in themselves, a common business practice worldwide and it is not necessarily unfair or illegal as a practice.

When offering a prepaid package, businesses generally do offer customers a discount. So, in many ways, consumers do benefit from such prepayment schemes. These schemes are not actually harmful to consumers. But the fact that there is such a wide range of choices for consumers makes it even more important for consumers to exercise their choices carefully, particularly when it comes to very large purchases, very large amounts of prepayments or very long durations of contract periods.

Even large businesses that have been operational for many years, such as California Fitness, are not immune to business failure. Therefore, it is important, as I emphasised earlier, for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and consider if there are possible risks involved in such a transaction and what is their own capacity to bear losses under such contractual terms.

Given the wide range of businesses, it would be very challenging to impose a broad-based measure on all businesses to protect consumers against loss of prepayments from business closures. Such measures may affect the cost of doing business which would eventually be passed on to consumers. Overseas jurisdictions, including those in the European Union, Australia and Hong Kong, also recognise the challenges and do not impose broad-based measures against prepayment per se.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that all fitness gyms, beauty salons and wellness spas be required to come under CaseTrust if they sell prepaid packages. Participation in CaseTrust accreditation is voluntary. Currently, over 800 businesses are CaseTrust-accredited, as Ms Low Yen Ling alluded to earlier. We encourage more businesses to sign up and to go further by voluntarily providing prepayment protection if they collect advanced prepayments from their customers.

But in this regard, customers do play a role. As Ms Low Yen Ling said earlier, customers are encouraged to purchase from such retailers because by doing so, customers send a very strong and very clear signal that such good practices are welcomed, and more retailers will come onboard because they do want to have a good word of mouth to attract more customers. Retailers can also differentiate themselves from their competitors by making themselves commit to CaseTrust accreditation.

I would like to add that trade associations can tap on the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) programme that is jointly administered by SPRING and International Enterprise (IE) Singapore to develop and implement CaseTrust accreditation schemes for their association members. The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association and the Singapore Jewellers Association, for example, have both done so.

LEAD funding will co-fund the associations' cost of developing, administering and promoting accreditation. It will also co-fund the members' cost of signing up for CaseTrust accreditation. Of course, CASE and SPRING, as forward-facing agencies, are engaging constantly with trade associations and can also take the opportunities to reach out to these associations and their businesses to educate the businesses on what constitutes fair or unfair practices.

In reply to Mr Leon Perera's question earlier about how we go about educating businesses on what are fair and unfair practices, let me just bring Members back to my earlier opening speech about us having a whole spectrum of incremental measures to try and educate our consumers and prevent egregious behaviour.

By the time we have put up an injunction, usually, it means that CASE would have received a certain number of complaints from consumers. It would not be as if one customer made a complaint about a practice for business and we start investigating and putting in injunctions. Usually, by the time SPRING comes in to look at the possibility of a need for injunction and starts to do investigation, CASE would probably have received numerous complaints and through that process, there will be a discussion with the businesses, educating them that what they do is not right, there will be a mediation process and negotiation. Then, there will be a call for voluntary compliance agreements to be signed with the businesses.

Through this whole process, businesses which may have inadvertently flouted the rules or engaged in unfair practices will have a chance to review their own business practices and decide to change. These are processes which will flag out businesses that may have inadvertently entered into unfair practices. The whole spectrum of measures allows us to filter out businesses for education in that sense. Again, as I have said, CASE and SPRING will continue to engage the trade associations.

I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that SPRING will investigate errant businesses which persist in unfair practices when selling prepaid packages and take injunction action against them in the Courts. SPRING will work with CASE to publicise the injunction actions taken and the injunction orders obtained against these errant retailers. This will raise consumers' awareness of errant retailers who are under injunctions. SPRING will also monitor the activities of the businesses and individuals under injunctions to ensure that they comply with these injunction orders.

