Debated in Parliament on 13 Sep 2016.
Debate resumed.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am nearing the end.
Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if poor sound quality at a concert is covered by the Bill. Services, such as a concert performance, are not covered as the remedies under the lemon law regime are tailored for goods and are generally inappropriate for services. For example, it is quite impossible to return the service once it has been rendered.
On multi-level marketing, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Leon Perera asked if the Bill applies to MLM. MLM is covered under CPFTA, but I would also like to clarify that the MLM sector is also subject to the Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act which lays out prohibitions on the objectionable features of pyramid selling.
To conclude, Deputy Speaker, Sir, in looking at enhancing consumer protection I want to remind Members that we should not lose sight of the fact that most retailers are reasonable, and most consumers are actually sensible. The amendments to the Act enhance the protection of consumers against the small number of errant retailers who persist in unfair practices. It is also pro-business, as it avoids imposing widespread compliance burdens on a majority of businesses which engage in sound business practices.
Let me illustrate this with the Mobile Air incident, the Jover Chew case, and how it would be handled under the CPFTA after the amendments are passed. An errant retailer like Mobile Air who repeatedly carries out unfair practices and ignores the request from CASE to sign a VCA would be surfaced by CASE to the administering agency, in this case SPRING, for further investigation. And under the new amended Act, SPRING will have the power to gather evidence, which would be submitted to the Courts. The Courts may then issue an injunction order against the recalcitrant retailer, and we will have the means to take this injunction and investigation action much quicker.
As part of the injunction order, the errant retailer may be required to publicise its injunction status, such as putting up notices within the shop premises and notifying potential customers of the injunction order, prior to them making a purchase, and thereby, stopping other tourists from falling prey. This raises consumers' awareness and then the consumers, be they tourists or locals, can decide if they still want to purchase from this particular errant retailer. The individuals who are involved in engaging in unfair practices may also have injunction orders issued against them and may be required to similarly publicise their injunction status. This would prevent them from side-stepping the injunction orders.
SPRING will also work with CASE to publicise the injunction orders issued by the Courts on errant retailers. Taken together, these measures will stop errant retailers from persisting in unfair practices and raise consumers' awareness of such retailers. Should errant retailers not comply with the Court orders, the administering agency has the power to take enforcement action.
The amendments send a strong deterrent signal to the small number of businesses which engage in unfair practices, for which they show a lack of respect for the law. I would like to reassure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that it does not mean that criminal action would no longer be taken against errant retailers. If, during SPRING's investigations for the injunctions, SPRING finds that errant retailers may have engaged in activities that are criminalised under the Penal Code, SPRING will refer the case to the Police and escalate it for further investigation.
Sir, as several speakers have emphasised, raising consumer awareness and ensuring that they make informed purchasing decisions remain a key pillar of our consumer protection framework. CPFTA is only one aspect of consumer protection that can only help after something has happened. As doctors would always say, and which Ms Low Yen Ling just said, "Prevention is always better than cure". In the long term, the best defence that consumers have against errant retailers is to be aware of their rights and make informed purchasing decisions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Leon Perera.
Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his clarifications and detailed replies. I just have one point of clarification. Will the Ministry consider requiring more operators to display signages, posters or such like to remind consumers of their rights and the things that they need to look out for and the recourse that they can have, in case they have been cheated?
As the debate today shows, consumers need to be educated and there can be no better way to educate them than at the point of purchase within the shopping environment. I fear that this is something that individual mall operators, left to their devices, may not be inclined to do because it may create an unfavourable impression on the shopper. But that is something the Government could require them to do, and it is something I have seen in other countries as well.
I thank the Member for his suggestion. I think this is something that CASE will probably study and see if it is doable with the various malls or trade associations to enhance consumer education.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his clarification. It appears that SPRING will only wait for CASE to refer cases where unfair practices are repeated many times before investigating the errant retailer.
In the case of renovation contractors, the sums are very big and it could be $30,000. Can we sort of lower the bar so that if there is clear evidence of unfair practices where the contractor provides very poor service, then we do not wait until many, many people suffer from this before SPRING investigates?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not to say that you need to have a huge number of cases before action can be taken. In the first instance, if there is an unfair business practice that the consumers have given feedback to CASE, and if CASE genuinely believes, after a few cases, that there is a consistent pattern of behaviour in a certain particular retailer and they feel strongly that there is an unfair practice going on, they can already refer this to SPRING to consider, to look and see whether there is evidence for further action to be taken. But the quantum of the sum that is involved does not itself mean that there is egregious behaviour ongoing. It has to be something that is clearly unfair and in terms of its practices.
*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 Koh Poh Koon].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
PAPERCUTS