Round-up Speech by MOS Koh Poh Koon at the Second Reading of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Bill 2016

Madam Speaker, I thank the MPs who have spoken and note that all of them support the Bill. Some have rais

ed pertinent points that I will now address.

Unfair contract terms

2.         Mr Lim Biow Chuan has suggested that the regulations under the CPFTA include a list of unfair contract terms such as requiring that all consumer disputes be referred to arbitration. I would like to clarify that the current unfair practice number 11 in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA already makes it clear that it is an unfair practice for a retailer to take advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable. The current unfair practice number 20 in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA already provides that retailers have to make material information clear to consumers prior to transactions. It is important that consumers read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions before making the purchase. Consumers do have a choice to walk away from the transaction if they think that the terms and conditions are unfair or overly onerous. And this is where consumer education plays an important role in helping consumers to understand what the terms they are signing up for means for them.

3.         Ms K Thanaletchimi asked if it is an unfair practice for the retailer to put undue pressure or coercion on the consumer. I would like to clarify that “taking advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services” is already an unfair practice under number 12 of the Second Schedule of the CPFTA.  A consumer who encounters such an unfair practice may provide feedback to, and seek assistance from the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to obtain redress from the retailer concerned. Ms Thanaletchimi may wish to know that CASE has been actively educating consumers on pressure selling tactics and what consumers should look out for. 

4.         Ms K Thanaletchimi also raised the question about what if the retailer is charging much higher price due to the quality of service etc. The term in the Bill did say that retailer charging the price of the goods or service that is substantially higher than the estimate except where the consumer has agreed to a higher price in advance, this means that the consumer must believe that the estimated quoted price is good value for money.

Prepayment protection

5.         Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Melvin Yong, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted the recent case of the closure of California Fitness, and asked if Government can do more to protect consumer prepayments such as limiting the amount of prepayments that businesses can collect to just six months.  It is common businesses practice to offer various choices to their customers, which include prepaid packages, early-bird discounts and even limited time offers.  This is a reflection of the diversity of our retail landscape, as retailers are constantly thinking new ideas and ways to attract customers.  Prepayments in itself, are a common business practice worldwide and it is not necessarily unfair or illegal.  When offering a prepaid package, businesses generally do offer customers a discount.  So consumers do benefit from prepayment schemes and these schemes are not necessarily harmful to consumers. But the fact that there is such a wide range of choices for consumers makes it even more important for consumers to exercise their choices carefully, particularly when it comes to large purchases, very large amounts of prepayments or very long duration of contract periods.  Even large businesses that have been in operations for many years such as California Fitness are not immune to business failure. Therefore it is important as I emphasised earlier, for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, and consider if there are possible risks involved in such a transaction and what is their capacity to bear with losses under such contractual terms.

6.         Given the wide range of businesses, it would be challenging to impose broad-based measures on all businesses to protect consumers against loss of prepayments from business closures.  Such measures may affect the cost of doing business which would eventually be passed on to consumers.  Overseas jurisdictions, including those in the European Union, Australia and Hong Kong, also recognise the challenges and do not impose broad based measures against prepayments.

7.         Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that all fitness gyms, beauty salons and wellness spas be required to come under CaseTrust if they sell prepaid packages.  Participation in the CaseTrust accreditation scheme is voluntary.  Currently over 800 businesses are CaseTrust accredited.  We encourage more businesses to sign up, and to go further by voluntarily providing prepayment protection if they collect advance payments from customers. In this regard, customers do play a role. Consumers are encouraged to purchase from such retailers.  By doing so, consumers send a strong and clear signal that such good practices are welcomed, and more retailers will come on-board because they do want the good word of mouth to attract more customers.  Retailers can also differentiate themselves from their competitors by making the commitment to be CaseTrust accredited.

