Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.07 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill introduces amendments in two main areas. First, it expands the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunals (the Tribunals) and, second, it improves the Tribunals’ processes and strengthens their powers to manage cases. In all, the amendments will strengthen access to justice by allowing the Tribunals to hear more claims in a quicker and more cost-effective manner.

The Tribunals were established in 1985 to provide a quick and inexpensive forum to resolve small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers. To this end, the Tribunals’ processes have been designed to be straightforward, inexpensive and quick.

Over the years, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has been working closely with the State Courts to review and enhance these processes. For example, in 2017, MinLaw supported the launch by the State Courts of an electronic case filing and management system called the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) for claims under the Small Claims Tribunals Act (the Act). CJTS benefits Court users by allowing them to file claims in the Tribunals with ease, monitor their case developments and even actively negotiate an amicable settlement with the other party from the comfort of their own homes.

This Bill proposes amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and improve their processes, whilst also building on these past initiatives. I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill.

Over the years, we have been exploring the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction further so as to allow the Tribunals to decide more claims. After carefully reviewing this issue with key stakeholders, such as the State Courts and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), we have decided to expand the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. Let me explain what the expansion of this jurisdiction will entail.

First, the monetary limits of claims filed at the Tribunals. The current claim limit is $10,000 by default, which can be increased to $20,000 if all parties agree. Clause 4, read with clause 2 of the Bill, raises that limit to $20,000 by default, and that limit can also be increased by the consent of all the parties to $30,000. The new claim limits are broadly in line with similar tribunal limits in the UK, Australia and Canada. This will allow more parties to resolve their claims before the Tribunals at less cost using the streamlined procedures available at the Tribunals.

Second, the Bill also expands the types of claims which can be brought before the Tribunals. Currently, the Tribunals already hear a variety of claims, such as those relating to contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services, claims in tort for damages caused to property, as well as to certain tenancy disputes. With the amendments, the Tribunals will be able to hear hire purchase claims under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). This is in addition to certain consumer claims under CPFTA which are already being heard by the Tribunals, such as claims in relation to unfair practices.

In addition to raising the monetary limits of claims as well as the types of claims which can be filed, the proposed amendments will also extend the limitation period for lodging a claim in the Tribunals from one year to two years. The new limitation period will give parties more time to negotiate and settle their disputes amicably, whilst ensuring that there remains enough time for them to file their claims should they not settle amicably. It is also aligned with the limitation period for consumer claims in respect of unfair practices under CPFTA, which are also heard by the Tribunals.

In expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, we have sought to strike a balance between the objectives of enhancing access to justice while ensuring that the Tribunals stay true to the purpose of providing effective and swift redress for small claims. If the Tribunals’ jurisdiction is expanded too far, they will have to deal with not just an increased caseload but the cases will also involve more complex and complicated legal issues. This is undesirable as cases involving such complex issues are best dealt with in the usual civil Courts which remain accessible and which parties can still avail themselves of.

In addition to expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, the Bill also introduces changes to make it easier for Court users to determine if their claim is within the scope of the Act.

Currently, these users have to refer to section 5(1) of the Act, as well as other pieces of legislation, such as the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the Housing and Development Act and the Singapore Business Federation Act, where applicable. So, you have to look at different pieces of legislation to then determine if your claim falls within or under those pieces of legislation and can be heard by the Tribunals. Clause 20 of the Bill consolidates these different provisions within the framework of the Act to assist those wanting to find out whether their claims fall within the scope of the Act, with the only exception being the claims with regard to CPFTA which falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. This is not referred to in clause 20 of the Bill, but will continue to be provided for in CPFTA itself.

To further assist users of the Tribunals, clause 2 of the Bill clarifies how the value of a claim in relation to a contract should be calculated for the purposes of determining whether it falls within the scope of the Act or not. At present, there may be some uncertainty as to whether it is the value of the contract or the value of the quantum of the claim that should apply for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction. The Bill clarifies this by setting out how the value of a claim should be calculated depending on the nature of the claim being brought, for example, depending on whether the claim is for the rescission of a contract, recovery of a progress payment under the contract, or for breach of contract.

Currently, parties typically go through three main stages when they file claims at the Tribunals.

First, parties will file their claims and monitor their case online through CJTS. Parties will also have the opportunity to negotiate and settle their dispute online, as I mentioned earlier.

If it is not resolved at this stage, the Registrar will then invite parties for a consultation session where they will have a second opportunity to resolve the dispute amicably, and this I will refer to as the “Consultation Stage”. That is Stage 2 of the process itself.

Finally, if the dispute is still not resolved, parties may then proceed for a hearing on the merits of the claim before a Referee, who will make an order after hearing from both parties, and this I will refer to as the “Adjudication Stage”.

The Bill makes various enhancements to the processes outlined above, and I will touch on the key enhancements.

Currently, at the Consultation Stage, the Registrar has the power to invite parties to attend a consultation session, where the Registrar will try to effect a settlement acceptable to all parties. However, if that does not resolve the dispute, the Registrar or the tribunal does not have the power to further order the parties to attend mediation even if that may assist the parties in resolving their disputes amicably. To address this situation, clause 7 of the Bill empowers the Registrar or a tribunal to order parties to attend mandatory mediation at the Community Mediation Centre, or before any other person. While this power may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, it will be most helpful for parties to attend mediation at the Consultation Stage. And this is in line with the Tribunals’ objective to promote and facilitate an early settlement of disputes.

We have also proposed changes to strengthen the powers of the Tribunals to manage cases. Clause 9 of the Bill requires a tribunal to adopt a judge-led approach at the Adjudication Stage. The tribunal will identify the relevant issues in a case and will guide the parties to adduce the relevant evidence before the tribunal. This will help to focus the attention of parties on key issues, and lead to cost and time savings for all.

The tribunal may also direct any party to the proceedings to appear before it, summon any person to give evidence or to produce documents in the proceedings, and give directions for the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the claim.

Clause 11 provides that while a tribunal’s proceedings are to be conducted in private, the tribunal may allow certain individuals to be present to either assist in or to observe the proceedings. Such individuals can include mediators, whom I mentioned earlier, who can assist in resolving the claim amicably; or assessors, such as industry experts, who may have the necessary skills and experience to assess and to assist the tribunal at the Adjudication Stage to deal with the industry-specific stage. They can also include law students from the University Court Friends scheme who are assisting the parties on a pro bono basis.

Clauses 14 and 15 also give the Tribunals broader powers, including the discretion to: (a) dismiss a claim if the claimant is absent without reasonable cause, and I think one can see why; (b) order a tenant to deliver vacant possession of rented premises in the case of unpaid rent; and (c) order costs against parties generally.

The changes I have mentioned will require the Referees of the Tribunals to play a key adjudication and case-management role in proceedings. To better reflect their roles and to align with the nomenclature used in the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), clause 3 of the Bill renames the “Referees” as “tribunal magistrates”.

Last, but not least, we have also refined the appeals procedure for cases before the Tribunals. In 2005, we amended the Act to require a party who wishes to appeal against a decision of a tribunal to first obtain leave from the District Court. The rationale for that change was to ensure that parties will not be put to unnecessary expense, for example, in cases where there is simply no prospect of the appeal succeeding.

Clause 16 of the Bill now further refines this procedure by providing that a District Court may, even if it refuses leave to appeal, remit the case back to the tribunal for reconsideration, or order a rehearing presided by a different tribunal magistrate. This gives the District Court greater flexibility and latitude to ensure that justice is done in each individual case.

In summary, these amendments are part of our continuous efforts to improve the Tribunals’ processes and enhance access to justice. They will enable the Tribunals to continue to fulfil their mission of providing an efficient, effective and, at the same time, inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

5.18 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

First established in 1985, the Tribunals provide a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers. This forum has been utilised quite heavily. Starting out with a caseload of about 3,000, the Tribunals disposed of approximately 39,000 cases in 1998 and 1999. In the most recent statistics available, the numbers were 10,908 in 2015; 10,266 in 2016; and a projected 9,700 in 2017. This Bill further enhances the Tribunals' bid to promote access to justice in a few ways.

Sir, allow me to expand on some important features of this Bill, but before I do so, please allow me to declare my interest as a practising lawyer.

Firstly, this Bill expands the scope of the Tribunals' jurisdiction. The threshold in terms of quantum of claim has been raised. This is a welcome update of the threshold and is not the first time the jurisdiction threshold has been amended. In 1984, the threshold was $2,000, with the rationale that resolving such claims through the normal civil Courts may be seen to be costly. It was raised in 1995 to $5,000 and then $10,000 with consent; and, subsequently, to $10,000 and $20,000 with consent in 1997.

There have also been important clarifications made to ensure that the monetary limit is applied meaningfully. Under clause 13, the aggregate value of the claims of persons represented in a representative claim must not exceed the monetary limit. While this will not restrict others from bringing their claims through the Tribunals by not aggregating their claim under that representative, it makes sure that a defendant will not face a high-stake claim that exceeds the monetary limit. A similar restriction is applied to claims being heard together by order of the tribunal under section 26 of the current Act because of a common question of fact or law, or because the claims arose out of the same cause of action or because of the interests of justice.

Another expansion of the jurisdiction is through the inclusion of some hire purchase agreements, that is, those that fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act. Previously, cases related to cancellation of timeshare and timeshare-related contracts during the cooling-off period, deposits paid in motor vehicle sale contracts and disputes arising from a contract to buy or sell foreign currency notes made with a licensed moneychanger were brought within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals through the amendment to the CPFTA of 2008. However, at that time, hire purchase agreements were not included and, therefore, would the Minister kindly explain the previous rationale for restricting the jurisdiction regarding hire purchase agreements and why the same concerns do not arise today?

