MARITIME OFFENCES BILL

Column: 3342

MARITIME OFFENCES BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Transport (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Objective of Bill

The Government intends to accede to the 1988 International Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, or the Rome Convention as it is commonly known. The proposed Maritime Offences Bill 2003 is to give effect to the provisions of the Rome Convention.

Rationale

Let me begin by providing a brief introduction to the Rome Convention. The Rome Convention was negotiated in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) as its contribution to international efforts to fight terrorism aboard or against ships. It aims to eliminate safe havens for perpetrators of offences such as seizure of ships and acts of violence against persons on board ships that endanger navigational safety. It does so by requiring parties to take action against alleged offenders in their territories, even

Column: 3343

if the alleged offence is committed outside their territorial waters.

As the Members of this House would know, the events of 11 September 2001 and reports of planned maritime terrorism by terrorist groups in the region have highlighted the vulnerabilities of the shipping and port sectors to terrorist attacks. This is compounded by the piracy problem in regional waters. Addressing the challenges of maritime security is of vital importance for the international community in a post-September 11 environment.

As a maritime nation and a responsible member of the international maritime community, Singapore takes a very serious view on maritime security. As part of Singapore's heightened vigilance against all terrorist threats, we have intensified security measures for key areas in our port waters, including increased patrols by the Navy and Police Coast Guard. We have also strengthened coordination among the national maritime agencies to enable a more comprehensive and integrated approach to maritime security. Singapore was also the first Asian country to sign on to the Container Security Initiative which seeks to protect the sea container trade.

On the international front, Singapore is supportive of the new maritime and port security measures adopted at the IMO, and the universal and effective implementation of these measures. Such measures are needed to guard against threats to the security and safety of life at sea and disruptions to seaborne trade. This is especially critical for international waterways such as the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, given their importance to international maritime trade.

In this regard, the Bill before us to give effect to the Rome Convention forms part of Singapore's continuing contributions to the international maritime community's fight against terrorism.

Column: 3344

Main Features of the Bill

Let me now touch on the main features of the Bill.

A key aim of the Rome Convention is to eliminate safe havens for perpetrators of crimes at sea by requiring a member State to take action against any such perpetrator found in its territory by prosecuting or extraditing him, whether or not the act was committed within the State's territorial waters.

As such, the acts described in clauses 3 to 7 of the Bill are offences under Singapore law regardless of the alleged offender's citizenship, the state in which the ship

is registered and whether the offence is committed in Singapore or elsewhere. Singapore would establish jurisdiction over such offences.

Let me elaborate on the various offences.

Clause 3 makes it an offence for a person to hijack a ship.

Clause 4 makes it an offence to intentionally destroy or damage a ship or commit on board an act of violence which is likely to endanger its safe navigation.

Clause 5 makes it an offence to intentionally destroy, damage or interfere with the operation of any property used for providing navigation facilities, such as lighthouses and light beacons.

Clause 6 makes it an offence to issue a threat to carry out an act referred to in clause 4 or 5, which might endanger the safe navigation of a ship.

Clause 8 allows the master of a Singapore registered ship to deliver a person to the appropriate authority of another Rome Convention country, if he is

Column: 3345

of the opinion that the person has committed certain offences under the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the importance for Singapore to be a Party to the Rome Convention is clear.

Being a Party would demonstrate Singapore's firm commitment to deal with unlawful acts at sea, such as piracy and maritime terrorism. It also underlines Singapore's active involvement in the global fight against terrorism.

In view of heightened security concerns over possible maritime terrorism and piracy attacks in the region, Singapore cannot afford to take maritime security for granted. Our intention to accede to the Rome Convention would not only strengthen our laws, but would also bring us to higher levels of international cooperation to combat maritime terrorism and piracy.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I wish to speak in support of this Bill in the name of the Minister for Transport.

