SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.24 pm

The Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." 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. The Bill seeks to do this by authorizing the setting up of one or more Small Claims Tribunals to deal with the settlement and adjudication of these claims. The Small Claims Tribunal will be constituted as part of the Subordinate Courts but will not be bound by strict rules of evidence or by normal court procedures. To ensure that costs are kept to a minimum and that a litigant will not be at a disadvantage because he is unable to afford legal representation, the Bill provides that the parties to the proceedings must present their own case and excludes representation by an advocate and solicitor.

Although this Bill is being introduced by the Ministry of Law, it has its origin in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, whose objective for the Bill is to create a new institution to help consumers to protect themselves. Before touching on specific aspects of the Bill, I would like to briefly restate Government's basic thinking on consumer protection. The Government believes that the consumers are best protected through free trade and competition in a free market. Competition not only ensures that prices are the lowest possible but also ensures good quality and service. However, this does not mean that the consumer can make his purchases blindly. In order to get the most out of the free market, the consumer has to be vigilant and must shop around to compare prices, quality and services. He must also be aware of his rights as a party to a contract.

Sir, our better informed consumers are now becoming more conscious of their rights as consumers and are more ready to assert their rights. Unfortunately, the market place is never always a perfect one nor operated entirely by honest traders. Consumers who have purchased defective products or have been given shoddy services sometimes encounter recalcitrant traders or workmen whenever they seek redress. Those who are confronted with this problem now have two courses of action open to them. They can seek the help of the Consumers Association of Singapore. Indeed, in the past year, CASE received nearly 1,000 written and more than 1,000 verbal complaints concerning defective products, exorbitant charges, unconscionable contracts and other mal-practices by traders and persons providing services. Although CASE has been rendering an admirable service, largely through the threat of using adverse publicity against the traders and companies concerned, it has to-date been successful in resolving only a small number of such complaints.

The second course is for consumers to seek their redress and remedies in the courts. However, proceedings in the courts are often expensive, time-consuming and subject to technical and procedural complexities. The recovery of small claims, that is claims below $2,000, may therefore be hardly worth the effort. Cost is involved and is prohibitive and may well exceed the amount which the successful litigant could recover.

There is, therefore, a clear need for a cheaper and less formal forum to deal with such small claims. As the decisions of the Small Claims Tribunal become widely known, it will also help consumers to become more aware of their rights. Sir, this Bill attempts to assist a consumer who has a claim of up to $2,000 relating to the sale of defective goods or to the provision of shoddy or unsatisfactory workmanship to pursue such a claim in a Small Claims Tribunal. Claims above $2,000 will be dealt with by the normal civil courts. Through the tribunals, it is hoped that such small claims can be souled quickly to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. A consumer who has a complaint to make noeds only to fill in a form stating the facts of the case to the Registrar of the Small Claims Tribunal. For those who are less educated and are unable to file their complaints, the Consumers Association of Singapore has indicated its willingness to provide a service for this purpose.

To emphasize the informality, the word "tribunal" is used. A tribunal connotes an atmosphere of informality and it is the informality of proceedings in a tribunal which is one of the reasons for its success in those countries where similar tribunals have been established. Each tribunal will be presided over by a Referee, who will be a legally qualified person. Again, the use of the term "Referee" implies a certain degree of informality. No party to the proceedings in a tribunal will be allowed to be represented by an advocate and solicitor. However, where a party involved is a firm or corporation, it may be represented by one of its employees. The informality of the tribunal and its simplified procedure should enable any layman to present his own case.