Yet another expansion of jurisdiction is the extension of the limitation period from one to two years. This provides a bit more leeway for parties to explore different ways to resolve their disputes before bringing the claim before the tribunal. This is especially important in trade relationships where parties may value a continuing working relationship more than a full and open assertion of each other’s rights.

Secondly, clause 9 puts into statute an active judge-led approach to Tribunal cases. It requires the tribunal to identify the relevant issues and to ensure that relevant evidence is adduced before it.

However, I would like to enquire about the rationale for imposing costs. Why is it necessary to impose costs since there is no legal representation? What will be done to ensure that costs will not inject uncertainty into the system? Would the good Senior Minister of State also ensure costs will not deter legitimate claims being brought by those who may be afraid of getting hit with a costs order? Lastly, in the series of questions, can the public be assured that any costs order will still be less than those for claims filed in the State Courts?

This Bill also uses an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, that is, mediation, to further enhance its tools for dispute resolution. Clause 7 gives scope for a heavier reliance on mediation.

In conclusion, Sir, this Bill helps enhance access to justice through the enhancement and clarification of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. And, therefore, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

5.24 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer.

This Bill proposes to introduce various important amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, as well as to enhance the powers of the Tribunals to facilitate a more efficient and effective resolution of cases. The Workers’ Party supports the proposed amendments in this Bill.

This Bill proposes, first, to raise the default monetary limit of the Tribunals to $20,000, and the upper limit to $30,000 with the consent of all parties to a dispute.

The Bill also proposes to expand the Tribunals' subject-matter jurisdiction to include hire purchase claims under CPFTA.

The raising of the monetary limits will allow more claims to have access to the Tribunals. This is good for many people, particularly for the man in the street, who either may not afford the usual legal fees for the same claim to be tried in Courts, or may find the fees not worthwhile, given the quantum of their claim. The raising of the monetary limits will allow people more options of bringing claims up to $20,000 or $30,000 to the Tribunals, instead of filing such claims in the Magistrates' Courts.

Together with new hire purchase claims also under the Tribunals, the increase in the monetary limitation may hopefully reduce the caseload in the Magistrates' Courts and enhance the handling of cases in the Magistrates' Courts.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: what is the projected increase in the caseload which the Government is expecting from the new jurisdictional limits? Two, what, if any, is the expected increase in the number of tribunal magistrates to deal with any increase in the caseload, and when will the capacity increase for tribunal magistrates as well as administrative staff be put in place?

Next, the Bill also proposes to increase the time bar for claims under the Tribunals from one to two years. I agree with the Ministry’s rationale to align the time bar for claims under CPFTA and also claims under other tribunals, such as the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, as well as to allow more time for parties to explore methods to resolve their dispute before bringing the claim to the Tribunals. I believe that the time bar of one year is too short anyway. Hence, I welcome the extended time bar of two years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the introduction of various new measures to facilitate the speedy and effective resolution of cases, measures to enhance the powers of the tribunal, such as allowing and requiring the tribunal to adopt a judge-like approach in identifying relevant issues, ensuring relevant evidence is being adduced, making suitable orders, and even requiring parties to attend mediation as well as granting costs orders. I hope all these measures will serve to enhance the quality of justice at the Tribunals. But I also hope that, in their attempt to process cases more efficiently and effectively, the Tribunals and its staff and magistrates will always be motivated to balance the imperative of efficiency with justice and public service. This is all the more so as, unlike in the State Courts or the High Courts, lawyers are not allowed to represent members of the public using the Tribunals. All claimants and respondents will handle their own claims and deal directly with both tribunal magistrates and staff.

Notwithstanding the relatively lower quantum of claims being decided at the Tribunals, I hope that the Tribunals will always ensure that both the quality of justice as well as service quality should always be maintained at a high level. I also hope that suitable training and guidance will always be given to all tribunal magistrates, including those who have not had prior or adequate civil litigation experience.

Next, may I also suggest that the administrators of the Tribunals consider compiling and make available to the public its decisions or judgments, not unlike the current reported decisions for State and High Courts available on LawNet. Making such decisions and judgments available to the public will encourage better and consistent decisions and judgments.

Justice must always be seen to be done in the eyes of all users of the Tribunals, whether they are claimants or respondents.

I hope that all tribunal magistrates will exercise empathy and patience when they deal with the claimants or respondents directly. I hope that the Tribunals will always aim to ensure that all users of the Tribunals will go away feeling that they have been heard fairly and have a fair day in Court. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

5.29 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

I have been calling for a review of the jurisdiction of the Tribunals since 2013 so that more people can have access to economical and expedient orders and judgment in their contractual claims. Raising of the monetary limits of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction will be a boon for claimants and freelance workers alike as I know of professional freelancers who take their clients to task at the Tribunals for non-payment of work done under their contracts for service. The revision is also due as the last review of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction was conducted in 1997 and adjustments ought to be made to factor in inflation and rising costs of living.

I am also supportive of the extension of the limitation period for cases to be brought to the Tribunals as members of the public who are not familiar with legal processes may not consider legal recourse until the dispute has remained unresolved for some time. It is thus reasonable to extend the limitation period from one year to two years for the claimants to avail themselves of the opportunity to bring their small claims to the Tribunals.

At the inception of the Tribunals in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that the objective of the Tribunals was to provide "a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers". As articulated by Mr Ong Chin Heng in his paper on "Rethinking Tribunals Justice – Serving the Community” in 2011, then a Senior Referee of the Tribunals, the raison d'etre of the Tribunals must be to serve the community and “the processes, programmes and procedures must be user-friendly and community-oriented so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available". I believe that the Tribunals' raison d'etre must remain the same today.

The cornerstone of the Tribunals is that the proceedings before the Tribunals are to be conducted in an informal manner. Whilst the adoption of judge-led proceedings through this Bill would help parties to focus on key issues arising from the claim, thereby saving them time and costs, there is a need to ensure that the Tribunals' proceedings are conducted in a manner which still retains its informal nature. Care must be taken to reduce the use of jargon and legalese and maintain the use of simplified procedures so that laypersons are not intimidated when presenting their cases at the Tribunals.

In 2017, the Tribunals adopted an electronic case filing and management system called CJTS, in place of the manual filing system. To assist claimants in preparing to file their tribunal claim, there is a pre-filing assessment tool available on the State Courts' website for their use. I tried completing the pre-filing assessment form and I was asked these questions to which a "Yes" or "No" response was required. The questions were: are you claiming against the correct party with whom you have a contractual obligation? Does your claim relate to a contract for services received/rendered? Was the claim filed more than one year after the due date of performance? Is contract evidenced in writing? Has the date for service to be rendered lapsed? Are you seeking a Money Order or a Work Order?

I would imagine that an average layperson would find some of these questions challenging to provide a "Yes" or "No" answer to. There is a need to simplify the language further or to provide a glossary for users’ easy reference.

After completing the pre-filing assessment, I was given a list of notifications with instructions to read them before I proceed to file my claim. The instructions were: please consider how you are going to support your case at the tribunal, by showing evidence or supporting documents. You should engage the other party to discuss remedial works or other acceptable solutions before filing your claim at the tribunal. You must show evidence or supporting documents to show the breach by the other party. You should wait till the contracted service performance date is due before filing your claim. You cannot bring a claim against a person or entity who is out of jurisdiction, that is, outside of Singapore. The tribunal cannot hear the matter if service has not been performed, that is, you have not brought the claim to the attention of the other party personally.

The question is: would these notifications deter the ordinary man on the street from filing his claim in the Tribunals? While we want to expedite the claim processes, we must be careful to ensure that the Tribunals do not become too intimidating for claimants to access.

One other area of concern which I hear from the ground is the issue of enforcement of orders. Take, for example, a case where the claimant has taken time and effort to seek recourse at the tribunal and he has successfully completed the process of pursuing his claim and obtained an order for the counterparty to pay him the sum of monies claimed but the counterparty refuses to pay up. Those who are unfamiliar with the legal system would be surprised or dismayed to find out that they would have to take additional steps and expend more time and costs to enforce the order with no guaranteed outcomes.

In a survey conducted in the UK in 2010, it was found that one in four small claims court users who won their case only received part of the payment they were awarded, while 6% end up receiving nothing. According to the State Courts Annual Report 2017, 9,700 cases came before the Tribunals in 2017. Of these cases, how many orders were fully satisfied? For those which were not satisfied, how many of the orders were enforced? Does the success rate of enforcement of tribunal orders differ from that of judgments made by the Courts?

In the same way that processes to access the Tribunals have to be simplified so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available, the process to seek enforcement of tribunal judgments should also be simplified and made more accessible so that enforcement arrangements do not impact the efficiency of the small claims procedure. To mitigate this issue, the Tribunals can do more by better informing claimants of the potential problems of enforcement, incorporate processes to filter out claims which should not be pursued because of the poor chance of collection and explore ways to better ensure efficient enforcement of its orders, given the nature of the Tribunals. To conclude, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill has two advantages.

First, from the workers’ point of view, freelancers and the self-employed people will be able to claim a higher amount, hence, there is better protection for them. Second, from the consumers’ point of view, their interests will also be better protected.

However, for workers and consumers, the claim process is too complicated. Hence, I have two suggestions. First, simplify the claim process to give people easy access to the Tribunals. Second, improve the efficiency of the enforcement process.

(In English): With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

5.36 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to the Bill. The Tribunals, indeed, provide an expeditious and cost-effective way for resolution of disputes between suppliers and consumers. It may be viewed to function somewhat in a similar way to the Employment Claims Tribunal that aims to provide quick and economical solutions to smaller claims. I welcome the notion that it frees up the Criminal Justice System and engage mediators instead of lawyers for the Tribunals. The pool of mediators can then be enlarged to facilitate the process expeditiously.