Let me address some questions about e-commerce that Members have raised. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Patrick Tay and I believe Ms Thanalatchimi as well have asked if the CPFTA protects consumers who make online purchases of goods and services and how an e-commerce business which is served with an injunction would publicise the fact that it is under an injunction if it is ordered to do so by the Courts.

CPFTA provides the same protection to consumers, whether their purchases are made online or from a brick-and-mortar shop. This approach is aligned with consumer protection in Australia and Hong Kong where actions have been taken against errant online retailers under the main consumer protection legislations.

E-commerce retailers under injunctions may be required by the courts to publicise injunction orders, such as through taking out advertisements in the print media, or on the landing pages of their website. To ensure that consumers are actually made aware of them being under an injunction, the Courts may also require them to notify the consumer in writing and to obtain the consumers' written acknowledgement of the notice before any transactions can be finalised.

SPRING, as the administering agency for CPFTA, will work with CASE to publicise the list of businesses, including e-commerce businesses, which are under any injunction order. The administering agency will also monitor the activities of these businesses to ensure that they are in compliance with the injunction orders.

Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if agents who act as middlemen to assist local consumers to purchase from foreign websites are considered as suppliers under the CPFTA. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if CPFTA covers consumer-to-consumer transactions. I must clarify that the CPFTA applies only to business-to-consumer transactions. Agents who carry on a business by assisting local consumers to purchase from foreign websites are considered as suppliers and they are, therefore, subject to the measures under the CPFTA if they engage in unfair business practices.

Under the CPFTA, a person is considered to be a supplier if the person engages in an activity with the intent of carrying on a business. This means that the transaction must be one of several transactions, that you are not just doing it one-off. If you are my friend and we decide to buy something from each other, then that is a one-off thing, that is not necessarily a business transaction. That is a consumer-to-consumer transaction. But if you carry on several transactions, either with the same consumers or with other consumers, then you are deemed as being a supplier.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised the issue of overseas e-commerce retailers and how orders to publish the injunction may be enforced on them. Mr Leon Perera also asked about e-commerce retailers as well and made the point that the proliferation and increasing popularity of online shopping mean that there will be more such online transactions taking place. But the reality is that such online transactions may also be cross-border in nature, where it may not be possible to enforce the judgment against an overseas retailer, especially if he has no presence in Singapore at all.

Therefore, this brings us back to the important principle of caveat emptor where we have emphasised many times that consumer education is the key principle undergirding the entire consumer protection framework. Consumers need to be made more aware of the risk of purchasing from overseas online retailers. The issue of enforcement against overseas parties is a practical jurisdictional issue, which is not necessarily unique to Singapore. Every jurisdiction faces the same issue.

Consumers must, therefore, exercise judgement in any form of transactions, especially online ones. Today, there are many online reviews about the reputation of websites and the reliability of transactions. Consumers should use some of these reviews from fellow consumers online to get a sense of what they are going into before they make purchases from websites. The National Council on Crime Prevention also has a website at www.scamalert.sg, where scammers and scam sites are listed and where consumers can also alert and educate themselves.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked if SPRING can publish a blacklist of errant renovation contractors. SPRING will work with CASE to make available to consumers information on errant businesses which have been issued injunction orders by the Courts, including renovation contractors. The details that may be published will include the name of the entity or the individual, if it is a sole proprietorship, and the business address as well. SPRING will monitor the activities of the businesses and individuals under injunction to ensure that they comply with these injunction orders.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about how customers will be notified about businesses or individuals under injunction. Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Patrick Tay suggested that injunction orders be publicised through prominent displays of the injunction notice at the shop premises and errant retailers' website to raise consumer awareness. These are all good ideas. And in filing an injunction application against errant business with the Courts, SPRING, as the administering agency for the CPFTA, may specify the manner in which the errant businesses may be required to publicise the injunction orders. This could include notices to be put up by the errant businesses in their shop premises. It could be a notice or on its own business website as well. This may be in addition to other forms of publicising to ensure prompt and adequate publicity of the injunction order.