An important feature of the Bill is that once a claim has been filed, the Registrar has the duty to call up the parties to a dispute before him to try to achieve a settlement. Only when a mutual agreement cannot be reached will the Registrar arrange for the claim to be heard before a Referee in a tribunal. An order made by the Registrar or Referee in a tribunal is binding on all the parties and is enforceable in a Magistrate's Court. Costs will not be awarded against any party unless his claim is frivolous or vexatious. The purpose of this is not to discourage genuine claims. There shall be no appeal against an order made by a tribunal except on a question of law or where an appellant alleges that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Sir, the proposed scheme, of course, is new to Singapore although it has been tried successfully in a number of countries with a similar legal and judicial background such as New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong. Since this is the first time that such a tribunal is being established in Singapore, its jurisdiction is confined to small claims arising out of contracts for the sale of goods or for the provision of services. After the system has been tried out and found to be successful, consideration may be given to extending the jurisdiction of the tribunal to cover other types of actions.

This Bill represents an important milestone in the field of consumer protection, and I hope that Members will whole-heartedly support it.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.33 pm

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill marks a further milestone in consumer protection in Singapore. It will not only strengthen the Consumer Protection Act which was passed by this House in 1975 but also provide what it did not give, ie legal redress for consumers through a tribunal.

The underlying principles of the proposed Small Claims Tribunals Bill are commendable. It aims to provide the consumer with a simple, informal and inexpensive way of having his complaint heard. This is underlined by the fact that advocates and solicitors have no right of appearance before the tribunal.

Sir, traditional justice places the consumers at a legal disadvantage in view of the prohibitive cost of legal proceedings, the long delays involved before justice can be meted out and the formal procedures and legal jargon involved, all of which have often deterred the average consumer from seeking redress through the Courts.

The Small Claims Tribunal would eliminate all this. By precluding lawyers, it will place the consumer on a more or less equal footing with the traders, businessmen or suppliers of services. Since both parties have to argue their cases out in the tribunal, both sides, especially the consumer, will save on legal fees. Of course, unethical traders and businessmen who resort to underhand sales tactics would now think twice before resorting to such unethical methods in their normal day-to-day business. The other virtues of the tribunal such as its air of informality, simplified court procedures and the exclusion of the rigid rules of evidence like in the normal courts make the tribunal a very desirable one to be established in Singapore for the benefit of consumers.

However, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on three points. First, does the Bill cover not only the sale and purchase of goods but also the rendering of all types of services as well? For instance, can a person institute claims on poor workmanship of, say, the tiling and painting work done by a contractor? Can an HDB flatowner, say, claim compensation from the HDB for his leaking toilet? All the small claims add up together would become a big claim for the HDB. Can the tribunal possibly handle and arbitrate on such complaints?

My second question is: will the Bill cover the claiming of wages by an employee for the services provided for the employer? I do not believe the Bill should cover this because there are relevant labour legislation to cover payment of salaries. But would the Minister please confirm this point?

My third question is: can a trader or seller of goods and services lodge a claim in an attempt to recover money from the buyer of goods if the buyer fails to make payment according to the agreed payment plan? If so, would the tribunal degenerate into a debt collection agency utilized by the traders and creditors for recovering money that consumers owe them? I understand that this was the experience of Canada and the United States when they first set up the Small Claims Court. Sir, in order that the general consumers are aware of the existence and the function of the Small Claims Tribunal, l suggest that adequate publicity be given to this Bill. It is essential that our consumers not only be aware of the existence of the proposed tribunal but also of the manner in which they can have access to it. The Consumers Association of Singapore can also help to disseminate the necessary information on the workings of this tribunal and how to have resort to it.

Co-operation from all parties is necessary if the tribunal is to play an effective role in ensuring justice for consumers. Businessmen too must accept the tribunal with an open mind and with goodwill for they must not forget that they too are consumers when they acquire goods and services for their needs. Furthermore, the business community as a whole will profit from having such a tribunal for it will serve to weed out the black sheep in their community who make it a point to fleece, defraud or short-change their customers by providing them with shoddy goods or sub-standard service.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill. 3.38 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education (Mr Ho Kah Leong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I join the Member for Boon Lay in welcoming the introduction of this Bill which I think is long overdue. It is indeed a milestone in the history of consumerism in Singapore. Hitherto, dissatisfied consumers find difficulty in obtaining satisfactory redress from unscrupulous or recalcitrant traders because of the small nature of their claims. The only way a consumer can enforce his rights is through litigation. However, there are several factors which dissuade a consumer from resorting to this means: cost, time and the complexity of procedure.