As Singapore moves towards a digital economy, the transformation of the Courts towards digitalisation is commendable. The CJTS provides for pre-filing assessment to determine case eligibility and, most interestingly, has an e-negotiation function where settlements can be made without going to the Court. This is much welcomed. But there must be assistance given to those who may not be familiar with the digital form.

The following adjustment to allow greater scope by the Tribunals is, indeed, laudable.

Increasing limits from $20,000 to $30,000, compared to the current $10,000 to $20,000 respectively, will be well received by consumers. This is necessary with the increase in cost of living and prices. Further, it allows the Tribunals to hear more cases and, semantics-wise, this claim limit amount is still fair to be considered a "small claim". If the intent of the Tribunals is to provide a quick and cost-effective resolution to claims, then this amount should be periodically reviewed to be relevant to the trends and cost of purchases without having ordinary Singaporeans to incur exorbitant costs in recovering their claims in an open Court.

Section 5 – including hire purchase claims: increasingly, sellers/institutions allow instalment payments, and this is a norm that should be included in the "Nature of Dispute" as well.

Section 2 and section 35(1) – making work orders relating to property damage and short residential leases. Giving the Tribunals more flexibility to order other forms of compensation and not just monetary order is a step in a right direction so as to allow more equitable compensation of varied forms.

I welcome the step taken to enhance the Tribunals' powers and improve the Tribunals' processes. Renaming “Referee” to Tribunal Magistrate confers the judge the authority and respect that should be accorded in facilitating the tribunal process.

Section 17 – empowered to order mediation which is known to be helpful in facilitating resolution. This is a great step forward and, from my experience, mediation has been effective when dealing with employment-related disputes handled by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM’s) Labour Relations Department. Many disputes arise from miscommunication which can be easily addressed and settled amicably with a win-win outcome.

Under sections 26 and 27, with regard to cases like o-Bike, can class action be taken if the case satisfies the criterion that the combined value of the claims heard together does not exceed the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction?

Last but not least, I would like the relevant authorities to create greater awareness and educate Singaporeans that there is an avenue for them to turn to if, for some reason, they are faced with purchase issues of goods and services. Many, especially those who are less literate, may not know whom to turn to and what to do. Sometimes, their purchases may not even have relevant receipts as evidence of purchase. This is concerning. More needs to be done to empower our consumers, enlighten and educate both our consumers and our retailers.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

5.40 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tribunals started in 1984, under the State Courts. It represents an inexpensive and readily accessible way to resolve claims between consumers and suppliers.

I have a few points to make on this Bill.

Firstly, I support the increase in limits for the claim amounts. This would certainly give more flexibility and options to consumers, and, in fact, these limits have not been reviewed for a long time. The new amounts also make it more competitive and comparable with other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada and Australia. It also helps us address inflation rates and increases in the cost of living.

The review is also timely to ensure enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in the operating framework.

Can the Minister explain a little more on the use of mediation by the Tribunals? Are there specific guidelines? Will there be plans to make this compulsory, as it is probably the direction which we should be taking?

Can we also have an idea of the total average number of cases handled annually and what are the commoner types of cases that we seek?

Also, have there been issues with the affordability of payments amongst the low-income consumers and claimants? There are administrative fees, legal fees, filling fees and even other ancillary fees to be considered.

There has also been a major move towards electronic filling and fixing of dates as well as appointments. The system also has an e-negotiation feature, which allows parties to negotiate and, hopefully, reach settlement on a disputed claim. How popular or frequently is this in use? How about those claimants who are not information technology (IT)-savvy and still need to do manual filling and have the face-to-face meet-ups as usual? How many are those who are not so familiar with the use of the English language? Will there be interpreters? Like you and I know, interpretation can certainly lose some of the meaning that is intended. Perhaps, some finetuning is needed in this direction to make it widely user-friendly. In all, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.43 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased that the prescribed limits for Tribunals are being revised upwards. The new default limit of $20,000 is timely and appropriate. In situations where there is mutual consent by both parties, the default will be raised from $20,000 to $30,000. Prices of goods have gone up and raising the limits would reflect the current market condition.

Nonetheless, Sir, I feel that a higher default limit of $50,000, in the absence of mutual consent, be set. This is because in many home renovations, for example, the bill often runs much higher. So, the claimant should be allowed to seek redress to at least get back some compensation, if not all of it.

Also, with more people taking up freelance and contract work in the gig economy, we can expect disputes from time to time which may well be beyond the prescribed limit. For high-value purchases like interior design packages, high-end sound systems, the increase in claims limit is welcome relief, but it should be pegged higher as Singaporeans are proud home owners and they would spend a lot to furnish their homes.

I would also like to raise this question. Often, when we buy, say, a leather settee, the material of the leather may not be clearly described in the invoice. How then could the claimant establish his case before the Tribunal against the respondent if he finds the settee supplied is deficient? How detailed should the description be in the invoice? In current practice, most invoices merely state the model number and a generic description of the furniture.

I note that disputes from hire purchase, which has been a popular mode of transaction, will be addressed. The limitation period for disputes to be brought to the Tribunal is also raised from one year to two years. This amendment is good because, in the case of hire purchase, it usually runs beyond a year.

In the case of a dispute in a tenancy agreement, most of these are for more than a year, with the option for both parties to mutually extend by another year. Now, in a tenancy agreement, details are clearly spelt out and the document is signed by both parties, with a witness, and stamp duty paid. In this instance, apart from the landlord seeking vacant possession and any damage to the property, can he also claim for stamp duty paid if the tenant did not fulfil his full tenancy? How is the landlord to establish the value of the property damaged? Not many people keep invoices unless there is a warranty attached to it. What would be the proof required?

The implementation of these enhancements is insufficient when vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, lack awareness and fail to claim their rights. They also do not have the necessary tools to utilise this avenue. I am concerned for the elderly who are less educated and who may not know what avenues are available for them to seek redress. This is more so since last year when filing for small claims will have to be done online via the State Courts' CJTS. Even the submission of documents and monitoring of case developments are to be done online.

May I ask if the Ministry has done any study to assess whether it is easy for the elderly to use the platform? Has any outreach programme been conducted to generate awareness among this group of people? With more elderly living alone and having no children to depend on, how and where can they obtain assistance and guidance from the State Courts with regard to the process?

May I also ask the Ministry to consider setting up a hotline to make the process more inclusive, such as for those who are visually impaired, illiterate and can only speak their mother tongue or dialect? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In addition, concerned family members have shared with me about how their elderly family members would get pressured into buying things. This particularly applies to hire purchase items whereby they are usually misled by the low upfront cost, only to regret when they realise later that the full payable amount is, in fact, much higher. Even when prices are stated clearly, the elderly sometimes fail to notice the small print or they simply get confused by all the different numbers. A badgering sales assistant only complicates matters. I hope a two-week cooling off period, like that for insurance products, can be implemented and enforced by the Government.

(In English): This reminds me of the controversial goodie bag sales which sees victims, many who are senior citizens living in the heartlands, forking out $100 for various household items that they did not need. While not illegal, the perpetrators clearly use tricky marketing tactics. While it may not be possible to apply such a warranty to all products, it could have a deterrent effect on those who take advantage of the vulnerable.

I note the Bill gives more power to the Tribunals to resolve conflicts. The Tribunals will adopt a judge-led approach during Tribunal proceedings or the parties to attend mediation and costs awarded against parties where appropriate. Mediation, as a primary resolution, is good as it relieves all parties of the time, trouble and resources from escalating the case to the State Courts.

However, it becomes a cause for concern when either party uses it as an excuse to drag out the case. I would like to know the normal timeframe and number of mediation sessions required to settle the claims. Will there be penalties for deliberately uncooperative parties?

Sir, overall, these amendments are good, and should they be implemented, I hope the Ministry will generate greater awareness of them. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

5.50 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It is good that the amendments spell out clearly what are the specific claims that would be heard by the Tribunal, so that more claims can be heard and in a more expeditious manner. This offers clarity for the parties to a contract.

Hire purchase is a popular purchase contract for many people, and disputes may arise after the contract is signed. This is especially if the lifespan of the product is shorter than the period of the hire purchase, or when the after-sales service is not delivered as promised. For the consumers to be able to turn to the Tribunal, this would help save them much time and it will probably be more cost-effective. It is, indeed, good that the limitation period is raised from one year to two years. I think this is a good start, but I would like to ask that the Ministry continually review this limitation period with a view to extending it to three years.

Given that there is now this amendment to the Act, may I ask if the Minister would consider making it mandatory for all hire purchase contracts to include a clause that says something to the effect that in the event of a dispute or disagreement within the period of two years, both parties may turn to the Tribunals to resolve any dispute? The inclusion of this clause would make the buyers aware of their rights, as well as flag out to the sellers that they have their obligations to fulfil under the hire purchase terms.

In the case of tenancy contracts, which are also another high-volume contract, given that many apartments and offices are being leased out by owners, there is the limitation that the lease should be for a two-year period to qualify for hearing by the Tribunal. For clarification, there are many contracts where the owners offer options for renewal for a third year. Can I ask in this instance if there is a dispute under such a contract during the third year, could the parties be allowed to turn to the Tribunal for resolution? After all, the initial contract signed was for a two-year period.

I am also pleased that the monetary limits have been increased from $10,000 to $20,000 and the extended limit subject to both parties’ concurrence is raised from $20,000 to 30,000. This limit should be continually reviewed so that it reflects the market conditions, such as inflation and the rise in the cost of items purchased.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

5.52 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill introduces various amendments to the Act aimed to expand and enhance both the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunals. The amendments reflect the rising costs of living and, therefore, the quantum of disputes, and also promotes greater access to justice through the quick and relatively inexpensive forum of the Tribunals. The Bill is introduced after public consultation on the proposed amendments. The approach taken by MinLaw in involving members of public to give feedback on the Bill before it is debated here is particularly commendable.