Mr Melvin Yong suggested SPRING impose stricter penalties on those who persistently flout injunction orders. Mr Patrick Tay suggested that the specified period for compliance with the additional measures be extended beyond 10 years for recalcitrant retailers who do not comply with the requirements for the full specified period.

Let me assure Members that errant businesses which flout injunction orders are liable to be charged with contempt of Court. This is a criminal offence which could result in a fine or together with imprisonment. SPRING, as administering agency for the CPFTA, may take the errant retailer to Court for contempt of Court. SPRING can also apply to the Courts to increase the duration of the requirements for the errant retailer to publicise the injunction order, notify consumers of the injunction and inform SPRING of changes of the errant retailer's status. The CPFTA also provides for the Minister to prescribe changes to the specified periods that the Courts may order for compliance with the additional measures.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the Bill will restrict an errant retailer under injunction from starting a new business and persisting with the errant unfair practice. Under the proposed amended CPFTA, a retailer under injunction may be required by the Courts to notify the administering agency, in this case, SPRING, of any changes to the entity or the individual's employment if the changes relate to consumer transactions. So, if you are under injunction, you leave this store, you go and work in a different store, but you are still forward-facing and dealing with customers, then even if you are an employee, you need to declare, and there has to be a notice given to the customers that you are under injunction and you are still serving customers.

This enables the administering agency to monitor and prevent the errant retailer from side-stepping injunction orders by closing the business and setting up a new business under a different name while persisting with the unfair practice.

Ms Thanaletchimi suggested that all retailers, including those under injunction, attend courses on how to engage in fair trading. There are already such courses available, and some are initiated by the retailers themselves. For example, the Sim Lim Square Management Committee tied up with Nanyang Polytechnic to train the mall retailers in areas, such as improving interactions with customers and how to maintain a professional image. We encourage more retailers and operators to do the same because this will help them differentiate themselves from their competitors.

Mr Patrick Tay asked about the distinction between a supplier and an individual. The distinction is to provide for injunction action to be taken not just against errant business entities but also against errant individuals. This overcomes a challenge in the current CPFTA in which errant individuals side-step the injunction orders given to the businesses by closing their businesses, setting up a new business using a different person's name and then continue to persist in unfair practices.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked if stringent enforcement could exacerbate the challenges faced by businesses, especially during weak economic times. I would like to reassure him and Members of this House that enforcement is intended for errant retailers under injunction orders. In the grand scheme of things, this is a very small number, compared to the majority of retailers in Singapore who do not engage in unfair practice and, in fact, are interested to do an honest business. Retailers who do not carry out unfair trading businesses, therefore, should have nothing to worry about as far as stringent enforcement is concerned.

Enforcement actions should not impact the majority, unless you are engaged in unfair practices. In challenging economic times, it is even more important that these measures would help to prevent a few bad eggs from affecting the businesses of an entire sector or industry.

I would like to assure Mr Leon Perera, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Randolph Tan that SPRING, as the administering agency for CPFTA, will be sufficiently resourced to effectively carry out its investigation and enforcement duties. It will be set up by the time the finalised amendments to CPFTA are operationalised towards the end of 2016.

I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that SPRING will work closely with agencies and entities. I would like to clarify with Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Thanaletchimi that even though SPRING is the administering agency for CPFTA, CASE and STB will remain the first point of contact for local consumers and tourists respectively because, again, education is key. CASE and STB will assist consumers to resolve their disputes with businesses and obtain redress through negotiation, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements.

I hope that the strengthening of the injunction will move more cases towards the front end of the spectrum, that is, towards education, awareness, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements. So, this should send a signal to businesses which are even contemplating engaging in egregious behaviour to stop immediately and to go into voluntary compliance. This is what we hope to achieve.

If, however, during SPRING's investigations, SPRING finds that the errant retailer may have engaged in activities criminalised under the Penal Code, SPRING will not hesitate to refer the case to the Police for further investigation. So, we hope to move cases more into the front end, into the preventive aspects of retail behaviour but, if so required, Police action will be taken against criminal behaviour.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked why Auxiliary Police Officers instead of regular Police Officers will work with SPRING to investigate errant retailers. Er Dr Lee and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted that SPRING's officers need to be trained to carry out investigation and enforcement work.