This Bill is important and necessary in that it makes clear the offences committed, such as for hijacking or for damage or destruction of ships, and this includes maritime navigational facilities, as pointed out by the Minister just now. It is timely that, given the current concern, especially after 911, about terrorism that we take proper steps to build into our legal system such maritime offences. My question is, given our port's pre-eminence in maritime businesses, why such safeguards have not been done earlier. Hijacking of air passengers, damages to ships and maritime facilities or vessels have occurred too many times. Are there

Column: 3346

special reasons for the delay or special circumstances for its urgency? The Minister just now mentioned that the Rome Convention was signed in 1988. It has been quite a number of years since that we are now acceding to this Rome Convention condition. I would like to ask how many countries have signed or ratified the Rome Convention, and the Minister may want to inform the House. No one can quarrel with these safeguards. By this Bill, it would be an offence, irregardless of his citizenship, the registry of the ship, or regardless of where the acts are committed.

This Bill, however, makes no mention of damages to people on board the vessel. Is it the passengers or crews? I refer particularly to theft or robbery at sea by pirates. We have quite a bit of this as reported in the press. Does the Minister not see it fit to include acts of injury, robbery, or theft, to passengers or crews of vessels who ply our neighbouring waters? It is not clear to me whether any of these provisions in the Bill covers this aspect of danger to navigation of the sea lanes around us.

Clause 3 provides for any person who unlawfully uses force or by threats seize a ship or control a ship and shall be guilty of an offence, whatever his nationality or citizenship, whatever the state in which the ship is registered and whether the ship is in Singapore or elsewhere. This makes it an offence under the Bill for any offence of this nature committed by anyone on any ship anywhere. While we can agree to the spirit of its intent, are we able to enforce legal proceedings as such on anyone, any ship, anywhere, as clauses 3 and 4 seem to imply?

I hope the Minister can clarify these points.

Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Maritime Offences Bill.

Column: 3347

This Bill is long overdue and it is important that it be implemented early. Since the early days of maritime activities when sailing ships plied the trade routes, the security of these vessels had been threatened by criminal or terrorist elements, either in port or at sea. Today, a large and vital part of the global trade passes through the ASEAN countries. 80% of the world's goods are moved by sea and about 47% of the world's trade taking place within APEC. The Southeast Asian region is the area of convergence of most maritime activities in ASEAN, particularly the Straits running through Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore.

Having visible maritime law enforcement patrol is vital to maritime safety, as deterrence is the key element in preventing the conduct of any criminal activities whether on land or at sea. As such, Singapore must play its part in tackling illegal maritime activities by having appropriate legal powers to deal with these threats. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with hijacking of ships which is a bigger threat than just ordinary robbery at sea. The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong on 17th May 2003 states that vessel hijacking rose to 25 last year from 16 the year before. Some had their markings repainted and super structures altered to conceal the identities when they went back to sea. Only a few had been recovered. Goverments in the region had been holding their breath for fear that Southeast Asian terrorists would join the hijackers and create a giant blockage to disrupt Asian trade. The International Maritime Bureau said that the terrorist attack on the French supertanker, Limburg, off Yemen in October 2002 showed maritime terrorism has become a reality.

The fear among ship owners and port authorities is that it is a matter of time before an oil tanker, or a large ship, is left running without guidance because its crew members are killed, kidnapped or

Column: 3348

locked up. This fear of unchecked piracy has become a reality on Sunday, 2nd November this year when, for the first time, an oil tanker nearing the busy Singapore Straits sailed unmanned for nearly an hour after pirates tied up the crew. Had there been a collision, an inevitable environmental disaster would have taken place. Clause 4(1) states that any person who unlawfully and intentionally (1) destroys a ship; (2) damages a ship or its cargo so as to endanger, or to be likely to endanger, the safe navigation of the ship; or (3) commits on board a ship an act of violence which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship, shall be guilty of an offence. This clause seems to cover a broad range of possible intentions by a guilty person. However, a rash act by a person may also lead to the same consequences and may fall out of the law by pleading unintentional acts. I feel that this clause should also cover persons who are reckless in their behaviour, thus causing danger to the ship or safe navigation of the ship.

Clause 4(2) states that any person who unlawfully and intentionally places, or causes to be placed, on a ship any device or substance that is likely to destroy or damage a ship or its cargo and endanger its safe navigation shall be guilty. In many instances, maritime terrorism has been committed using small arms, grenades and rocket launches, or other improvished weapons that have been in common use in land based terrorist activities. Arms of various types may also be used and concealed in cargo or baggage and timed to detonate while in port or when it is already inside a vessel and at sea. I call for a more specific reference to any device or substance that is likely to destroy or damage a ship to be included in clause 4(2). In other words, anyone other than a peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty who takes on board a ship an offensive

Column: 3349

weapon or any explosive substance shall be guilty of an offence under this Bill.