I support the amendments and take the opportunity to make a few short points on the proposed amendments.

First, sections 26 and 27 of the Act presently allows for the consolidation of claims involving a common question of fact or law, as well as representative claims or class action claims. Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill amends these sections to clarify that the aggregate value of the class action or consolidated claims does not exceed the monetary limits prescribed by the Act.

I understand that the amendments are proposed out of a recognition that the Tribunals may not be equipped to deal with a large number of consolidated claims, whose total aggregate value may exceed the Tribunals' limit by a large margin. However, there is a danger that the proposed amendments, which link the combined value of the claims to the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction for a single case, may substantively impact on the original policy behind the statutory intent to allow consolidation of claims, as enshrined in the provisions as it stands now.

The main rationale underlying the consolidation of proceedings is to ensure an efficient hearing of related actions under a common umbrella. This can be done through trying all the cases in one go or trying a "test case" where the Court's findings may bind the rest of the parties in the consolidated action.

Where there are claims giving rise to common questions of law or fact or that arise out of the same events, there is compelling logic to have the same tribunal to have the power to order that the claims be heard together. Apart from savings of time and resources, there is also an issue of substantive fairness and justice, namely, to militate against inconsistent findings of fact by different tribunals arising from the same events.

I am also concerned about the practical effect on the resources of the Tribunals which may consequently have no choice but to hear cases arising from the same subject matter separately.

Given that the order of consolidation is a discretionary judicial remedy, I wonder if it would have been better to leave it to the Tribunals to decide whether or not to grant the order, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the specific kind of issues involved and whether it is equipped to deal with these issues. Another intermediate solution would be to provide for a higher limit for the aggregate value of consolidated or class action claims so that a balance can be struck between the two competing policies that I have identified.

Second, clause 15 of the Bill repeals sections 35 to 37 of the Act and introduces a new section 35 that expands and improves the type of orders that the Tribunals may make. In particular, the proposed amendment aims to provide the Tribunals the power to order a party to pay costs where the Tribunal thinks fit to do so. In the Ministry's public consultation paper, it was explained that this was to enhance the Tribunals' case management powers since sections 31 and 32 of the Act presently provides that no costs shall be awarded, save in respect of frivolous or vexatious claims.

Proceedings before the Tribunals, as pointed out by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, exclude representation by a lawyer. As explained by the then Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar to this House in 1984, to ensure that a litigant will not be at a disadvantage because he is unable to afford legal representation and to keep costs to a minimum, parties are to present their own case. This is why it is provided that, unless a claim is frivolous or vexatious, no costs, apart from disbursements, may be awarded. In these circumstances, since no legal representation is allowed before the Tribunals, how is a party's costs to be judged and quantified? Finally, how can we ensure that the practice of awarding costs under the new provision would not discourage litigants with bona fide claims from presenting their claims in the Tribunal for fear of being penalised in costs? I believe this is the same point that was raised by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza earlier, too.

The proposed new section 35 of the Act will also now empower the Tribunals to order vacant possession of the premises in cases involving unpaid rent by a tenant. This is in addition to an order for the tenant to pay outstanding rent. Notwithstanding that the Tribunals' jurisdiction is only in respect of claims relating to a contract for the short-term lease of residential property not exceeding two years, an order for possession, which may be enforced by a writ of possession, is, I would suggest, an onerous remedy against the tenant. It also, in effect, deals with a subject matter, in form of the res, that usually exceeds the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction. In fact, as it stands, under section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act, even the Magistrate's Court, which is a forum where parties may have legal representation, does not have the civil jurisdiction to hear and try an action where there is no claim for any sum of money or the relief sought in addition to the claim amount is in respect of the subject matter which exceeds the Magistrate Court's limit. I am concerned whether the Tribunal is the best forum to determine this issue, especially since parties do not have legal representation.

The hon Senior Minister of State would know that when it comes to orders of delivering vacant possession, it is associated with also the calculations of mesne profits in the situation of holding over or calculation of double rent under the Civil Law Act. So, these are issues that perhaps the Tribunal may not be able to handle. Will there be any safeguards put in place to minimise the risk of injustice in the form of allowing such orders to be appealable as a matter of right, or to provide guidance to the Tribunal on when the power to order vacant possession should be exercised?

Third, section 38 of the present Act provides that there will be no appeal to the High Court against the Tribunal’s decision unless it involves a question of law or jurisdiction. In addition, leave to appeal must be granted by the District Court before an appeal may be brought. Clause 16 of the Bill proposes to amend this section to allow the District Court to, in cases where leave to appeal is refused, order that the matter be remitted back to the same tribunal for reconsideration or that the case be reheard by a different tribunal.

It appears that the effect of the proposed amendments is to give the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. However, this seems to be inconsistent with section 19(3) of the State Courts Act, which explicitly states that the District Court does not have any supervisory jurisdiction. May I please seek clarification on the basis of this proposed amendment, and how the proposed amendments to allow the District Court to remit the matter back to the Tribunals for rehearing may be reconciled with this point?

Further, the proposed amendments would allow a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact. This effectively expands the scope for an appeal, by allowing a rehearing of cases on the basis of a question of fact. This approach seems to be different from the approach taken by the Ministry in 2005, where the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law Prof S Jayakumar stated that the scope for an appeal was deliberately narrowed in order to promote finality, and to avoid the high costs in appealing that may exceed the sums in dispute. Could the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify if the approach has changed and, if so, why is there a need to expand the scope for appeal?

Notwithstanding the clarificatory points I have raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.01 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome this update to the Tribunals which provides a time and cost-efficient dispute resolution channel for many. In particular, I welcome the move to carve out greater space for mediation for the resolution of small claims. This recognises the value of collaborative conflict resolution that preserves relationships even where the claim amounts are relatively low.

I have three points for clarification. As mentioned, I am very supportive of the Registrar now having the power to refer a claim for mediation under section 18A. There is a presumption of alternative dispute resolution for all civil cases under the State Court Practice Directions. The Court will automatically refer all cases to the most appropriate mode of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation, unless parties opt out. Will there be a similarly strong effort to channel most Tribunal claims to mediation first?

For claimants in civil cases, solicitors are required by the Legal Profession Professional Conduct Rules to evaluate the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes in an appropriate case. Further, claimants are required to fill in an ADR form which provides them with information on ADR processes to guide their decisions. Given that Tribunal claimants will be acting in person, often without the benefit of legal advice, will similar information be provided to Tribunal claimants?

Next, a Registrar now has the power to order a party to pay costs under section 35(1)(a). Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the situations under which a party may be ordered to pay costs? Under Order 59 Rule 5(c) of the Rules of Court, the Court may take into account parties’ conduct in resolving the matter by mediation in ordering adverse costs. A successful defendant may be deprived of a portion of costs they would otherwise have been awarded if found to have unreasonably refused to engage in mediation. Would the refusal to participate in mediation or clear bad faith participation in mediation be a ground for or be taken into consideration when ordering costs?

Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify what sums a party might be ordered to pay as costs? Given the limits on the sums that can be claimed at the Tribunal, would it be appropriate to limit the amount of costs that can be ordered against a claimant at the Tribunal?

Next, in a written response to a 2017 Parliamentary Question, Minister Shanmugam estimated the total cost of enforcing a money order of the Tribunal can be between $400 and $600. This is about a quarter of the claim limit of $2,000 before the Tribunal. For the average claimant, enforcement of a money order does not seem cost-efficient. Therefore, are there plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a Tribunal money order to make it more cost-efficient for the average Tribunal claimant?

Given the efforts to align the Small Claims regime with the Employment Claims regime, would the Ministry also consider carving out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

6.04 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer. In recent years, great strides have been made to strengthen access to justice to the public. Enabling access to justice must remain a cornerstone of our legal framework, as robust and efficient dispute resolution greatly aids businesses and consumers alike.

I am, therefore, pleased to hear of the amendments to the Act to strengthen access to justice in Singapore.

I note that in 1984, the Tribunals, through the joint efforts of MinLaw and MTI, were introduced to allow for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers.

It sought to ensure that (a) there is consumer protection with speedy dispute resolution that is not belaboured by strict rules of evidence or Court procedures; (b) cost is kept to a minimum; and (c) a litigant in person is not disadvantaged by the inability to afford legal representation.

As we review the existing Act, we should continue to be guided by these principles. In this vein, I have some comments to make in relation to some of the proposed amendments in this Bill.

The jurisdictional limit of the Tribunals was $2,000 in 1984. This limit, over time, has been increased to $10,000. The amendments propose an increase in the quantum of jurisdictional limit to S$20,000, by default, and up to S$30,000 if parties agree to the same. This is welcomed. However, it is notable that the last revision on the limit was done in 1998, almost 20 years ago. Some may express concerns that the proposed limit is still too low, especially as the litigation costs, even for claims slightly above S$30,000, can sometimes be quite high. On the other hand, lawyers may feel that more work is being taken away from them as more processes are made simpler for litigants-in-person. I note that there will always be challenges as we seek to set limits. I trust, however, that the Ministry remains open to review this limit at the appropriate junctures.

The limitation period for bringing a claim to the Tribunals has also been increased from one year to two years. This is a good alignment with the limitation period for bringing claims in other tribunals in the State Courts.

Additionally, the amendments also seek to broaden the types of claims that can be heard at the Tribunals, such as hire purchase claims, in addition to pre-existing categories, such as any contract for sale of goods or provision of services; claim in tort in respect of any property; and contract for the lease of residential premises that does not exceed two years.

While the inclusion of hire purchase claims is a welcomed addition, another common area of need for many Singaporeans is a platform to resolve disputes arising from personal loans. Currently when parties enter into IOUs or written personal loans, they are unable to use the Tribunals to assist with resolving their dispute.