The appointment of Auxiliary Police Officers to undertake investigation is not unique to the CPFTA. As I have mentioned earlier, it also does not mean that the Police will not investigate if the errant businesses engage in activities that are criminalised under the Penal Code. SPRING will refer such cases to the Police to investigate. This ensures that only cases that require definite Police action will be referred to the Police, so as not to overstretch the bandwidth of the Police.

I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that SPRING will put in place robust procedures for carrying out investigations, and SPRING's officers and the Auxiliary Police appointed to undertake investigations will be sufficiently trained.

I would like to once again reassure Assoc Prof Randolph Tan that Singapore's approach to consumer protection is a balanced one which recognises that the majority of businesses here engage in fair trading, hence, amendments of the Act do not impose onerous costs on businesses that have sound trading practices.

SPRING, whose existing mandate today is to oversee the growth of enterprises in Singapore, will balance this need for enforcement and its expanded role as the administering agency for the CPFTA to ensure businesses' interests are also adequately looked after.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about clauses 12(i) and 12(j) and the power to enter premises. Let me just take the Member through clause 12(g) which gives the requirement for reasonable grounds to suspect that egregious activities or unfair trading practices are taking place before the powers under clauses 12(i) and 12(j) were to be enacted.

The default position is to enact the power through a Court warrant. But in certain circumstances in which the egregious behaviour requires more urgent action, where tourists, for example, in large numbers may be harmed or fleeced by an egregious retailer, then there could be reasons for us to enact a search of the premises to gather evidence much earlier without a Court warrant. But in that case, as clause 12(i) has specified, there will be a two days' notice given to the retailer so that they are notified that there will be action taken on the premises of the retailer. This is not something that is a default position.

Clause 12(k) also provides how items that are taken during the search are to be handled so that the interests of the retailer, whose items may have been taken as evidence can be protected as well.

As Mr Patrick Tay called for earlier, he is looking for speedy, resolute and robust action from SPRING. This clause allows us to act much quicker against retailers who have engaged in extreme egregious activities. As I have said earlier, by the time we have invoked the investigation powers of SPRING towards filing an injunction, there would have been evidence from engagement through CASE, multiple retailers and feedback from consumers about this egregious behaviour of the retailer, so that such sufficient evidence from the sheer number of people who have been complaining and the evidence that is gathered by CASE, to allow us to get a sense of what is the urgency of the case at hand, for SPRING to invoke such powers. I hope that clarifies the question raised by Mr Dennis Tan.

Let me talk a bit about tourists, since we are on this topic. Mr Leon Perera asked about the provisions for tourists who have disputes with errant retailers. SCT usually hears cases within a month of filing, but tourists who are in Singapore only for a short time may opt to appear in person at SCT and be heard within 24 hours. Those who do not wish to appear in person at SCT or are unable to remain in Singapore until their cases are heard have the option to assigning CASE to represent their case on their behalf at SCT. This is provided for under the SCT Act.

Mr Louis Ng asked about what is being done to help tourists and foreign nationals to avoid falling prey to errant retailers who engage in unfair practices. STB has worked with CASE and the Police to develop a brochure with advice on the precautionary measures that visitors should take when purchasing electronic products in Singapore. This brochure is distributed at Sim Lim Square and other key touch points such as the Singapore Business Centre at the Orchard Gateway and STB's office at Tourism Court. Consumer protection advisories with smart shopping tips, such as checking of receipts and invoices are also available on the STB's website yoursingapore.com.