Clause 5, I am happy to note, covers offences committed in relation to damages and interferences to operational navigation facilities on land that could result in serious interference to maritime safety. Such indirect threats would require strong preventive measures and legal deterrence in the fight against destructive elements. However, clause 5, on the other hand, should also state that any reasonable acts to protect the person, ship, or offshore installation, against piracy or maritime violence shall not itself be an offence, as defined under the Maritime Offences Bill.

Clause 5(3) states that it is an offence to give false information that endangers the safe navigation of a ship and is liable to life imprisonment. This, I see, is a double edged sword. The harsh penalty proposed will act as a deterrent against would-be hoaxers but might discourage the public from coming forward for fear that they might run foul of the law.

Clause 9 of the Bill states that any person guilty of an offence under the Act shall be liable on conviction to be punished with imprisonment for life. In today's context, we need to draw a difference between sea robbery and maritime terrorism. The latter has a political objective and has far-reaching consequences as compared to the former which is purely for personal gain. Should we not consider imposing different penalties in accordance with the severity of the offence? I propose that penalties should not be restricted to jail terms but also include the forfeiture of ships, cargoes, goods, or equipment employed during the offence or had facilitated the offence.

Column: 3350

What is noticeably absent from the Bill is with regard to the disposal of cargo or loot derived from the offence. The Bill should make provision to penalise those who are responsible for disposing of such content. The effectiveness of any law enforcement agency in curbing maritime offences will depend greatly on cooperation among governments as piracy respects no territorial waters. Since 1992, Singapore has signed bilateral agreements with Indonesia and Malaysia to coordinate periodic anti-piracy exercises in the Malacca and Singapore Straits. Under these agreements, navy and marine police units from the three countries coordinate their activities and exchange more information on piracy. To be more effective, our laws and neighbours must have the powers to allow our coastal patrols to apprehend culprits who seek shelters on the waters of another country and have the flexibility to overcome such legal constraints and uncertainties.

Sir, combating maritime violence is now as much a part of national security, as is defence against military threats. Such efforts will facilitate Singapore's cooperation with the international community in suppressing maritime violence and terrorism, and in ensuring safe passage for ships which ply our waters.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the two Members for supporting the Bill.

Mr Andy Gan has given examples of piracy and terrorism on the seas. Singapore takes a very serious view of maritime security. As part of our heightened vigilance against terrorist threats, we have intensified security measures for key areas in our port waters, including increased patrols by the Navy and Police Coast Guards. Singapore

Column: 3351

is also active in implementing the new maritime and port security measures adopted at the International Maritime Organisation which guard against threats to the security and safety of life at sea and disruptions to seaborne trade. The accession to the Rome Convention is part of Singapore's continuing contributions to the global fight against terrorism. We are not the first country to accede to the Convention.

Mr Chay wanted to know how many countries have acceded to the Convention.

95 countries have done so. They include Asian countries, such as China, India and Japan. In Southeast Asia, we are the third country after Vietnam and Myanmar. Nevertheless, our ascension to the Convention now in this heightened security environment will increase safety in this region. It will enhance Singapore's ability to deal with and deter maritime security threats.

Mr Chay also asked that the Maritime Offences Bill offer protection for passengers and crews of ships and the enforceability of its provisions. The provisions in the Bill reflect the requirements for countries that are parties to the Rome Convention. The Bill does not only protect ships and navigational equipment, it also covers acts of violence against passengers and crews, in conjunction with offences committed under the Bill.

Both Mr Chay and Mr Andy Gan were concerned whether piracy was covered by this. The Rome Convention covers piracy. Mr Chay is right in pointing out that the effectiveness of the Rome Convention would depend on the cooperation between countries that are parties to the Convention. If the offender is found in another country, we will not be able to prosecute him even though the law allows for this, unless the other country has signed the Convention. The fight against maritime terrorism and piracy ultimately requires a multi-lateral

Column: 3352

approach. Hence, we would like to see more countries in the region accede to the Rome Convention, as part of the multi-lateral cooperation to deal with the unlawful acts at sea.