Sir, in the past experience of my association with the Consumers' Association of Singapore, I know that a consumer with a legitimate claim against a trader amounting to no more than $200-$300 is usually neither prepared to incur legal costs nor expend time and energy to vent his grievance through the judicial system, which may take anything up to six months to two years for a decision. If he is fortunate and if his claim, is undisputed, he could obtain redress within one to two months. However, in the more normal case of a disputed claim, it is just not worth the while to press it. It is therefor probable that many legitimate consumer complaints do not receive due satisfaction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, justified complaints like these if accumulated could mean consumers losing large sums of money and unscrupulous retailers getting away with trade malpractices much to the detriment of their honest counterparts. Furthermore, there is also the need to protect consumers from being misled or falsely persuaded to enter into contracts for the purchase of goods or services and also from being unduly harassed by traders or businessmen subsequently in respect of such contracts. The formation of the Small Claims Tribunals is therefore commendable as it could act as a deterrent to such undesirable trade malpractices.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the main advantage of having the tribunals, as I see it, is that it enables small consumers to assert their rights by commencing civil proceedings against the suppliers of defective or sub-standard goods and services. It also allows small consumers not to be unduly alarmed by the threat of litigation by unscrupulous suppliers of goods and services which have been foisted upon them by unethical methods of sale. In the Singapore context, it is reasonable to fix the ceiling for small claims at a maximum of $2,000 per claim as such a limit will adequately cater for the needs of the small consumer, for the protection of whose interests the tribunals are intended.

Sir, clause 21 provides that no party may be represented by an advocate and solicitor or agent at hearings of a tribunal. This is a good move. At present, many small consumers are deterred from asserting their rights by litigation or are unnerved by the threat of litigation because they usually have no dealings with lawyers. Consequently, they have a very vague idea as to the cost and other implications of litigation. On the other hand, the suppliers of consumer goods and services normally retain the services of lawyers as part of their trade or business, particularly if they know that their methods of securing trade or business from consumers are likely to give rise to dissatisfaction which can result in litigation. It is therefore a routine matter for a trader or businessman to instruct his solicitor to issue threats of legal action against defaulting consumers. On the other hand, a consumer, when faced with the prospect of having to commence proceedings or having proceedings com- menced against him, has to consider how and who to engage as a solicitor in relation to such proceedings. On top of it all, he has also to consider the worrisome problem of meeting the legal cost of such proceedings. These are all matters which are unfamiliar to an average small consumer.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 21 also provides that all actions in the Small Claims Tribunals must be presented by the parties themselves. Grievances may be stated in plain words with no legal jargon. Thus, as far as proceedings are concerned, there is no disadvantage in not being legally trained. Both parties tell their side of the story and decisions can be rendered immediately or within a few days after the hearing. Furthermore, the tribunals' proceedings would take place in private, thus underscoring the informal setting.

Sir, the setting up of such tribunals in Singapore will therefore help to remove from small consumers the uncertainties of litigation and in particular the question of legal cost. The preclusion of lawyers from appearing in such a court will help to place the small consumers on a more equal footing with the suppliers of the goods and services. It may also help to deter traders and businessmen from using unethical methods of sale since they may have to justify such methods of sale personally when claims are brought by disgruntled consumers. In such a tribunal, it will no longer be possible for unscrupulous traders or businessmen to shield themselves behind professional lawyers who can avail themselves of the esoteric and impersonal intricacies of the legal machinery to obscure the social aspects of any claim before a court.

Sir, the Small Claims Tribunals' main merit, however, will be in its very existence. Because the Tribunals exist, consumers will be less helpless and apathetic. In turn, less than ethical traders and manufacturers, who know consumers can resort to the tribunals, will become more responsive to consumer complaints.

