SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This Bill seeks to amend the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Cap 308) to increase the administrative efficiency of the Small Claims Tribunals and to enable them to provide a better public service. In March 1996, the Chief Justice, in his keynote address at the Fifth Subordinate Courts Workplan Seminar, announced that the operational and jurisdictional aspects of the Small Claims Tribunals would be regularly reviewed.

A working committee, chaired by a District Judge and comprising members from the Subordinate Courts, has proposed amendments to the Small Claims Tribunals. The Chief Justice has endorsed these amendments.

The amendments seek to achieve the following objectives:

Firstly, enlarge the powers of the Registrar of the Small Claims Tribunals;

Secondly, expedite the procedure for the hearing and disposal of claims through a system of consultations and hearings by telephone, videophone and other electronic means; and

Thirdly, permit respondents to admit claims by telephone or in writing.

Enlarging the powers of the Registrar

Currently, applications to set aside orders made in default by the Registrar of the Small Claims Tribunal at the consultation stage are heard only by a Referee. As these applications are simple and straightforward, the Registrar can deal with them. Further, under the current position, if the Referee allows the application to set aside the default order, he will proceed to hear the claim. This deprives both parties of the opportunity to settle the claim by consultation before the Registrar. The proposed amendments will allow the Registrar to proceed with the consultation after setting aside the default order and to refer the matter to the Referee only if there is no settlement after the consultation. The proposed amendments to section 17, by adding two new sub-sections (9) and (10), will empower the Registrar to hear the application to set aside the default order.

Consultations and hearings via telephones, videophones or other electronic means

Currently, after a claim is filed with the Tribunals, a Notice of Consultation is sent to both parties requiring them to attend a consultation session. If a settlement is not reached at the consultation stage, the matter will be fixed for hearing. Both parties are required to attend the consultation and hearings, if any, at the Tribunals personally. The proposed amendment to the Act will allow parties to claims to participate in the consultations and hearings via a telephone or videophone link-up between a Regional Centre and the main Small Claims Tribunals' location at the Apollo Centre. This will make it more convenient for the parties, especially those who live near these Centres. Consultations by telephone and videophone via video-conferencing will be for all claims, but hearings will be limited only to admissions. The amendments will provide for safeguards against a situation where a party participating in the consultation or hearing is an impersonator or does not have authority to do so. Sir, new sections 17A and 22A will be inserted to provide for this new procedure.

Admission of claims by telephone

Currently, when a respondent admits a claim, he has to attend the consultation in person to admit to the claim, except when the claim is settled prior to the consultation. Similarly, if he wishes to admit to the claim at the hearing stage, he has to present himself in person. The proposed amendment will allow a respondent to admit claims by telephone at any time before the consultation or hearing stages.

This Bill has provisions for safeguards against admissions by impersonators or unauthorised persons. Further, the respondent can apply to set aside consent orders made as a result of any admission made by an impersonator or by an unauthorised person. A new section 18A will be inserted to provide for this new procedure.

Admission of claims in writing

Some respondents have enquired if they can admit claims in writing and be excused from attending the consultation in person. The present legislation does not provide for admissions in writing. Respondents have to attend personally before the Registrar to admit the claim. Allowing admissions to be made in writing will provide another medium through which respondents can admit claims. A new section 18A will be inserted to provide for this. As a safeguard, the Registrar can reject such admissions and direct the respondent to appear in person at the consultation or hearing.

Amendment of Section 38

Section 38 of the Act has been amended to allow persons aggrieved by any orders made by the Registrar or the Tribunal under the proposed sections 17(9), 17A(3), 18A(5), 22A(3) and 26(1) to apply to the Tribunal to set aside the orders and the Tribunal is empowered to make such further order as it thinks just.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the proposed amendments will improve the administrative efficiency of the Small Claims Tribunals and provide a better service and greater convenience to the public.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the introduction of this amendment Bill. I would say that this is very good progress in terms of making available the technology to aid the claims of consumers and other small claimants. I wish to make some observations.

First, the new section 17A(1) deals with telephone, videophone or any other electronic means. It states that these means would be allowed for the proceedings of the Small Claims Tribunals. Under the proposed section 22A, some hearings would also be made using this new modern means of electronic communications. But by the principles of statutory interpretation, the so-called eiusdem generis principle, general words used in a statute will be limited to the same class of communications, ie, in this case, types of telephones, because of the words "telephone" and "videophone". This will exclude audio-conferencing where the telephone is not used directly, or video-conferencing where the medium of conveying the message is not a telephone line but, say, a cable or broadcasting and satellite media, or even a set top box placed on top of a television.