In acceding to the Rome Convention, the details of the Bill in Singapore are similar to other countries'. Hence, there is a clear distinction between reckless acts at sea and terrorism, and the Rome Convention does not cover reckless acts at sea.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Balaji Sadasivan].

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

Column: 3352

CONSUMER PROTECTION (FAIR TRADING) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.48 pm

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, for some years now, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), as well as several Members of this House, have advocated the enactment of a fair trading law. This is because while some particularly offensive practices like cheating or intimidation are prohibited under our criminal laws, many errant sales tactics, such as bait advertising, misrepresentation, and hard selling, are not clearly covered by any of our existing laws. In 2001, a joint private and public taskforce, co-led by CASE and MTI, was formed to study this issue. In

Column: 3353

2002, the Government accepted the recommendation of the taskforce to enact a Fair Trading Act.

Based on the taskforce's recommendation, my Ministry has drafted a Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Bill, and conducted two rounds of public consultations in October last year and July this year. MTI also held dialogue sessions with various industry and business associations, and conducted with CASE about 10 educational seminars. We received many good suggestions and feedback to improve the draft Bill. These have been incorporated into the final Bill. We thank all those who have provided feedback for their useful inputs.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The Bill now before the House is principally designed to accord better protection to consumers by allowing them to seek civil redress against traders engaging in unfair practices. The primary focus is on small consumers who lack the expertise and resources to fend for themselves against unfair practices.

Clause 4 of the Bill defines what constitutes an unfair practice, and 20 such examples are listed in the Second Schedule. The trader must not mislead the consumer. He should provide the consumer with all relevant and material information in order that the consumer can make an informed decision.

Clause 6 of the Bill allows consumers aggrieved by unfair practices to obtain civil remedies from the trader before the court. They can do so within one year of the discovery of the unfair practice. As the Act is intended primarily to protect small consumers, the claim amount will be capped at $20,000. We expect most

Column: 3354

claims to be filed in the Small Claims Tribunal.

In determining whether or not the trader has engaged in an unfair practice, the court will consider the reasonableness of the trader's actions in the circumstances surrounding the unfair practice. The court shall also have regard to whether or not the consumer made a reasonable effort to resolve the dispute with the trader, and to minimise any loss or damage resulting from the unfair practice. These provisions are in clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill.

Some traders may persist in unconscionable practices which are detrimental to consumers and the reputation of our retail sector. Clause 9 of the Bill therefore provides for a District Court or a High Court, on the application of a specified body, to grant an injunction against a trader. CASE and the Singapore Tourism Board will be appointed as specified bodies under the Act to look after the interests of local consumers and tourists respectively. Before filing an injunction, the specified bodies must obtain the endorsement of an Injunction Proposals Review Panel. This Panel will review whether there is a public interest to be safeguarded through the injunction, and serve as an objective and independent check on the specified bodies.

To minimise legal proceedings and costs, clause 8 of the Bill allows a specified body to offer a non-litigious alternative to an errant trader before the trader faces an injunction application in court. This will be in the form of a voluntary compliance agreement (VCA), whereby the trader agrees not to engage in an unfair practice. The trader can, however, choose not to enter into a VCA and, instead, face the injunction application in court.

Column: 3355

There have been many complaints against high-pressure sale tactics for time share and direct sales. As such, under clauses 11 and 20 of the Bill, regulations will be made to allow consumers to cancel time share and direct sales contracts within a 3-day cooling-off period, excluding Saturday, Sunday and public holidays.

Balance between consumers and traders

Sir, in drafting this Bill, we are mindful of the need to balance the interests of the consumers and traders. On the one hand, the Act must provide adequate safeguards for consumers and allow them legal recourse to claim against unfair practices. On the other hand, we do not want to over-regulate and add to business costs. Amongst traders, those who engage in unfair practices are a minority. It will be unfair to impose undue regulatory costs on the majority who conduct business ethically. This would also be bad for consumers, for such costs will in the end be passed back to them.

We have also chosen not to criminalise unfair practices. This is because the more serious offences are already covered by existing legislation. There are no criminal sanctions in our proposed legislation. Instead the Bill will hold traders accountable for unfair practices by making them liable for civil restitution. This will empower consumers to seek civil remedies against errant traders, without having to rely on or wait for the Government to take action. Besides allowing for quick redress, this approach of self-reliance will encourage greater consumer responsibility and pro-activity.