Sir, may I now express some of my observations. Although the Small Claims Tribunals seem to be set up for the benefit of the consumers, they are in fact an avenue for redress for both traders and consumers alike. We must guard against the abuse of use of the Tribunals. In particular, we must guard against traders utilizing the services of the tribunals to recover unpaid sums owed by consumem and other traders. If this safeguard is not provided, then the tribunals will become merely a tool for use by corporate creditors for debt collection. This point was also expressed by the Member for Boon Lay just now. It is also possible that employees of the corporate creditors, though without formal qualifications, could acquire a series of skills and a familiarity with practices and personnel of the tribunals which con give the corporate creditors a decided advantage over the unrepresented debtors who may be going through the proceedings for the first time.

To prevent such a situation, the Minister may have to consider the following measures:

(a) Expressly exclude claims by corporations, partnerships or associations;

(b) Preclude professional debt collection agencies from utilizing the tribunals;

(c) Limit the number of cases which may be brought up by a particular claimant in a given period of time.

Sir, clause 36 sets out the powers of the High Court on an appeal under clause 35:-

(a) on any ground involving a question of law; or

(b) on the ground that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Furthermore, the Bill also provides that the Referee will decide claims according to the substantial merits and justice of each case with regard to the law but will not be bound strictly by it. The tribunals will have control over its own procedures and not be bound by strict rules of evidence. The Bill therefore contemplates flexible application of procedural rules and substantive law. Therefore, it seems incongruous to permit an appeal on substantive grounds on a question of law. Moreover, it is not necessary for the Referee to record the grounds for his decision as the record of a case shall consist only of:

(a) the Claim;

(b) summary of the facts of the issue in dispute; and

(c) order made by the tribunals.

It will therefore be difficult for the losing party to judge whether he should appeal and, if so, how to put his appeal on the basis of the available records.

I should be grateful if the Minister would care to clarify. 3.50 pm

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to welcome this Bill and to give my support to it. I was a little disappointed when I saw this Bill that it restricted disputes that may be tried by this tribunal, the disputes between, as the Minister said in his speech to consumers, purchasers of goods from suppliers and between users of services and suppliers of those services. I wonder why opportunity was not taken to give the tribunal jurisdiction in other areas of dispute. I understood the Minister to say that this Bill is an experiment and with the passage of time, perhaps consideration will be given to increasing the jurisdiction of the tribunal in other areas of disputes, small disputes that is.

I do not know the number of cages between consumers and suppliers of goods on the one hand and the consumers and suppliers of services on the other hand that is at the moment before the courts. I do not myself think that there are a great number but I do know that there are a great number of cases, small cases, that clog the courts at the moment and cases where it will be desirable to move away from the stylized formal hearings that the courts accord, to a more informal resolution of the disputes. I am thinking particularly of disputes between neighbours in HDB flats. I know myself of cases that come up before the courts daily, small little disputes between neighbours over things broken or fights. Perhaps consideration should be given to setting up a tribunal, if it is not to be the same tribunal as this, to try those sort of disputes as well. With that, may I pass on to certain clauses of this Bill.

Sir, reference has been made by a speaker to clause 13 of the Bill which sets out what the record of the tribunal should be. I see that it need not consist & the evidence that is given before the tribunal, but simply summaries of the facts as determined by the Referee during the hearing of the claims. As has been pointed out and I would echo that, this would make the task of an appellate court much more difficult, and I do not know why the Referee is not obliged to keep, perhaps not a full record of the evidence given before him in these hearings, but at least a summary of the evidence, not as determined by him, but a summary of the evidence as given by the parties and the witnesses before him. Perhaps the Minister might like to consider whether an amendment should be made to sub-paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2).

The other clause on which I should like to say something is clause 21, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mention has been made by speakers before me that this perhaps puts the parties on an equal footing. But, as the Minister pointed out, and it is in the Bill here, the Government, if it is a party to a dispute, may be represented by a public officer and the public officer may be a legal officer from a Government department or from the Attorney-General's Chambers. So it will be open to the Government at any time in any proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunals to send a lawyer against a consumer presenting his own case.