Previously, Members of this House had also asked about platforms to arbitrate personal injury or property damage claims relating to the use of personal mobility devices. As the needs of Singaporeans continue to change, we must constantly evaluate the types of claims that can be arbitrated under the Tribunals. I, therefore, urge the Ministry to consider including some of these claims, perhaps in the next review or amendment of the Act.

This amendment also seeks to empower the Tribunal to award costs against parties where necessary. Currently, the Tribunal does not have the power to make cost orders except when the claim brought forward is frivolous and vexatious. This was envisioned to give the litigant in person with genuine claims a piece of mind to air their concerns and be given an opportunity to be heard. Often, litigants in persons may be unable to see the other parties’ perspective easily and may be over-zealous in pursuing their claims. I would urge that the exercise of these powers to order costs be done very judiciously so as not to penalise lay persons too quickly.

I also support the enhancement for the Tribunal to order mediation. As a mediator, I definitely see value in mediation being a key step in dispute resolution. Mediation is, however, a consensual process. I, therefore, hope that in mandating mediation within this process, the Tribunal takes the effort to ensure that parties understand and appreciate the purpose and value of mediation so that they are attending such mediation sessions with an open mind to resolving such disputes. If it becomes clear that the gap between parties is too big, then mediation may not be the most appropriate option, and parties should be able to go through the process without any delay.

Currently, there is no avenue to appeal unless a question of law or jurisdiction arises. This had led to some dissatisfaction by some who have come before the Tribunal. It is a fine balance between providing finality of outcome and ensuring just outcomes.

In this regard, I am happy to note that District Courts would be empowered to remit a matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration or order a rehearing by a different tribunal and grant a stay of execution where appropriate.

It may be useful to give litigants in person more time to file a notice of appeal, especially where they are seeking determination on a question of law or jurisdiction. Fourteen days may be too short a time to seek legal advice and prepare the notice of appeal.

As the Tribunal will be a place where the public interact with the justice system to seek recourse for their grievances, we must also evaluate the experience one goes through and, often, the experience can greatly impact one’s impression of the justice system.

I am happy to note that the Tribunal will be empowered to issue its own Practice Directions, which would be made available to the public. I trust these Practice Directions will not take the usual form as the ones issued to legal practitioners and will be easy and simple to follow.

Since 10 July 2017, the CJTS allows for parties to file claims from the comfort of their homes. It is also important for this system to be supported by a call centre where calls about procedure are dealt with. I believe this is similar to the suggestion by fellow Member Ms Joan Pereira. These calls can be managed by a trained pool of paralegals who may be the best placed to assist. At the Tribunals, we must continue to remain open to assist those in need of guidance, keeping in mind that such officers can render legal advice.

In conclusion, while the proposed amendments greatly enable access to justice, we must continue to create awareness about such resources amongst our residents and, minimally, information about these Tribunals should be available at every community club. The awareness is a critical enabler to access justice. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

6.11 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore, or CASE for short.

In the second reading of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that "the primary purpose of this Bill is to provide for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers.”

After 34 years, this rationale still holds true today. Every year, CASE receives many requests for assistance from consumers whenever they have disputes with businesses. Wherever possible, we strive to mediate a settlement between the parties. However, in some cases, a mediated settlement is simply not possible because of the different expectations between parties. In such cases, where the disputes concern a lower quantum, below $10,000, referring consumers to the Tribunals allows them to have their dispute adjudicated in a speedy and inexpensive manner. And that is the thrust of what a Tribunal is about.

Hence, CASE supports the extension of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to $20,000 and the prescribed extended limit is increased to $30,000. CASE is also supportive of the increase in the limitation period from one year to two years. These amendments will widen the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and enable more consumers to have access to the Tribunals to seek a fair decision in their disputes. The alternative is for consumers to engage their own lawyers to argue their case in Court and this would invariably result in higher legal costs.

Sir, allow me to raise three issues for consideration.

There has been feedback from consumers that when they bring their cases to the Tribunals, decisions made by the Referee were not explained clearly to the consumer. The end result is that the consumers have no idea as to the reasons why their claims were dismissed. Sometimes, they feel aggrieved at the perceived injustice. It also affects their decision whether to appeal to the High Court if they are still dissatisfied with the decision.

Could I urge the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to ensure that all Tribunal Magistrates appointed to hear disputes at the Tribunals are not only legally qualified personnel but also experienced officers who are trained to deal with members of the public who are not conversant with legal principles? As the Tribunals will deal with large numbers of the public, this will allow the public or the businesses to better understand the reason why their case was not successful.

The next issue concerns the jurisdiction of the Tribunals which was previously defined under section 5 of the SCT Act. Recently, when o-Bike announced that they were ceasing to operate in Singapore, many consumers wanted to submit their claims to the Tribunals to ask for the refund of the rental deposits. However, section 5 of the SCT Act does not provide for claims for refund of rental deposits. Nor will it be considered provision of service as low skill or labour is involved in the supply of such rental bicycles.

May I urge the Ministry to consider reviewing all common consumer claims and to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to cover more common consumer disputes?

Finally, Sir, last year, during the Committee of Supply debate on consumer protection, I spoke on the need to ensure that consumers are protected when making purchase transactions online. The research by CASE shows that there are several companies which provide for an arbitration clause in their online standard terms and conditions. This means that consumers who buy online would have to agree to the arbitration when transacting with these online companies. The consumers have no negotiating power to ask for the arbitration clause to be removed.

Thus, for example, if an online business makes a consumer sign up as a customer and imposes a monthly charge without the consumer’s consent, this may be an unfair practice under the CPFTA. But if the business is unreasonable, the only way for the consumer to seek legal recourse may be to go for arbitration even if the business is clearly engaging in unfair practices. So, you cannot go to the Tribunal to seek redress. Because of the arbitration clause, the consumer has no choice but to refer the matter for arbitration.

In a recent case, when CASE wrote on behalf of a consumer to a company regarding a defective furniture worth $1,134, the company declined to go for mediation. And what did the company do? The company asked the consumer to seek legal redress by going to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for the settlement of the dispute, a dispute of $1,134.

So, in reply to my speech last year at the Committee of Supply debate, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon said that "in line with the principle of the freedom of contract, businesses are free to enter into consumer contracts, as long as it is mutually agreed to by the contracting parties". With greatest respect to Senior Minister of State Koh, this misses the point of why the Tribunal was set up in the first place, which is to protect consumers and to ensure that consumers have a speedy and inexpensive way to resolve disputes.

The reality is that most consumers do not read the fine terms and conditions of a thick set of contractual terms when they buy something of low value. For the Government to expect consumers to knowingly agree to arbitration for contracts of small value is unrealistic because the cost of arbitration is very high.

If the Government is intent on protecting consumers from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous businesses, surely, we can specify that businesses cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for claims that are clearly within the jurisdiction or the prescribed limit of the Act. I urge the Government to rethink this point and not simply assert that "consumers are free to contract".

The Unfair Contracts Terms Act would also have no meaning as businesses which impose unfair contractual terms can assert that "businesses are free to enter into consumer contracts, as long as it is mutually agreed to by the contracting parties".

Hence, I urge the Minister to consider inserting a new clause to amend the Act, which should not allow businesses to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by referring disputes within the specified limit for arbitration. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

6.18 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tribunals are an important platform to resolve small claims between consumers and retailers or suppliers. With the rise of entrepreneurship, and also the advent of online shopping, the cases of disputes between parties are likely to rise. The simplicity of the process and the ease of access of the Tribunals are, therefore, important. Certainly, it is an opportune moment to introduce some enhancements to the Small Claims Tribunals Bill. I will raise three points today: preventing abuse of the mediation process, legal representation for individuals, and public education.

When it comes to solving disputes and conflicts, I am a firm believer in mediation. If implemented effectively, it could stop a dispute from escalating into a Court case, saving resources and time for everyone. In Nee Soon South, we have even set up a Mediation Club and hope to train many more grassroots leaders in mediation.

Yet, while mediation is an important tool for problem solving, it may be abused as an excuse to delay resolution. A party with more time and resources can drag out the mediation, hoping the other party runs out of resources or gives up. How will the Ministry ensure that this does not happen? Will the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) limit the mediation to one day, just like it does for Magistrate-referred cases?

My second point is on legal representation for individuals. Lawyers are not allowed in Tribunals or community mediation. But often, the disputes are between an individual and a company. Usually, the company will have a lawyer to advise them outside the Courts.

To better address the imbalance of bargaining power and prevent issues arising from the individual not understanding his or her legal rights, can layman be allowed legal representation during Small Claims Tribunal Mediation?

Third, I also hope more can be done to reach out to the elderly and vulnerable so that they are aware of how and where to get help should they encounter a need to raise a dispute. I hope some form of public education can be launched to help the public to know and understand the process available to them. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Disputes at the Tribunals are often those between an individual and a company. Although lawyers are not allowed at the Tribunals and Community Medication Centres, a company would usually have a lawyer to advise them. However, an ordinary person would not have these resources. This is not fair. It is like the big bullying the small. Can we allow ordinary citizens to seek legal representation at the Tribunals?

In addition, many ordinary citizens, especially the elderly and the vulnerable, do not understand the process at the Tribunal. They suffer in silence and do not dare to seek recourse. Can we strengthen public education, so that people can better understand their rights?

(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

6.22 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in today’s debate on the Bill. The changes in consumer behaviour and the nature of service provision require that our Tribunals evolve its reach and jurisdiction to remain relevant as another arm of consumer protection. There are two major changes in consumer behaviour that will make evolution of the Tribunals timely.

First, services are increasingly being performed by freelancers in the gig economy for companies. For example, the media and tour guiding industry are dominated by freelancers. They do not have the security provided by the Employment Act and some use the Tribunal as a main recourse to pursue unpaid services or when disputes in the provision of services occur. Therefore, the increase in monetary value of claims and the adoption of judge-led proceedings will help the freelancers. This is especially so as the monetary value of their services increase over time.