To minimise the need for litigation, MTI will work closely with CASE and business associations to educate consumers and traders, and encourage the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Column: 3356

CASE's contributions

Sir, MTI would like to place on record our appreciation of CASE for championing the enactment of this Bill to advance the consumer cause. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the past and present Presidents of CASE, including Dr Toh See Kiat, Dr Teo Ho Pin and, especially Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, for their contributions to this legislation. CASE has played a major role in the formulation of the Bill and has provided very useful inputs. It has also organised several seminars and dialogues to reach out to both traders and consumers to address concerns, as well as improve the understanding of this Act.

Sir, our overall approach of 'caveat emptor' to consumer protection has served us well, and remains the best defence for consumers. However, despite the best care, consumers may still fall prey to unfair practices. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act will thus accord better protection to consumers. It will also benefit honest traders by weeding out the errant ones. This will help develop consumer sophistication and raise the standard of the retail sector. The outcome will be a fairer and more equitable marketplace, but without undue regulatory burden on businesses.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate the Government and the Minister in charge for finally tabling in Parliament this Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Bill. It has been long awaited.

The Bill serves to regulate fair trading between traders and purchasers, and to protect the small buyers against cheating and intimidation, as the Minister of State has said. It also prohibits certain undesirable selling tactics. I would like to say that the Bill, besides giving protection

Column: 3357

to consumers, would also help to enhance Singapore's reputation as an excellent and enjoyable shopping place for tourists.

With regard to various provisions in the Bill, I have some comments to seek clarifications from the Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

4.57 pm

First, the approach adopted by the Ministry is on the principle of "caveat emptor". There is no policing body to check on the merchants. The consumers, therefore, have to police the market themselves. It seems to place the onus on the consumer to seek redress for any unfair practice by going to court. Going to court is often an obstacle and a big step for an aggrieved consumer to take. To many people, they have a mental block about going to court. They could be hesitant to take the trouble, time and money to bring errant traders to court. This is one reason why so many people turn to CASE for assistance. The same applies to tourists who are here only for short stays. They generally do not have the time, patience or energy to take errant merchants to court.

So, why not take a more pro-active approach? I wish to suggest that it would help consumers if the Ministry of Trade and Industry would set up a Fair Trading Office (FTO) to police and take action against errant merchants.

I wish, therefore, to enquire why the Minister has not considered the idea of having a FTO for aggrieved consumers to take their complaints to. The answer could be that there are more costs to be incurred by the Ministry to set up a FTO. But I would contend that, without an FTO, there are still costs being incurred,

Column: 3358

just that the costs being incurred are now transferred from the FTO to the courts. Consumers taking cases to court will also cause heavy costs to be incurred by the courts. There is the added cost to be passed on, which will also take up the time of our judges who are perhaps more preoccupied with serious cases. Therefore, would it not be less cumbersome and save much time of the courts if consumer protection cases are dealt with and resolved by a FTO?

I would like to ask the Minister what is new

and would make things easier for consumers under this new Bill that is different from the past. Apart from the stated schedule of 20 unfair practices, how has the process or manner of added protection for the consumer improved? Without this Bill, the consumer likewise could take the errant trader to court. Therefore, my greatest lament on the Bill is that there are no real teeth or bite in the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my next question is why limit the claim to a cap of $20,000 on the value of a claim. I believe that this cap is a little low. We all know that consumer products can be very expensive nowadays, and items like electronic gadgets, furniture and jewellery can cost a lot of money.

I note that the cap is on the value of the claim, that is, not on the entire value of the products or services. However, there could be many occasions when the consumer wants a total refund. In such cases, therefore, the value of the claim is equal to the value of the products. Moreover, there are also instances when the claim for redress goes beyond the value of the product, such as a claim against medical costs incurred due to aggravation, distress and additional costs incurred on recovery of transportation.

