SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill amends the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Chapter 308). In February 1994, the Chief Justice set up a working group, chaired by a senior District Judge, to review the Small Claims Tribunals Act (`the Act'), especially to consider enlarging the tribunals' jurisdiction in terms of quantum and nature of claims. The amendments in this Bill, which have been endorsed by the Chief Justice, are the result of the work of this Committee.

Sir, these amendments are timely because of the increase in the nature and volume of cases heard by the tribunals. They seek to achieve the following objectives:

First, increase the monetary jurisdiction of the tribunals from $2,000 to $5,000;

Second, widen the categories of claims which can be heard by the tribunals; and

Third, provide for additional circumstances where an individual claimant may be represented in proceedings before the tribunals.

I will now deal with the main amendments in the Bill - first, increase in jurisdictional limit from $2,000 to $5,000. The present jurisdictional limit of $2,000 has remained unchanged since the Small Claims Tribunals Act was passed 10 years ago in 1985. At that time, this sum was appropriate as measured against the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts of $10,000. In July 1993, the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts was raised to $30,000. Apart from this fact, inflation and rising costs of living justify an upward revision of the tribunals' monetary jurisdiction. The new limit of $5,000 can be increased to $10,000 if both parties to the claim consent in writing for the tribunals to hear the dispute.

Sir, in order for the tribunals to remain responsive to the changing needs of the community, this monetary jurisdiction can be varied as and when circumstances justify it. This can be expeditiously done by way of subsidiary legislation. These changes are reflected in amendments to sections 2 and 5 of the Act through clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill.

Sir, the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE) has asked for an even higher increase to the tribunals' new monetary limits. They suggest that for contracts of sale, provision and supply of goods and services, the limit should be raised to $10,000. CASE's desire to increase the tribunals' monetary limits so as to provide consumers with even greater access is laudable. However, the Government would prefer to proceed cautiously. Let us proceed step by step and increase the jurisdiction to $5,000 from the present $2,000 before considering any further increases. This approach will enable the Tribunal to better assess and cope with the expected increase in demand for its services. After assessing the Tribunals' functioning when the new limits have been implemented for some time, if it is found that the tribunals are in a position to handle larger claims, the Government will consider increasing the limit.

Sir, I move now to the next major amendment - to provide for the inclusion of a new category of claims under section 5 of the Act covering claims in tort arising from damage caused to property. Claims arising from motor vehicle accidents will be excluded as there are other procedures such as insurance policies to deal with such claims. The tribunals receive many complaints involving damage caused to common areas of property between neighbouring houses or apartment units as a result of renovation works. This amendment will allow for the speedy resolution of these and other claims involving damage to property. Settlement of such disputes between neighbours in an informal manner will promote better social well-being.

Here again, Sir, CASE has suggested that other categories be included in the tribunals' jurisdiction. These are hire purchase transactions, tenancies not exceeding $2,000 and contracts for the sale of shares up to $10,000. Sir, the Committee set up to review the Small Claims Tribunals Act had considered some of these categories for inclusion but, after careful consideration, had not recommended it. Tenancies, securities and hire purchase claims often involve relatively complex legal issues which the tribunals may not be equipped to handle. Again, I would advise an incremental approach. Let us monitor how the tribunals handle their enlarged jurisdiction first.

Next, I turn to the third important amendment in the Bill to allow certain categories of claimants to be represented in proceedings before the tribunals by another person who is not an advocate and solicitor. The Act is presently silent on whether a management corporation, a minor or an aged, illiterate or infirm person may be represented by another person before the tribunals. The tribunals have in practice allowed such persons to be represented whenever the need arose. This amendment will clarify and regularise the current practice. Tourists, in particular, will find this amendment useful. Tourists who discover that they have purchased defective goods after leaving Singapore may now seek redress before the tribunals through a representative in Singapore. In this connection, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board has agreed to act as the representative of such tourists in appropriate cases. This amendment will be to section 21 of the Act through clause 6 of the Bill.

Sir, one other amendment is the provision for claims to be lodged by electronic means. This is in keeping with the increased emphasis to computerise so as to boost productivity and efficiency. The lodgement of claims by electronic means will expedite the processing of claims and streamline the administration of the tribunals to better serve the public. The proposed amendment will be to section 15 of the Act through clause 5 of the Bill. The other amendments to the Bill, ie, to section 9 of the Act through its repeal and re-enactment in clause 4 of this Bill is of a consequential nature arising out of the repeal and re-enactment of section 5. Clause 7 also makes consequential amendments to section 32(2) of the Act arising from the repeal and re-enactment of section 5.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Chief Justice delivered his speech at the opening of the legal year in January 1995, he observed that the caseloads of the tribunals had increased dramatically from 3,788 cases to some 26,000 cases by the end of 1994, almost a seven-fold increase. I believe that the recommendations of this Committee when implemented will not only improve its functioning but also allow the public to have greater access to the tribunals as quick and inexpensive forums for the resolution of disputes.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Small Claims Tribunals have been in operation for 10 years now. It has fulfilled its promise of being a simple, inexpensive and accessible forum for small claims to be made, in particular, consumers have benefited from this forum.

I take this opportunity to call on all Singapore consumers not to be shy of using the Small Claims Tribunals. My understanding is that consumers who have used the Small Claims Tribunals have found this a pleasant experience. The fact that the tribunals now do seven times more work is testimony to this. The fact that they have to present their own case has helped them also to better understand how the law works. On this score, I suggest that the Consumers' Association of Singapore consider providing assistance and advice to consumers who may wish to press their claims before the Small Claims Tribunals. CASE could advise them on their legal rights and prepare them for the hearing.

I commend the Government for taking this important step of enlarging the jurisdiction of the tribunals. With more types of claims and a higher quantum, I am sure more Singaporeans, both businessmen and consumers, will benefit. In addition, this will provide a viable alternative to our court system where legal costs are incurred. In this way, this amendment will help to keep legal costs down. I welcome this amendment as it will make the small claims process even more convenient for Singaporeans.

Sir, the Minister for Law had announced in this year's Committee of Supply debate that the Government is considering setting up regional centres and to decentralise the Small Claims Tribunals. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on the progress of this scheme.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, let me thank the GPC Chairman for his support of the Bill. I think his call to CASE to take a higher role in helping consumers is timely.

Sir, the GPC Chairman has asked about the announcement made by the Minister earlier this year on the setting up of regional centres for the Small Claims Tribunals. Since then, Sir, we have been looking at this seriously. A Working Group has been formed comprising Ministry of Law together with Subordinate Court officials. The idea is to bring community justice to the people. So we are targeting the implementation of this scheme by way of a pilot centre some time towards the end of the year in a suitable locality. If it is successful, we can consider having more centres.

Sir, the other point about this scheme is that we intend to have leading members of the community, like Justices of the Peace, who can be appointed as Assistant Registrars under the Small Claims Act who will help to mediate in these regional centres. They will act as the conciliators in the consultation stage. Only when the parties cannot settle their dispute at the consultation stage at these regional centres, they will then go to the Small Claims Tribunals at the Apollo Centre. That is the progress at this stage.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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