Let me talk about the questions raised regarding timeshare. Mr Zainal Sapari has asked if the administering agency will take injunction action against timeshare businesses which engage in unfair trading practices. Timeshare businesses, like all businesses that engage in transactions with consumers, are required to engage in fair trading practices. Errant businesses, including those in the timeshare sector which persist in unfair trading practices, may be investigated and have injunctions taken against them be SPRING, the administering agency for the CPFTA. If they are handed injunction orders by the Courts, then they are required to comply with the requirements which SPRING will enforce. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Saktiandi Supaat may be assured to know that the number of complaints on timeshare businesses filed with CASE has dropped significantly since the introduction of tighter regulations on such contracts in 2009 and 2014. In 2015, timeshare, as a problem, has dropped out of the top 10 sectors with the most complaints to CASE.

I would like to assure Ms Low Yen Ling, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will place priority on raising consumers' awareness of the changes to the Act. This will augment ongoing consumer education initiatives to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, such as being aware of scammers and their tactics. Business models can change, consumer shopping patterns may also evolve. So, it is not always possible to use legislation to cover all manner of consumer actions. Consumers, therefore, need to be prudent and exercise discretion and judgement in their transactions. Therefore, as I said many times before, consumer education will remain the key pillar of our consumer protection framework.

SPRING and CASE will work together on consumer education after the Bill is passed. As the administering agency, SPRING will put up information on the legislative changes and the list of frequently asked questions on their webpage to help consumers better understand the changes. SPRING will work with CASE to publicise information on errant businesses which have been issued injunction orders by the Courts, and CASE will also disseminate information on the changes to the Act at its upcoming events and outreach activities, such as consumer education advertisements, on toggle.sg.

On questions of redress for consumers, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Leon Perera asked for compensation for consumers who were affected by the unfair practices of errant retailers before an injunction was taken. CASE and STB will remain the first point of contact for locals and tourists and assist consumers with their disputes with retailers, including obtaining redress of compensation through negotiation, mediation and VCAs. Consumers also can take civil action via SCT.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the claim limit under the CPFTA can be increased from $30,000 currently. Data has shown that less than 1% of the number of complaints that CASE has received over the last three years exceeds this claim limit under the CPFTA. So, we are maintaining a careful watch and do not think there is any need to adjust this number at this point in time.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if pre-owned goods are covered by the CPFTA and if so, the forms of redress that consumers can ask for if the retailers have misrepresented the goods to the consumer. Second-hand goods are covered by the lemon law or the additional consumer rights in respect of non-conforming goods as stated in the CPFTA. However, what constitutes satisfactory quality would need to take into account the good's age at the time of delivery and the price that is paid. This is to be fair to the retailers as well.

Based on this, the CPFTA provides that the consumer may require the retailer to repair or to replace the goods if they fail to conform to satisfactory quality within six months of the purchase. If the cost of the remedy demanded by the consumer is disproportionate in comparison, then the retailer may offer one of the alternative remedies provided for in the legislation, such as a reduction in price or returning the product for a refund. As per existing laws, the refunded amount may be reduced to take into account the use that the consumer had of the goods they have received.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked how the Bill when passed will apply if perishables and consumables, which are covered by the Bill up to the normal shelf life of the consumable or perishable, are consumed or partially consumed by the consumer. To the extent that the item comes in a package, the consumer can seek recourse from the retailer or for a replacement if it can be ascertained either from what remains of the partially consumed product or by some other means that the item had failed to meet satisfactory quality within its normal shelf life. The consumer may ask for a refund if the retailer does not replace the item.

6.58 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr Koh, can you hold on for a while, while I move for the extension. I was hoping you would end before 7.00 pm.

Debate resumed.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am nearing the end.

Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if poor sound quality at a concert is covered by the Bill. Services, such as a concert performance, are not covered as the remedies under the lemon law regime are tailored for goods and are generally inappropriate for services. For example, it is quite impossible to return the service once it has been rendered.

On multi-level marketing, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Leon Perera asked if the Bill applies to MLM. MLM is covered under CPFTA, but I would also like to clarify that the MLM sector is also subject to the Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act which lays out prohibitions on the objectionable features of pyramid selling.