To avoid the complications I have mentioned above, I suggest that the cap

Column: 3359

can be set against the total value of the product or service, instead of setting it against the value of the claim. This will remove the ambiguity of the concept of basing on the value of the claim. Perhaps a total value of a higher limit of, say, $100,000 can be set for the value of the products that are under dispute.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my next point is to enquire about the role of CASE within this Bill. It is not clear what added roles or responsibility CASE will take on in this fight for consumer protection under this Bill. CASE has been doing a great job to publicise errant trade practices and take unscrupulous traders to task. Should we not take this opportunity to give more teeth and bite to CASE, as a watchdog for the consumers? Why not empower CASE to have the authority to hear and arbitrate minor cases, such as for claims that are below $5,000 or less? Could the Minister elaborate on the roles of CASE under this Bill?

Under this Bill, a specified body such as CASE or the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) can apply to the courts for an injunction against a supplier. Prior to the filing of the injunction, the specified body has to refer the matter to an Injunction Proposals Review Panel. I presume that in this process, a consumer or group of consumers must first send a complaint to CASE or STB. I would like to know whether this process can in fact be abused by traders to fight against their competitors through using deterrent trade tactics. For example, they can file a complaint, in the guise of an aggrieved consumer, thereby resulting in a voluntary compliance agreement or an injunction order being taken against another competitor.

Sir, I like the idea of a 3-day cooling-off period for certain transactions that involve high pressure selling tactics, such as direct sales contracts and time share. I would like to ask the Minister whether he

Column: 3360

would consider to include this 3-day cooling-off period for other transactions, where although there is lesser pressure selling tactics the consumers do not have the opportunity to examine the goods closely at the time of the purchase. These are in cases of catalogue sales, Internet sales, telephone sales and such likes. I think it is fair that for such transactions, the consumers can be given three days after receipt of the actual goods before he decides whether he really wants to buy them or not.

In this regard, I would urge the Minister to designate the 3-day cooling-off period from the date of receipt of the goods, instead of 3 days from the date of sale. In some cases, the delivery of the goods can take longer than 3 days, or the suppliers can intentionally deliver after 3 days, so as to extend beyond the mandatory 3-day cooling-off period.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, CASE, the Consumers Association of Singapore, has been doing its best to discourage unfair practices that work against the interest of consumers. CASE can only do this successfully with the support of consumers and the Government. Other than getting backing from consumers and the Government, we strongly believe that the third critical factor is to have a good legislative framework to set minimum ground rules for all concerned parties to work on. With a suitable legislative environment, CASE and the consumers will not be just blowing hot air, but will be able to act against cases of unfair practices, and it will ensure that the standard of service improves over time. Therefore, CASE is firmly convinced that we need a fair trading legislation to promote a fairer and more equitable marketplace. Government's intervention

Column: 3361

is necessary and CASE lobbied strongly for it for many years.

Let me take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to recount the key milestones.

In January 1979, the late Mr Ivan Baptist, then President of CASE, urged the Government at the Debate on the President's Address to consider a fair trading legislation along the lines of the UK and Australian Act, and properly modified to suit our context. He told the House that Singapore consumers will benefit from the legislation, and it would give additional boost to the tourist industry in Singapore.

Three years later, during the Debate on the President's Address in January 1992, Prof. Ho Peng Kee, then Vice-President of CASE, reiterated that there were retailers in Singapore who dealt unfairly with consumers, whether Singaporeans or tourists. He said that it was unacceptable in Singapore that prides itself as a shopping paradise. He urged the Government to set up an office with some of the functions of the Office of Fair Trading in the UK to deal with such errant retailers.

At the debate on the Cost Review Committee's Report on 13th October 1993, Prof. Koo Tsai Kee, the then President of CASE, once again urged the Government to look closely at New Zealand's Fair Trading Act which was implemented in 1986. He said, and I quote:

"There are unfair trading practices here. The Fair Trading Act is an Act to give consumers and tourists a fair deal. Specifically, it prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct, false representations and unfair practices."

In May 2000, in response to Dr Toh See Kiat's query, the Minister for Trade

Column: 3362

and Industry informed the House that MTI would study CASE's proposal for a Fair Trading Act for Singapore. On 8th March 2001, in this House, the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Peter Chen, suggested to Dr Teo Ho Pin that CASE and MTI jointly form a taskforce to explore the possibility of enacting a Fair Trading Act.