Equally, Mr Deputy, Speaker, Sir, when you come to consider a body corporate, especially if they happen to be big companies, they may send one of their employees, a member of their staff, who is perhaps legally trained or even if he is not legally trained, he is well able to present his case on behalf of the company against a consumer who may not be trained to the same level as the person presenting the case on behalf of the corporation. I can understand and I think it is desirable that advocates and solicitor should be excluded from this tribunal. But I do not understand why a consumer, a person who feels he cannot himself adequately present his case, should not get a friend of his to present the case for him. There are people who are unable, not through any fault of their own, to present their case adequately. They may not know what are the salient points, the evidence that should be presented. And it may be of assistance to people who are placed in that son of situation to have a friend to present their case for them before the Small Claims Tribunals.

The common law right is that if you cannot do anything yourself, you can appoint an agent to do it and I do not know why we should cut down on this right of a person to present his case through an agent, provided of course this man is not a professional agent who charges fees. If the tribunal makes sure of that and this man is there merely as a friend, I do not see what objection there can be.

I find clause 22 mystifying, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It says:

'All proceedings before a tribunal shall be held in private.'

May I know why proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunals should be held in private? As the Minister knows, one of the safeguards in the dispensation of justice, and this is dispensation of justice, adjudicating between two competing parties, is that it is open to the public and the public are there, who have an interest in the proceedings and they, as has been said, are watch-dogs of the proceedings before the tribunal or the court. The public have a purpose and a use in being admitted into courts and tribunals. I cannot understand why the proceedings before a Small Claims Tribunal should be held in camera, and the public excluded.

It may also be salutary if some of these cases are reported in the papers where there is shoddy work by a contractor or shoddy articles or goods sold by a company and that is reported in the Press. So what is the need, may I ask, for excluding the public, and by that the Press, from proceedings before a Small Claims Tribunal?

Clause 25, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, says:

'A tribunal shall not be bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit.'

Sir, it is easy to run away with the idea that the Evidence Act and the evidentiary provisions make any hearing technical, stylized, formal and difficult. But it has been found through experience, not just over a few years but over centuries, that the laws of evidence serve a very useful purpose. The rules of evidence have been designed to see that justice is done between the parties and that a Referee or Judge who has to decide between competing claims decides on the evidence that is presented by both parties and does not go outside the evidence presented by both parties. These are safeguards for the administration of justice and therefore I am not very happy to see that the tribunal is excluded from this restriction which is imposed on any tribunal or adjudicator. I can understand the tribunal being given a little more latitude but I should have thought that the tribunal should, in making its finding, make it on the evidence that is presented before it and be bound by the evidence that is before it. In that way you have a greater chance of doing justice between the panies rather than leaving it very much, as it were, in the bosom of the Referee for him to decide what should be the result of the dispute between the two parties.

May I move on, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to clause 36 which deals with the powers of the High Court on appeals from the tribunal. Perhaps I should have mentioned clause 35 first that an appeal to the High Court is provided under this Bill "on any ground involving a question of law." But, Sir, if you look at clause 36(2), you find that the High Court, on hearing an appeal, may not "reverse or vary any determination made by a tribunal on questions of fact." Again, the Minister must well be aware that determination on questions of fact may well be questions of law. There is the question as to whether a finding of fact is a perverse finding and that is a question of law whether it is a perverse finding or not. So there would appear to be a conflict between these two provisions in the Bill. One says that an appeal can be made to the High Court on any ground involving a question of law but the clause following it prevents the High Court from reversing or varying any determination made by a tribunal on questions of fact which may well be questions of law. I would ask the Minister whether he would give consideration to that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the three Members who have expressed their support for the Bill and I have taken note of all their specific points. I shall also cause the records of these proceedings to be sent to the officials of the Judiciary who will be drafting the relevant rules of the tribunal so that they can be advised of the points raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I touch on some of the points raised by the individual speakers. The Member for Boon Lay asked the following question: besides disputes arising from the sale of goods, whether it would also cover the rendering of services. He gave a few examples. The answer to that is yes, as can be seen from the wording of clause 5. As to the specific example he gave, I think, I will be prejudging the jurisdiction of the court if I were to say yes or no. But obviously questions of poor workmanship and defective materials supplied, I would certainly expect, would come within the scope of clause 5.