I would like to ask if the Minister would state that such a limitation is not really the intention of the Bill. Secondly, some electronic means are obviously unsuitable for a consultation before the Registrar. So the words should not be too broad. Such electronic means could include e-mail or even if it is instantaneous e-mail, perhaps even fax machines and other modes of telecommunication where the authentication of the other party is susceptible to fraud and impersonation. I would thus call on the Minister to promulgate some regulations by laying down the procedures and standards of security and authentication for such consultations and admissions, and describe the circumstances in which such electronic means will be accepted or rejected for the purposes of the Small Claims Tribunals.

Under new section 18A(1), admission of a claim can be made orally by telephone and I would similarly ask the Minister to mention the minimum standards and procedures of security for such means.

As to new sections 17A(4), 18A(6) and 22A(4), an application to set aside an order of the Registrar must be made within one month of the order. I am concerned about this because I am afraid that in many cases before the Small Claims Tribunals, it involves consumers who may not be very savvy as to the ways of court and the ways of the law and therefore may actually be at a disadvantage. For example, if an order has been made, the party that obtains the order could hold on to the order for more than a month and then serve it on the unsuspecting consumer, by which time it would be too late for him to set aside and he would have to first ask for leave from the tribunals before he can set aside the order. And this additional process will actually deter him. I would ask if the Minister could consider regulations that would perhaps remove this difficulty.

Lastly, I would just like to mention that perhaps in future amendment to the Small Claims Tribunals Act the Minister could also look into expansion of the jurisdiction, for example, in house renovations below $40,000 which is really the kind of renovation that small householders of 3-rooms and 4-rooms would actually do as a basic renovation and these claims are presently not covered. Additionally, claims by people who have bought time-shares, because time-shares hover in this twilight zone between services and property. And presently people who are taken advantage of cannot go to the Small Claims Tribunals to advocate their cases.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank Dr Toh for first supporting the Bill and also making some observations on the Bill. Let me respond to these observations.

Sir, the first point is a point for clarification. He asked whether the term "or any other electronic means" should be read restrictively in accordance with the eiusdem generis rule. Let me first say that we are taking this one step at a time. We will first start with telephones and videophones, and I think we will use those for some time to assess how they work. The idea here is to provide for other electronic means that may emerge in the future. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, let me say now that we do not want to circumscribe the new means to which this process can be adapted, should there be new features in the future, which can be used to good effect to achieve the objects of this Bill. But there must be safeguards as well. I think that is the point he has also made. So whatever new means that are used should garner convenience but at the same time must be balanced with adequate safeguards. So we will start with the telephone, videophone, and perhaps some time in the future, maybe Internet can be used. So this is the purport of the Bill.

Secondly, he talked about safeguards. I think that is a very good point. In fact, this was something we put our minds to. Because even as we have this new approach, new technology, we want to ensure that it will not be abused. For example, he mentioned clause 4, the new section 18A, about admitting by, for example, telephone. The safeguard here will be with the notice of consultation that will be received by the respondent, there will be a secret pin number which he will then have to use if he telephones in to admit the claim. This will be in addition to the other particulars which are peculiar to him, eg, IC number, name, and so forth.

Even for consultation and hearing by these new means, we are not jumping straightaway to a situation where you can have consultation or hearing from your home. The idea here is that the parties would be at the Small Claims Tribunals locality, either the main locality at Apollo Centre or the regional centre. So even if there is such consultation by these means, there will still be verification of identity of the parties by the officials at either the regional centre or the main centre.

One other point that he has mentioned is about the one-month period. He says that if a person is impersonated, he may not know that he has been impersonated and if the one-month period runs from the time the order is made, it may be out of time. First, as I have said, safeguards are in place to ensure that there is no impersonation and I am told that this will be rare, but, in any case, we should provide for it.

Secondly, the one-month period is not cast in stone. Because if you look at the words, the Registrar can allow for a further period, so that should there be unfairness or injustice, I am sure the Registrar would exercise his discretion judiciously.

Thirdly, I understand that a copy of the order that is made will also be served on the parties, so that if you are impersonated, your address is still there, your name is still there, so you still will get a copy of the order made, and you know that you are impersonated because somebody has admitted your claim. So this should take care of that point.

Finally, I think if all else fails, Dr Toh will know that the Small Claims process has improved so much that the time period between the time you get the notice and the consultation and hearing, now it is all within one month. In other words, the one-month period, even if all these other measures that I have mentioned fail, will not prejudice the consumer of which I think Dr Toh is concerned.

The last point he mentioned is why not expand the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunals. Let us take this a step at a time. I think he will know that last year we just expanded it. Currently it is $10,000 and $20,000 if both parties consent. So that is already upping the limit from the previous limit of $2,000 and $5,000. So I think we should take this gradually. We do not want to lose sight of the objectives behind the Small Claims Tribunals which is to ensure that small claims which do not require examination of complex legal issues can be dealt with quickly by Referees and Registrars. So even in terms of the type of claims that can be heard by the Tribunals, we are very careful not to expand it too quickly. I think we should let this new innovation take off and then we can assess over time.

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.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year "1997" will be changed to "1998".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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