Sir, significant progress was made early last year. In April last year, the joint taskforce, co-chaired by MTI and CASE, set up to study the feasibility of a Fair Trading Act concluded its report. We decided to adopt a different approach from a number of jurisdictions. The key difference is that traders who commit such unfair trade practices will not be subject to criminal sanction. Principally, we want to introduce a legislation to protect consumers but without adding onerous burdens to businesses, including costs. What my team and I proposed was to empower the consumers, to give them the avenue to take up their own case. There will be no policeman, ie, there will be no Fair Trading Office. This will create a more robust and sustainable system to keep unfair trade practices in check.

This is a step in the right direction. The Act empowers consumers to take action themselves. Just like the unions act as facilitators to help workers in a dispute under the Employment Act, CASE can be a facilitator to empower consumers under the fair trading legislation. We recommended that the Act set out a list of unfair trading practices. Consumers will be able to seek remedies by showing that traders have committed these practices.

Sir, over the years, CASE has come across numerous instances where consumers sought our help when they fell victims to unscrupulous business tactics. Each year, CASE received more than 10,000 such complaints. The unfortunate thing is that all these

Column: 3363

complaints fell in the grey areas and there was not very much we could help. By and large, consumers do not have the expertise or bargaining power to negotiate a fair transaction or contract. The introduction of this Bill today is a major step for consumerism in Singapore.

In the last seven months after the Minister for Trade and Industry, BG George Yeo, announced during the Budget Debate that the Bill will be tabled for enactment into law by the end of this year, CASE, in collaboration with MTI, AG's Chambers and various business groups, has organised more than 10 discussion and dialogue sessions with the business community and consumers. Through these sessions, we managed to generate greater awareness and provide a platform where businesses and consumers could raise issues on the proposed legislation. Such sessions were meant to create opportunities for discussions and participation in a consultative atmosphere so that all relevant parties could better understand and fine-tune the proposed fair trading legislation.

In the discussions and dialogues that we held, we found two common misperceptions on consumer protection laws. The first misperception is that a consumer protection law hurts businesses. The second misperception is that having a consumer protection law alone is sufficient and nothing else needs to be done. These misperceptions must be dispelled.

First, a consumer protection law protects both consumers and businesses. Many members of the business sector were concerned about how a Fair Trading Act would affect their businesses. To them, I would say that it is not in the consumers' interest to have a regime which will create an onerous burden on traders, or which will straitjacket them with a host of red tape. To be truly effective and meaningful, a consumer

Column: 3364

vprotection law must take into account the concerns of fair traders. Amongst traders, those who are engaged in unfair trade practices are a minority. It will be unfair to impose undue regulatory costs on the majority of those who observe ethical business practices. It will not be in the interest of consumers if such costs are passed on to the consumers ultimately.

Although the manner in which the law protects business may be less evident to some, it is no less pertinent. Such an Act will weed out errant business practices and discourage dishonest trading. This will level the playing field for all the business players in Singapore. Unethical tactics used by black sheep hurt others and consumers. By weeding out the black sheep who give the industry a bad name, the entire industry can grow. This is one way in which the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act will benefit both consumers and businesses. Businesses do not have to worry about the Act as long as their conduct is legitimate and their practices above board. In addition, if business practices are more transparent, customer's confidence will increase and, in turn, businesses will grow.

Second, while a consumer protection law provides protection, it has to be complemented by consumer education. While a Fair Trading Act provides the legal framework to protect consumers, it alone is not sufficient. For the law to be fully effective, there has to be consumer education so that consumers are aware of their rights and legal remedies should they fall victim. In this regard, CASE will actively pursue an education programme on the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Bill. I hope MTI will give full support for such an educational drive. Further, our consumers are our eyes and ears on the ground. They can alert us to businesses that break the law.

They can help us to be vigilant. CASE plans to explore how

Column: 3365

we can tap on the vast consumer network to make the law more effective.

Sir, over the years, CASE has established sound working relationship with several business associations. We believe that we can continue to work together with businesses while protecting consumer rights at the same time. Such partnerships provide the foundation on which we can work with business associations when the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act is in place. I would like to stress that with the new legislation the business associations can play an important role in educating their members and working with their members to ensure that their practices do not break the law. CASE hopes to see more trade associations take initiatives to put in place measures to self-regulate and we are prepared to work even closer with them to achieve that, eg, the CASETRUST scheme can be expanded. The scheme provides an avenue for business to voluntarily set consumer policy and adhere to minimum business standards. This will complement the new Act in a very meaningful manner.