8.         I would like to add that Trade Associations can tap on the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) programme jointly administered by SPRING and IE Singapore to develop and implement CaseTrust accreditation schemes for their members. The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) and Singapore Jewellers Association (SJA) have done so. LEAD programme will co-fund the association’s cost of developing, administering and promoting the accreditation.  It will also co-fund members’ cost of signing up for CaseTrust accreditation. CASE and SPRING who have been engaging with trade associations can also take the opportunity to reach out to educate businesses on what constitutes fair and unfair practices.

9.         To Mr Leon Perera’s question earlier about how do we go about educating businesses on what is fair and unfair practices, let me bring you back to my earlier opening speech about us having a whole spectrum of measures - incremental measures to try and educate our businesses on egregious behaviour. By the time we have to put up an injunction, usually it means that CASE would have received a certain number of complaints from consumers. It would not be just one consumer who has made a complaint about a business. Usually by the time CASE comes in to look at the possibility of the need for injunction, CASE would probably have received numerous complaints. And through that process there would be a discussion with the business, educating them that what they are doing is not right and in the process of negotiation they may agree to comply with the voluntary compliance agreement (VCA). In the process, businesses that may have inadvertently flouted the rules or engaged in unfair practices will have the chance to review their business practices and decide to change. These are businesses that may have inadvertently entered into unfair practices so these spectrum of measures allow us to filter out businesses for education. But as I said, CASE and SPRING will continue to engage the trade associations.

10.       I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that SPRING will investigate errant businesses that persist in unfair practices when selling prepaid packages, and take injunction action against them in the Courts.  SPRING will work with CASE to publicise the injunction actions taken, and the injunction orders obtained against these errant retailers.  This will raise consumers’ awareness of errant retailers who are under injunction.  SPRING will also monitor the activities of the businesses and individuals under injunctions to ensure that they comply with injunction orders.

E-commerce

11.       Let me address some questions on e-commerce that members have raised. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms K Thanaletchimi have asked if the CPFTA protects consumers who make online purchases of goods and services, and how an e-commerce business which is served with an injunction would publicise the fact that it is under an injunction if ordered to do so by the Courts.  The CPFTA provides the same protection to consumers whether their purchases are made online or from brick-and-mortar shops.  This approach is aligned with consumer protection in Australia and Hong Kong, where actions have been taken against errant online retailers under the main consumer protection legislations. 

12.       E-commerce retailers under injunctions may be required by the Courts to publicise the injunction orders, such as through taking up advertisements in print media or on the landing pages of their websites to ensure that consumers are made aware that they are under injunction.  The Courts may also require them to notify the consumer in writing and obtain the consumer’s written acknowledgement of the notice before any transactions can be finalised.  SPRING, as the administering agency for the CPFTA, will work with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to publicise the list of businesses, including e-commerce businesses, which are under any injunction order.  The administering agency will also monitor the activities of the businesses to ensure that they are in compliance with injunction orders.    

13.       Mr Patrick Tay and Ms K Thanaletchimi also asked if agents, who act as middlemen to assist local consumers to purchase from foreign websites, are considered as suppliers under the CPFTA.  Ms K Thanaletchimi also asked if the CPFTA covers consumer-to-consumer transactions. I must clarify that the CPFTA applies only to business-to-consumer transactions.  Agents who carry on a business by assisting local consumers to purchase from foreign websites are considered as suppliers, and they are therefore subject to the measures under the CPFTA if they engage in unfair business practices.  Under the CPFTA, a person is considered to be a supplier. If the person engages in an activity with the intent of carrying on a business, this means that the transaction must be one of several transactions, not just once-off. If you are my friend and we decide to buy something from each other, it is a once off transaction, this is not necessarily a business transaction but a consumer to consumer transaction. But if there are several transactions with the same consumer or with other consumers, then the individual is deemed to be a supplier.