I also suggest that the Ministry can work with the tripartite partners to develop industry-specific claims mechanisms to help our freelancers. While the claims process has been simplified over the years, the process can be intimidating for many freelancers. For example, the process requires the person to identify the breach and evidenced it in writing. This can be intimidating, especially for those less acquainted with the legal process, as also brought up by hon Member Mr Patrick Tay. And our freelancers may frequently come up against larger companies which have access to legal counsel, though lawyers cannot be present during proceedings.

Establishing industry-specific claims mechanisms for freelancers may help to level the playing field. For example, the Tribunals can mandate certain cases to be mediated by the tripartite partners with consensus made enforceable by the Tribunals. This process is important in establishing new longer-term forms of protection for Singaporeans joining the freelance industry. This is also an expanding part of the Singapore workforce that operates outside of the ambit of the Employment Act. The Tribunals can form a key thread in the fabric of support.

The other significant change to the consumer landscape is the fast growth of micro transactions involving larger groups of consumers. For example, there are many disputes involving customers who purchase items through Facebook or Carousell and where the expected services are not rendered properly, leading to disputes. In such instances of micro transactions involving multiple parties and claimants, it is often not economically feasible for the individual to file such claims. However, does the Tribunals allow for a larger group of consumers to file for such claims collectively? The evolving nature of online retail is such that many consumers can be affected very quickly over a very short period of time. Perhaps the Ministry can consider for such collective action without everyone having to file individual claims, as perhaps also expounded by the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai.

The Tribunal was set up in 1985 to provide a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers, as stated also by hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. While the cost of filing claims in the Tribunals is affordable, at 1% of the claim amount for consumers, this cost quickly escalates in the enforcement of the claims.

From the perspective of the claimant, having a judgment without enforcement defeats the purpose of filing a claim. Should the other party resist compliance, a writ of seizure may need to be issued and the administrative and ancillary costs may come up to $400 to $600 easily. While the claimant can appeal to the Registrar to waive or defer the payment or claim the cost from the judgment, it is not guaranteed to happen.

Consumers will weigh the cost and benefit and feel that perhaps it is not worth the time and money over a claim as the original claim amount could be lower than what they would have to pay for enforcement. The process could also be complex and may take time. Hence, consumers might just give up if the amount is not large and the cost outweighs the benefits. Rogue business owners or service providers may then be able to get off scot-free. We must guard against these businesses hiding behind the veneer of cost barriers to law enforcement. Consumers must also be made aware of the difficulties of enforcing claims at the time of purchase rather than at the point of making claims. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, increasing the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and strengthening the claims process will help more people to solve disputes through legal channels, and expedite the process of hearing their claim. This would improve consumer protection. Meanwhile, it is also a safeguard for freelancers.

For many Singaporeans, especially for the elderly and people without any legal experiences, dealing with the legal processes can be very daunting. When I tried to experience the claims process, I noticed that certain wordings and processes, indeed, require some time to digest. For people without any legal background, this is obviously a major barrier. I hope MinLaw can continue to simplify the claims process and reduce legal jargons, in particular, the process of enforcing the Court judgment should be streamlined.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes to the Tribunals must occur to reflect its relevance in the new norms of consumer behaviour. At the same time, it must strike a careful balance between inadvertently fostering a litigious society and consumer rights. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

6.29 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for all their comments, suggestions and, ultimately, the unanimous support of the Bill. When the Small Claims Tribunal was first conceived over 20 years ago, its overriding philosophy was to provide a straightforward, quick and inexpensive way of resolving claims of low value. That remains true to this day, and we must strive to keep to that philosophy.

While I am grateful for suggestions to further enhance the jurisdiction and accessibility of the Tribunals, and we have heard many today, we must keep in mind the need to delicately balance what we seek to achieve through the Tribunals and what these suggestions might then take the process towards. Whilst many of these suggestions are good ones, and they do take us closer to what it might be like to appear in Court, we must not forget that, at the end of the day, whilst the claims can be brought in the Tribunals, with all its limitations that we have heard about, there is nothing to stop a party from going to Court with lawyers, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has suggested, if they wish to, or without the limits, as some of the other Members have suggested.

So, we must bear in mind that at the end of the day, the Tribunals sit in a system, an ecosystem, of a series of options available to a party, and we must bear in mind at the end of the day that we are trying to reach a quick, expeditious and inexpensive resolution. And it is with this philosophy in mind that I address the concerns that have been brought up. I would like to do so with three broad overarching themes, and these are: first, the coverage and jurisdiction of the Tribunals, what do they cover; second, the accessibility and affordability of the Tribunals; and finally, the conduct of proceedings at the Tribunals.

Various Members have raised the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. They suggested that the Tribunals cover other types of claims; that the claim limits could be increased; and the limitation period for claims before the Tribunals could also be lengthened.

I am heartened to hear such support for the work of the Tribunals being voiced, to the extent that my fellow Members here in this House agree, or urge, that the jurisdiction be further expanded. I would like to assure Members that we have been, and will continue to, periodically review the jurisdictional claims limits of the Tribunals, and also the types of claims that should come before the Tribunals, to ensure that they continue to remain relevant, given societal changes. In fact, Mr Christopher de Souza's question as to why hire purchase has not been brought in is precisely one of those points, that it is now more prevalent and a lot more germane to what parties seek dispute resolution over, and so they are now part of the rubric of the Tribunals as well.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have highlighted the newer types of claims arising from, I would say, new consumer behaviour – I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan mentioned o-Bikes as well. These claims for unreturned deposits, yes, they do cause a degree of angst, but they are also new types of claims brought about by somewhat new advents in the new economy. And so, whilst the claims do exist, and they do need to be resolved, I think it would be necessary to study them and the ecosystem in which they occur to determine the extent to which they are suitable for resolution by the Tribunals. Again, I urge all of you to bear in mind that there is nothing to stop these claimants from going to avail themselves of Court services.

Nonetheless, we assure Members that my Ministry will closely monitor these developments in these new areas and continue to review their suitability for inclusion within the Tribunals' coverage at a later stage.

Members also suggested taking stronger measures in relation to cases of consumer claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.

Specifically, Mr Lim Biow Chuan queried if businesses could be prohibited from inserting arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers which purport to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to hear any dispute. In a similar vein, Mr Saktiandi Supaat also suggested mandating that all hire purchase contracts include a clause that both parties may approach the Tribunals in the event a dispute arises within two years of entering the contract. Ms Joan Pereira also suggested introducing a two-week cooling-off period for all hire purchase contracts.

As a general principle, the Government adopts a balanced approach to supporting a pro-enterprise environment, while at the same time protecting consumers, and I would urge Members to bear in mind that we are looking at it in a very balanced way, and not only from the viewpoint of the consumer. A too heavy-handed intervention in favour of either party could lead to market distortions or unintended consequences. Hence, we wish to be slow to mandate the use of specific clauses in commercial contracts between private individuals and businesses. Likewise, this is why the Government has not introduced cooling-off periods for hire purchase contracts.

That is not to say that there is no recourse for unfair terms imposed on consumers today. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan, President of CASE, correctly pointed out, contractual terms which are substantively unfair, based on widespread international consensus, can still be voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA). And on that point, Mr Lim Biow Chuan commented on the use of UCTA, that notwithstanding that there is an agreement between parties, if it is shown that it falls within UCTA, the provisions can still be set aside under UCTA.

Similarly, CPFTA also provides consumers with protection against unfair practices, such as pressure selling and false claims. Consumers who have reason to believe that sellers have engaged in such practices may also approach CASE with details of these practices for CASE to assist them in seeking redress.

In addition, a key way to protect consumers and ensure they have a level bargaining field when disputing a contract is to improve their awareness of institutions, such as the Tribunals, through public education. I thank the various Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, for raising this point, and I will speak about more of this shortly.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat queried whether a tenant who has entered a two-year lease contract with an Option to Renew may make a claim in the Tribunals. That, I think, really depends on the context in which it arises, the specific negotiation of that case, and the extent to which parties have regarded that as an Option to Renew, as opposed to a fresh lease. I am not saying that it is not covered, but one needs to look at it quite carefully to determine those legal and factual questions.

On a separate note, Mr Desmond Choo asked if the Ministry could work with the tripartite partners to develop industry-specific mechanisms for freelancers. I think he mentioned the gig economy on this. Steps have already been taken to enhance this area. For example, the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons, a set of guidelines on best practices for engaging freelance services, was launched in March 2018 with the support of the Government. We will no doubt convey Mr Desmond Choo’s suggestion to allow certain disputes involving freelancers to be mediated by the tripartite partners to MOM.

I turn now to accessibility and affordability of the Tribunals, which both Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Rahayu Mahzam touched on. It is important to ensure accessibility to the Tribunals. There are three aspects to it – awareness, user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness of the Tribunals, and I will deal with all three.

First, the State Courts have, through various outreach programmes, educated various segments of the public on the Tribunals and their key features. CASE has also been referring consumers with eligible claims to the Tribunals. This includes elderly consumers who approach CASE. We will look further into the suggestions raised by Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Rahayu Mahzam in this regard, as we continue to work with the State Courts to generate greater awareness about the Tribunals and improve accessibility.

Second, efforts have also been taken to ensure that the Tribunals are user-friendly, even for claimants who are less IT-savvy, and, as some Members have pointed out, are in need of assistance, either language-wise or expertise-wise, in navigating the judicial process.