At this point, Sir, I would like to raise the following suggestions for MTI to consider amending the proposed Act:

1. On Injunction Proposals Review Panel, it is noted that there is no provision as to how long it is allowed for the Panel to make the endorsement. There should be a time frame, perhaps not more than one month, for the Panel to make a decision once the matter is referred to them.

2. In the first draft of the Bill put up for public consultation by MTI, the Bill covered personal credit. Many members of CASE felt that personal credit should still be included in the scope of this Bill.

Column: 3366

3. There is now no provision protecting CASE volunteers from being sued. The Bill should provide similar protection to CASE as given to the Review Panel in clause 10(10) of the Bill.

4. The provision on limitation action has been redefined. We are happy about that. However, CASE is concerned that the time taken for mediation or other dispute resolution mechanism to take its course will eat into the one-year time limitation period.

Sir, today I am very happy to speak in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. It could not have been timelier. The proposed Act will bring about significant changes to the business and retail landscape. It will bring about changes in both consumer behaviour and business practices. These changes are for the better. I am confident that we can work together - CASE, business associations and the Government - to make the implementation of this legislation a success and make it work for consumers. It will bring about a more consumer-friendly environment and will make Singapore a better place to shop and to do business.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Deputy Speaker, first I would like to say that I support this Bill as it represents a good development in the Government's efforts to provide better protection to consumers against unfair market practices. There is now a mechanism which consumers can invoke to seek redress against the whole plethora of unscrupulous acts on the part of manufacturers, suppliers and retailers. However, if the objective of this Bill is to be met, there must be meaningful and workable provisions that will help consumers to seek redress and to prevent unfair practices on the part of businesses. Reading the Bill, however, gives me the impression that consumers

Column: 3367

will continue to face difficulties in protecting themselves against unfair practices. In this regard, Sir, I have three short specific points to raise.

Under the Bill, consumers can pursue their claims under the Small Claims Tribunal. However, the value of the claim must be below $10,000 or, by agreement, $20,000. This limits the type of claims that consumers can bring without a huge cost burden to themselves. Moreover, there is also a limit on the types of claims that the Small Claims Tribunal can hear as the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal has not been expanded. Clause 7(2), for instance, clearly stipulates that the Small Claims Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear any action relating to a hire purchase agreement, a time-share contract or rental or sale of immovable property. So, Sir, a consumer who was made to purchase furniture, through some unfair practice for instance, will have to go to the civil court to seek redress even though the claim may only be a few hundred dollars. And this consumer, as he is buying something on hire purchase, is obviously a consumer who can ill-afford to bring the matter to court through normal civil litigation. To me, Sir, these restrictions limit the effectiveness of the Bill in helping consumers.

The second point, Sir, which I wish to raise is with regard to the efficacy of the process stipulated under the Bill for the specified body to stop unfair practices. Under clause 9, the specified body can seek a declaration and an injunction from the High Court or District Court to prevent a supplier from engaging in unfair practices. However, the specified body can do so only after obtaining an endorsement from the Injunction Proposals Review Panel. In my view, if this procedure is followed, by the time the specified body makes the application to the Panel and then gets an injunction from the Court, the damage would already have

Column: 3368

been done, or the supplier could have stopped the unfair practice or even removed all evidence of such practices. So I feel, Sir, that the procedure is time-consuming and cumbersome and will not help in stopping unfair practices.

A related and final point, Sir, which I wish to raise is with regard to the provision for a specified body to pursue actions against suppliers for unfair practices. It is unclear, Sir, how the specified body will be appointed and the effectiveness of such a mechanism, although powers have been given to the Minister to prescribe regulations for this purpose.

The point on whether there is a need to have a fully-funded fair trading agency, Sir, has been raised before. I think there are merits to this argument, as the experience in the United Kingdom, with the establishment of the Fair Trading Office, has shown positive results. We need the body, Sir, that would be able to act quickly and is impartial and authoritative. Ensuring that there is an effective body to deal with suppliers who indulge in unfair practices, is to my mind, part of the critical framework to ensure that the objective of this Bill is achieved.

Sir, save for those comments, I fully support the Bill.