To conclude, Deputy Speaker, Sir, in looking at enhancing consumer protection I want to remind Members that we should not lose sight of the fact that most retailers are reasonable, and most consumers are actually sensible. The amendments to the Act enhance the protection of consumers against the small number of errant retailers who persist in unfair practices. It is also pro-business, as it avoids imposing widespread compliance burdens on a majority of businesses which engage in sound business practices.

Let me illustrate this with the Mobile Air incident, the Jover Chew case, and how it would be handled under the CPFTA after the amendments are passed. An errant retailer like Mobile Air who repeatedly carries out unfair practices and ignores the request from CASE to sign a VCA would be surfaced by CASE to the administering agency, in this case SPRING, for further investigation. And under the new amended Act, SPRING will have the power to gather evidence, which would be submitted to the Courts. The Courts may then issue an injunction order against the recalcitrant retailer, and we will have the means to take this injunction and investigation action much quicker.

As part of the injunction order, the errant retailer may be required to publicise its injunction status, such as putting up notices within the shop premises and notifying potential customers of the injunction order, prior to them making a purchase, and thereby, stopping other tourists from falling prey. This raises consumers' awareness and then the consumers, be they tourists or locals, can decide if they still want to purchase from this particular errant retailer. The individuals who are involved in engaging in unfair practices may also have injunction orders issued against them and may be required to similarly publicise their injunction status. This would prevent them from side-stepping the injunction orders.

SPRING will also work with CASE to publicise the injunction orders issued by the Courts on errant retailers. Taken together, these measures will stop errant retailers from persisting in unfair practices and raise consumers' awareness of such retailers. Should errant retailers not comply with the Court orders, the administering agency has the power to take enforcement action.

The amendments send a strong deterrent signal to the small number of businesses which engage in unfair practices, for which they show a lack of respect for the law. I would like to reassure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that it does not mean that criminal action would no longer be taken against errant retailers. If, during SPRING's investigations for the injunctions, SPRING finds that errant retailers may have engaged in activities that are criminalised under the Penal Code, SPRING will refer the case to the Police and escalate it for further investigation.

Sir, as several speakers have emphasised, raising consumer awareness and ensuring that they make informed purchasing decisions remain a key pillar of our consumer protection framework. CPFTA is only one aspect of consumer protection that can only help after something has happened. As doctors would always say, and which Ms Low Yen Ling just said, "Prevention is always better than cure". In the long term, the best defence that consumers have against errant retailers is to be aware of their rights and make informed purchasing decisions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

7.02 pm

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his clarifications and detailed replies. I just have one point of clarification. Will the Ministry consider requiring more operators to display signages, posters or such like to remind consumers of their rights and the things that they need to look out for and the recourse that they can have, in case they have been cheated?

As the debate today shows, consumers need to be educated and there can be no better way to educate them than at the point of purchase within the shopping environment. I fear that this is something that individual mall operators, left to their devices, may not be inclined to do because it may create an unfavourable impression on the shopper. But that is something the Government could require them to do, and it is something I have seen in other countries as well.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: I thank the Member for his suggestion. I think this is something that CASE will probably study and see if it is doable with the various malls or trade associations to enhance consumer education.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his clarification. It appears that SPRING will only wait for CASE to refer cases where unfair practices are repeated many times before investigating the errant retailer.

In the case of renovation contractors, the sums are very big and it could be $30,000. Can we sort of lower the bar so that if there is clear evidence of unfair practices where the contractor provides very poor service, then we do not wait until many, many people suffer from this before SPRING investigates?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not to say that you need to have a huge number of cases before action can be taken. In the first instance, if there is an unfair business practice that the consumers have given feedback to CASE, and if CASE genuinely believes, after a few cases, that there is a consistent pattern of behaviour in a certain particular retailer and they feel strongly that there is an unfair practice going on, they can already refer this to SPRING to consider, to look and see whether there is evidence for further action to be taken. But the quantum of the sum that is involved does not itself mean that there is egregious behaviour ongoing. It has to be something that is clearly unfair and in terms of its practices.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.