As a starting point, the State Courts provide a complimentary pre-filing online service to all potential claimants. By answering a few general questions, claimants can better ascertain the viability of their intended claims and whether those claims can, in the first place, be filed in the Tribunals. This process generates a summary of issues, known as “notifications”, which informs potential claimants of the requirements they must meet or the documents they must prepare to proceed with their claim. This ensures, at the very early stage, that proceedings before the Tribunals progress smoothly, parties will come prepared with the necessary evidence and the documentation to support their case.

Parties may then file their claims on the electronic filing system CJTS. On that CJTS platform, parties may, one, engage in e-Negotiation and e-Settlement, as I mentioned at the outset; or two, schedule hearing dates and times in an electronic diary if the settlement is not reached; three, view their case details and correspondence with the Court; or four, submit documents; or fifth, make payment.

Several Members suggested that CJTS could be supported by a hotline or call centre, and that special arrangements be made for those who are visually impaired or illiterate. I thank these Members for the opportunity to clarify that, indeed, these avenues are already in place to help members of the public who may not be comfortable navigating CJTS on their own. One option is for them to call the Tribunals at a number that is listed on the website or available on the brochures, if they have any queries on the Tribunals’ process or services. This hotline provides a multilingual service for users who may not speak English. Another option is for them to go in person to the Tribunals, where there are student representatives and trained officers from the State Courts who can guide them through the filing process in their own mother tongue.

During the hearing itself, Court staff and interpreters are also on hand to provide assistance during proceedings. Parties who are visually impaired or illiterate may, in those cases, be represented by a third party, who may sit in with them and assist them in the course of the hearing.

In relation to CJTS, Mr Patrick Tay expressed some concern that an average layperson would find some of the pre-filing questions challenging to answer. He suggested simplifying the language or providing a glossary for Court users’ easy reference. Those are good suggestions.

However, as mentioned before, there are trained State Courts’ officers and also student representatives from local law schools who are on hand to assist the users. They assist to answer questions, explain the process of the Tribunals, and manually guide them through the process of filing a claim. That said, we have noted the feedback on how it can be further improved, and we will certainly look into it with the State Courts as part of our efforts to continuously enhance the accessibility of Court services.

Mr Patrick Tay also asked if the list of notifications on the points that one should take note of before filing a claim using CJTS may intimidate or otherwise deter some claimants from filing their claims. Our experience so far has been to the contrary, as some claimants have commented that the pre-filing assessment and list of notifications, in fact, helped them better understand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, and see in advance the potential issues of their case so that they are better prepared.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef queried how frequently the e-Negotiation system on CTJS has been used. Between 10 July 2017 and 15 June 2018, e-Negotiation has been used by parties in 755 cases. In about one-third of those cases, parties reached a settlement online. These are encouraging early indicators.

Third, on the affordability of the Tribunals. Allow me to assure Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef that the Tribunals’ cost structure is specifically designed to be affordable to the wider public. Let me just illustrate that with some of the numbers.

When filing a claim, a party is required to only pay a lodgement fee. Today, lodgement fees for consumer claims range from $10 for claims up to $5,000 in value, or up to $200 for the maximum limit of a $20,000 claim. It is, otherwise, 1% of the claim amount. For non-consumer claims, the lodgement fees range from $50 for claims up to $5,000, or to $600 for claims up to $20,000, or 3% of the amount in question. Further, in some cases, the successful parties may also apply to recover their fees or disbursements, or a portion of it, from the losing party. Mr Louis Ng mentioned that in a previous Parliamentary Question, the cost was in the range of $400 to $600 for a $2,000 limit. Even in that situation, even before these amendments, the limit was already $10,000 for Tribunal jurisdictional limits.

In most cases, parties must appear in person, a point that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised. That, itself, reduces the need to pay legal fees. Parties, however, who require legal assistance at the hearing may also approach the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts for free onsite legal advice. So, free onsite legal advice is provided at the State Courts for any user of the Tribunals who wishes to avail himself or herself of legal advice. We must also bear in mind, taking into account Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's suggestions that the model we are trying to build for the Tribunals is really one that is inexpensive, fuss-free as far as possible, and quick. Sometimes, the introduction of lawyers into this does not quite provide for all of those. It may be a little bit less inexpensive, and it may just take a little bit longer. So, we are trying to find the right balance and the Tribunal amendments try to deal with that proposition.

Members have asked about the amendments to allow costs to be ordered at the discretion of the Tribunals. Let me say a few words about this.

Today, costs can only be imposed in a very narrow situation where a claim is frivolous or vexatious. This has limited the Tribunals’ ability to manage litigants who conduct their cases in an abusive manner.

Thus, the amendments allow the Tribunals to order costs at their discretion. The intention is for such cost orders to be made only in the most egregious of cases, where a party has been unusually disruptive, uncooperative or contemptuous, even if the claim itself cannot be said to be frivolous.

So, it is really directed at the conduct of the proceedings. One bears in mind that with the amendments that we have in place, there are three stages to the proceedings, as I mentioned at the outset. The process can, in fact, be unreasonably stretched out by an unreasonable litigant and the discretion for costs is designed to give redress to that.

Several Members have asked how we can ensure that the practice of awarding costs under the new provision will not discourage litigants with bona fide claims from bringing their claims before the Tribunals, for fear of, and I quote Mr Christopher de Souza, "getting hit with a costs order". Mr Murali Pillai also raised this point. And I think these are very valid concerns.

I would like to assure Members that, since legal representation is not allowed in the Tribunals, save for the very narrow band of persons, the costs for litigants will be kept low. Costs will be calculated according to the general rules, according to governing costs for litigants-in-person. For example, a litigant-in-person will be reasonably compensated for the time he has expended, for example, taking leave to attend the hearing, and other such related costs, in addition to expenses reasonably incurred, for example, transport costs. So, one can see that the paradigm is very different from where one seeks party-and-party costs in a situation where lawyers are involved. I hope this addresses the Members' concerns.

In light of these guiding principles and our Courts' own experience and expertise in quantifying cost orders, as Mr Louis Ng pointed out, Order 59 of the Rules of Court already set out the parameters in which cost orders ought to be granted, we do not see the need at present to limit the amount of costs that can be ordered against either party in the Tribunals. But Members should be assured that they will be judiciously considered each time.

Finally, I turn to the comments and suggestions which Members raised in relation to proceedings in the Tribunals. As I mentioned at the outset, the guiding principle which underpins these amendments is to facilitate an efficient, effective and inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims.

The Tribunal Magistrates play a key role in ensuring that the Tribunals meet the desired goals. To achieve this, the State Courts ensure that all the Tribunal Magistrates are not only legally qualified but also experienced in hearing cases involving members of the public. Tribunal Magistrates, referred to as referees today, also typically render brief oral grounds after each case, setting out the reasons for their decisions clearly. They also address queries and clarifications which parties may have at that juncture. This is to ensure that all parties, as far as possible, are aware of and can understand the reasons for the decision.

Mr Dennis Tan raised the question about whether or not the State Courts will have sufficient training for these Magistrates. Rest assured that the Courts regularly – in fact, it has been in the past and will continue to be the case – conducts training and continuing education for its judicial officers, and that would include the Tribunal Magistrates.

I note Mr Lim Biow Chuan's feedback that some users of the Tribunals, however, are not fully aware of the reasons as to why their cases did not succeed. We will continue to work with the State Courts to look into how this can be improved to ensure that the work of the Tribunal Magistrates in terms of how we have come up with the decision and the views of the case can be properly and best conveyed to the users of the Tribunals.

Mediation at the Tribunals, something that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah brought up – and I agree with her – that as far as possible, we would like the cases to be mediated, which is why it is now designed to be two-stage. At one stage, it happens outside, online. And if that does not happen, the parties can then be asked to attend mediation. That, as far as we are concerned, is the best outcome in a case. Even if there is a dispute, one should not rule out an amicable settlement even at a late stage.

I mentioned earlier that the proposed amendments to empower the Registrar or the Tribunals to order parties to attend mediation at the CMC or before any other person. Mediation facilitates the just, expeditious and economical resolution of cases. Therefore, Tribunals will, where possible, encourage parties to strongly consider mediation.

Some Members have raised a concern about uncooperative parties using mediation as a tool, or an excuse, to drag out the case, and asked whether penalties will be imposed on deliberately uncooperative parties. Er Dr Lee raised that point.

The majority of parties, generally, approaching mediation, has done so in good faith, and they do so hoping to resolve their differences amicably. Some do it because they wish to see an end to the dispute, others do it because there is a continuing relationship with the party against whom a claim is being made and they wish to preserve that relationship. So, for a variety of reasons, we have seen the parties come forward, still in good faith, to undertake mediation. Mediators are also trained to help facilitate constructive discussions between parties, while Court counsellors also provide counselling services to users at the same time.

If, however, a party is wholly unreasonable in refusing to mediate, is unusually disruptive or is very uncooperative or takes a very unreasonably disruptive stance during mediation, then the Tribunals can and should take this into account when deciding on costs at the end of the day. It is difficult to legislate upfront what can or cannot be done in the mediation because mediation, by its own definition, has really got to be dynamic. It has got to respond to the parties' needs, it has got to respond to how the parties each see their position and see their case. So, I do not think it can be legislated upfront as to what should happen, But rest assured that the conduct of the parties and the way which it is going will be taken into account by these facilitators, the mediators and, ultimately, the Tribunal Magistrates.

Mr Louis Ng queried if parties will be provided with information on ADR processes to guide them on whether to go for ADR. Such information is currently already available through pamphlets and guides at the State Courts, and it is certainly a big part of the suite of services offered at the State Courts. So, State Courts are not just about the litigation of dispute resolution process by going to Court. ADR is very much a part of it.

In addition, parties can also approach the State Courts staff or the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts if they have any further queries or require any guidance on ADR.

On the case management powers, several Members have spoken about such powers of the Tribunals, in particular, the powers to consolidate claims, order costs on parties and so on. I will address them as follows.