As regards his question as to whether this will cover claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship, the answer is no, because the provision in clause 5 talks of contract relating to contract for service. There is a distinction between contracts of service and contracts for service. So it would not cover the kind of disputes he mentioned relating to employer-employee relationship.

The next point that he raised relates to the prospect of claims being brought by traders or suppliers - this is also a point raised by the Member for Jurong - the answer is yes. It covers both sides, claims by the consumer and claims by the trader or supplier. The point raised by the Member for Boon Lay as well as the Member for Jurong was not that persons who r&use to pay for goods or services should not be subject of any kind of proceedings in any tribunal. I believe they were expressing a more general concern as to whether this tribunal would possibly become a subject of abuse by traders resorting to debt collection. The answer to that is, as of now, traders and suppliers have access to the High Court and the Magistrates' Courts and even with the passage of this Bill, their access to the normal Courts would not be barred.

As to whether they will have any special advantage in going to the Small Claims Tribunal will remain to be seen. The whole structure of the scheme is such that the advantage will really be with the consumer. Informality, the absence of legal representation, the absence of strict application of rules of evidence and so on favour, not the corporation, but the consumer. But let me say that this is new. We must see how it works. If experience shows that it is being abused, then let me give him the assurance that appropriate steps will be taken to make sure that it will not be allowed to be so abused.

May I go on to the comments of the Member for Jurong. I have taken note of his points which are similar to the points raised by the Member for Boon Lay. He has also asked whether we should exclude claims by particular partnerships and corporations. There i.s no immediate need to so exclude such claims. He has asked whether we should put a limit to the number of claims that are brought by parties. It may not be necessary to have this restrictive provision for one can envisage a situation where a particular consumer or consumers have been in an unfortunate position of suffering repeated misfortune at the hands of unscrupulous traders and corporations and such a restrictive provision would be to their disadvantage.

On the point raised by the Member for Jurong on the provision of appeals, as he will see, the provision in clause 35 provides for appeals on very narrow grounds:

'(a) on any ground involving a question of law; or on the ground that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.'

Sir, these are very restrictive grounds and, in fact, if you look at clause 36(2), even on appeal, the High Court may not reverse or vary any determination made by a tribunal on questions of fact. So I do not think that this is a provision that is going to undermine the claims brought by consumers in the Small Claims Tribunal. In any case, I would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that clause 35(2) provides for rules to be made to regulate and prescribe the procedure to be followed on appeals. So the authorities making these rules will no doubt bear these points in mind when the necessary rules are drafted.

May I now go on to the points raised by the Member for Anson. I am glad that, for once, he has supported a Bill moved by the Government and his points also are noted. He has commented that confining the jurisdiction of the tribunal to disputes concerning sale of goods and services is rather restrictive. Why not other categories of disputes? As I have said, this is experimental. We will have to see how it works and, with experience, we could consider extending the categories of disputes. But I am not sure whether the example that he mentioned, that is disputes between neighbours in flats, is the kind of dispute that should be brought to the Small Claims Tribunal. Instead of advocating that, he should note that we have Residents' Committees throughout Singapore. We have campaigns of good neighbourliness and courtesy. So perhaps he should come forward and support these campaigns if he is really interested in reducing the incidence of quarrels between neighbours. Going to court may only aggravate the relationship between neighbours.