On the question of consolidation, Mr Murali Pillai raised the question whether the higher limit for the aggregate value of consolidated claims can be brought in the Tribunals. I can see where Mr Murali Pillai is coming from. But this, again, is really a question of striking the right balance.

Allowing claims involving a common question of fact or law to be jointly heard and decided in the Tribunals can reap the rewards of efficiency and also consistency, as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out.

On the other hand, allowing too many of such claims with high aggregate values to be heard in the Tribunals may well be unfair to the respondent, may well become a very high stakes issue for the respondent, and significantly increase his potential liability, without at the same time affording him the corresponding benefit of the stricter procedural and evidentiary rules and also of the prospect of being represented by a legal counsel.

This question was also looked at by the High Court in Freely Pte Ltd vs Ong Kaili, a 2010 decision, where the Court commented that the Tribunals are not the most appropriate forum for dealing with a large number of consolidated claims involving multiple parties. The simple processes of the Tribunals were really designed for a single complainant to bring a small claim, which is relatively straightforward and not legally complicated, for it to be resolved inexpensively and expeditiously.

Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the need or demand for such actions, and also consider Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion of an "intermediate solution" of stipulating a higher monetary limit for the aggregate value of consolidated or representative claims in our next review.

Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Desmond Choo also queried whether class-action suits in relation to bicycle-sharing arrangements and micro transactions can be heard in the Tribunals. This will, of course, depend on the ceiling limit – the aggregate value ceiling limit of the claims in the actions. The Tribunals can hear such claims so long as the aggregate value of the claims does not exceed the Tribunals' claim limit.

Ms Joan Pereira asked how claimants can establish their claims in the Tribunals where documentary evidence is not available. Again, this is one of those occasions where we need to strike a balance and also, bear in mind that there is a need to, whilst allowing a claimant to bring his case, also ensure that fairness and justice are being done to the respondent who has to face this claim.

Generally, documentary evidence would usually be the best and most probative type of evidence. However, it is not the only evidence which a Tribunal, including the Tribunals, can consider. The Tribunals would also look at, for instance, evidence as to whether the seller, for example, had made an oral representation, and what those terms of the oral representation might be, whether or not the goods that were sold were objectively of a satisfactory and acceptable state or otherwise. So, there will be other non-documentary and non-written type of evidence available.

Relatedly, Ms Joan Pereira asked whether, where the tenant breaches the tenancy contract, the landlord may recover the stamp duty paid as damages. That also depends on the facts of the case, for example, the nature of the contract and the provisions that are in the contract itself, but I would not, by simply looking at the face of the Tribunal rules, rule it out on that score alone.

Next, I would like to touch on some points on appeals which various Members have spoken about.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked if it would be useful to give litigants-in-person more time beyond 14 days to seek legal advice to prepare the notice of appeal. It is important to remember that the 14-day deadline is only for parties to file the Notice for Leave to Appeal. At this stage, the appellant need only set out the points of appeal briefly.

If the District Court gives leave to appeal, the appellant then has one month from that date to file his Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is in a prescribed form which is contained in the Tribunal Rules, which only requires the appellant to state the grounds of his appeal in brief.

It is only when the appellant files his Petition of Appeal, 21 days after serving the Notice of Appeal, that he is then required to set out in greater detail the particulars of the matters in regard to which the Tribunals are alleged to have erred. The appellant only has to make fuller submissions on his appeal on the day of the hearing before the District Court. I hope that this reassures Ms Rahayu Mahzam that an appellant will have ample time to seek legal advice on the appeal, if necessary.

On clause 16, Mr Murali Pillai asked whether allowing a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact is, in fact, consistent with the previous approach of narrowing the scope of an appeal from the Tribunals to the High Court.

Clause 16 empowers the District Court to direct cases be remitted back to the Tribunals for reconsideration or rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal only in limited cases, such as where new facts become available and it is manifestly unjust to allow the original decision to stand. In such cases, even though leave to appeal to the High Court has not been granted as it does not concern an issue of law or jurisdiction, it is nonetheless important that parties are provided with an appropriate and right of recourse through the reconsideration and rehearing by Tribunals.

This, I will add, is also consistent with the practice in tribunals in other jurisdictions, such as those in Hong Kong and New Zealand.

On a related note, Mr Murali Pillai asked if empowering the District Court in this manner effectively gives the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. That is not the intention nor the desired effect of this clause. The District Court's power to remit cases for reconsideration, or order a rehearing, does not fall within the definition of "supervisory jurisdiction", and this is explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of Citiwall Safety Glass vs Mansource Interior. If Mr Murali Pillai wants the citation, it is [2015] 1 SLR 797. In particular, the District Court which remits a case or orders a rehearing is not reviewing the proceedings and decisions of the Tribunals below. It is merely directing that new evidence which was not previously considered, be considered by the Tribunals.

I now turn to the enforcement of Tribunals' decisions, on which a few Members spoke about. While the State Courts do not currently track statistics on the success rates of enforcing Tribunals' decisions, I fully agree with Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Desmond Choo that the enforcement process must be simplified and accessible to Court users.

The Tribunals have made steps in this direction. When an order is made, the Tribunal Magistrates will brief the claimant and respondent on (a) the consequences of non-compliance; with the hope that in doing so, the respondent will be more aware of the consequences of not obeying the order in favour of the claimant; (b) the options which a claimant has to enforce his order; so right at the outset, the claimant is aware of the suite of options that he has available; (c) provide information which the claimant may consider, in deciding whether it is worthwhile to commence enforcement proceedings or not; and (d) the typical enforcement fees that he might incur. So, all these are given upfront and told to the parties at the stage where the order is made. The Tribunal Magistrates will also give parties a brochure at the end of the hearing and address any questions that parties may have about the judgment. Members of the public may also approach the Tribunals' staff in person or through the Tribunals' hotline if they have any queries on the enforcement process.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo asked if there are plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a money order issued by the Tribunals, to make it more cost-efficient for the average claimant to enforce his order.

I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo for their suggestions. Indeed, MinLaw is currently reviewing the process of enforcing civil judgments and orders and this includes orders by the Tribunals as well, with the aim of making the enforcement process more affordable and, as far as possible, more effective. We will also study Mr Louis Ng’s suggestion to carve out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims.

I would add also, in relation to the proceedings, a suggestion brought up by Mr Dennis Tan that today, any individual, whether a party or a non-party to the Tribunal proceedings, can ask for and obtain a copy of the judgment, to find out what has happened and what was ruled and how it was ruled in each particular case.

On vacant possession, Mr Murali Pillai raised some concerns about the enforcement of a specific type of order which the Tribunals can make, namely, the power to order delivery of vacant possession in claims for unpaid rent. This was on the basis that not even the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hear and try such action where there is no claim for a sum of money. And I think he is referring to section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act. Mr Murali Pillai asked if there will be safeguards when the Tribunals make this order. Insofar as Mr Murali Pillai is concerned that the Tribunals are being given the power to make an unduly onerous remedy, I would like to set out the following points in response.

First, the Tribunals have been hearing tenancy claims involving unpaid rent for some time now since 2005, and they have developed the relevant expertise to deal with this type of claims. Vacant possession is a usual remedy for unpaid rent. It is one of those follow-on consequences. If rent is not paid, particularly when it is not paid persistently, then it is only right that the landlord has an option for getting vacant possession back from the tenant. So, it is related to unpaid rent. And empowering the Tribunals to order the delivery of vacant possession where necessary broadens, in my view, fairly, the suite of orders available to ensure that justice is done.

Second, while it is correct that Magistrates Courts do not currently have the power to hear claims which are exclusively non-monetary in nature, they do have the power to hear claims for unpaid rent and make orders of vacant possession. The amendments merely extend this same power to the Tribunals for claims of lower value. And I have noted Mr Murali Pillai’s point on mesne profits and double rent as well. And all of that is really subject to the overarching jurisdictional limit. So, no more than $20,000 for rent – mesne profits or double rent.

Third, to ensure safeguards, the State Courts will also be instituting internal guidelines which will set out the factors for the Tribunals to consider before making an order for the delivery of vacant possession. That further enhances and strengthens and prevents any risk of such orders being made erroneously.

Finally, I wish to touch on the workload of the Tribunals, a point that Mr Dennis Tan also raised.

The various amendments and expansion of jurisdiction are likely to lead to an increase in workload. And that, ultimately, is the overall policy objective of these amendments. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the average number of cases handled by the Tribunals annually, and what the common types of cases were.

From 2015 to 2017, the Tribunals handled an average of more than 10,000 claims annually. The common types of cases are disputes over contracts for sale of goods and provision of services, followed by claims arising from damage to property, and leases of residential premises.

While the caseload of the Tribunals is likely to increase after the expansion of jurisdiction, I wish to assure Members that the Tribunals are prepared to deal with the increased caseload, and they will also, on their own, regularly review their resources to ensure that the Tribunals remain an efficient and effective avenue for the resolution of small claims.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked what is the anticipated growth in the number of cases. Just as a ballpark indicator, the number of cases filed in the State Courts where the claim was between $10,000, the current limit, and $30,000, the new limit, with consent, is about 9,000. So, there are about 9,000 cases which fall into that category. But bear in mind that this range includes claims from $20,000 to $30,000, cases which can only be brought to the Tribunals with consent. And there are also, on top of that, subject matter limitations, in terms of the kinds of cases that can be brought. So, we do not expect all of those 9,000 cases to surface in the Tribunals. There will be a portion of those. And certainly, that is the reason for these amendments – to drive more of the cases to the Tribunals as far as possible.

In conclusion, I wish to thank all Members who have spoken and supported this Bill. Refining the Tribunals to improve their processes and enhance access to justice requires an ongoing, long-term effort. The many helpful suggestions and thoughtful comments by each of the Members who have spoken today contribute to this worthy endeavour. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.]

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