He has asked why is it in clause 13 the record of a tribunal is so brief that it would make the Appellate Court's task more difficult. The answer to that is that the more lengthy, the more comprehensive notes and grounds of decisions which have to be made by the Small Claims Tribunal, will of course lead to more delays and will take up more time on the pan of the Referee concerned and it will make the proceedings even less informal. In any case, the rules will provide for the process of appeal.

He has referred to clause 21 and pointed out that corporations and the Government may be represented by an employee or, in the case of the Government, by a public officer. I am afraid his interpretation is wrong. It is true and it says in clause 21 that a party to a proceeding before a tribunal, if it is the Government, a public officer may present the case. He has concluded that a legal officer can represent the Government. But he has failed to see that this is subject to subclause (3) which says:

'No party to any proceedings before a tribunal shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor or agent, whether paid or otherwise.' 4.15 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: A legal officer may not be an advocate and solicitor.

Prof. Jayakumar: So no party to any proceeding before a tribunal shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor. And I am sure the tribunal will be able to interpret both the spirit and intent of this provision.

The Member has expressed reservation and criticism of clause 22 which says:

'All proceedings before a tribunal shall be held in private.'

Why is this so? There are good reasons. Many of our laymen are reluctant to go to the tribunal because of publicity. If everything they say in a tribunal is going to be reported the next day with photographs and sensational headings, this is going to put off bona fide consumers who have grievances from going to the Small Claims Court.

On the other hand, the Member for Anson has forgotten to relate this to clause 42 of the Bill which says:

'The Registrar shall cause to be published, in such manner as the Minister from time to time directs, such particulars relating to proceedings in tribunals as the Minister specifies in the direction.'

It is perfectly possible that orders and decisions could be publicized in the direction.

The Member has advocated the need for laws of evidence to prevail. But this would precisely conflict with the objective of keeping the proceedings as informal as possible. If the laws of evidence were to apply, as we know, the evidentiary rules are fraught with technicalities which no layman will be able to understand. So this is why it is provided in clause 25 that:

'A tribunal shall not be bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit.'

Finally, the point raised by the Member for Anson regarding clause 36 on appeals. The point that he has raised is that clause 36(2) provides that the court may not reverse a determination of the Small Claims Court on questions of fact. His point was that some questions purporting to be questions of fact may indeed be questions of law. But surely we must leave it to the Court of Appeal to decide whether an alleged question is a question of fact or question of law. That determination is one which must be left to the Court of Appeal. Sir, I think I have covered most of the points.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I clarify my objection to clause 22 of the Bill which I do not think has been adequately understood by the. Minister? I was not merely campaigning for a reporting of all the proceedings next day in the papers. What I was saying was that, as he knows, all proceedings in any court are open to the public and there is a reason for this. That is because the person who is presiding knows that he is being watched by the public. This is well recognized. They serve as a watchdog, on behalf of the litigants or the public interest because the public have an interest in the administration of justice. And this Small Claims Tribunal is doing just that, trying to do justice between two competing parties. That is why I said I cannot understand why the public should be excluded.

I can understand some people having reservations about their cases being published in the papers. That can be done by a direction that the papers do not publish certain reports or names of parties or any evidence. But why exclude the friends of the claimants from attending the court and watching the proceedings?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, obviously this is a question on which different people will have different ideas. The approach taken in the framing of this legislation on this point is simply this. If we want to encourage a layman, however educated he is, whatever education he has received, if he feels he has a genuine grievance, a genuine claim, to be able to come to the court, he should know that there are as few inhibiting factors as possible. The other side will not be represented by a lawyer. He will have to present his own case.

Imagine the position if there is a large audience around him. Surely this will be an intimidating inhibitive factor. If one side is allowed to bring friends, the other.side must also be allowed to bring friends. For many people who have never stood up and spoken before a strange forum, this could be an inhibiting factor. So I think we should try to have as informal, as simple procedures, with as few strangers and audience as possible. This will promote expeditious and smooth handling of the cases and the Referee will be able to give the decision.

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. - (Prof S. Jayakumar).

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