14.       Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised the issue of overseas e-commerce retailers and how orders to publish the injunction may be enforced upon them. Mr Leon Perera also asked about these retailers as well and made a point that the proliferation and increasing popularity of online shopping means that there will be more and more of such online transactions taking place. These online transactions may also be cross border in nature, where it may not be possible to enforce the judgment against an overseas retailer especially if he has no presence in Singapore at all.  Therefore this brings us back to the important principle of “caveat emptor” where we emphasise not once but many times that consumer education is the key principle undergirding the entire consumer protection framework.  Consumers need to be made more aware of the risks of purchasing online from overseas online retailers.  The issue of enforcement against overseas parties is a practical jurisdictional issue, which is not unique to Singapore.  Consumers must therefore exercise judgement in any form of transactions, especially online ones. Today there are many online reviews about the reputation of websites and the reliability of transactions and consumers should use some of these reviews from other consumers online to get a sense of what they are going into when they make purchases from these websites. The National Council of Crime Prevention also has a website www.scamalert.sg where scam sites are also listed and where consumers can also educate themselves.

List of entities/individuals under injunction and compliance with injunction orders

15.       Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked if SPRING can publish a blacklist of errant renovation contractors. SPRING will work with the CASE to make available to consumers information on errant businesses that have been issued injunction orders by the Courts, including errant renovation contractors.  The details that may be published will include the name of the entity or individual, if he is a sole proprietor, and the business address.  SPRING will monitor the activities of the businesses and individuals under injunctions to ensure that they comply with these injunction orders.

16.       Mr Dennis Tan asked about how customers will be notified about businesses or individuals under injunction. Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Patrick Tay suggested that injunction orders be publicised through prominent displays of the injunction notice at the shop premises, and on the errant retailers’ website to raise consumers’ awareness of these retailers. These are all good ideas. In filing an injunction application against an errant business with the Courts, SPRING as the administering agency for the CPFTA may specify the manner in which the errant businesses may be required to publicise the injunction orders.  This could include notices of the injunction to be put up by the errant business. It could be a notice in the shop premises or on its own websites as well.  This may be in addition to other forms of publicising to ensure prompt and adequate publicity of the injunction order.

17.       Mr Melvin Yong suggested that SPRING impose stricter penalties on those who persistently flout injunction orders.  Mr Patrick Tay suggested that the specified period for compliance with the additional measures be extended beyond 10 years for recalcitrant retailers who do not comply with the requirements for the full specified period. Let me assure members that errant businesses that flout injunction orders are liable to be charged with contempt of court.  This is a criminal offence which could result in a fine and/or imprisonment.  SPRING as the administering agency for the CPFTA may take the errant retailer to court for contempt of court.  SPRING can also apply to the courts to increase the duration of the requirements for the errant retailer to publicise the injunction order, notify consumers of the injunction and inform SPRING of changes to the errant retailer’s status.  The CPFTA also provides for the Minister to prescribe changes to the specified periods that the Courts may order for compliance with the additional measures.

18.       Ms K Thanaletchimi asked if the Act will restrict an errant retailer under injunction from starting a new business and persisting with the errant unfair practice.  A retailer under injunction may be required by the Courts to notify the administering agency of any changes to the entity or individual’s employment if the changes relate to consumer transactions.  So if you are under injunction, if you leave this store and go and work in another store and dealing with customers then even if you are an employee you must declare that you are under injunction and there must be a notice given to customers that you are under injunction and you are still serving customers. This enables the administering agency to monitor and to prevent the errant retailer from side-stepping injunction orders by closing the business, setting up a new business under a different name, and persisting with the unfair practice. 

19.       Ms K Thanaletchimi suggested that all retailers including those under injunction attend courses on how to engage in fair trading.  There are already such courses available and some are initiated by retailers themselves.  For example, the Sim Lim Square Management Committee tied up with Nanyang Polytechnic to train the mall retailers in areas such as improving interaction with customers and maintaining a professional image.  We encourage more retailers and mall operators to do the same. This will help them differentiate themselves from competitors.

20.       Mr Patrick Tay asked about the distinction between “supplier” and “individual”.  The distinction is to provide for injunction action to be taken not just against business entities but also against errant individuals. This overcomes the challenge in the current CPFTA in which errant individuals side-step injunction orders issued to the businesses by closing the business, setting up a new business using another person’s name, and persisting in unfair practices. 

21.       Associate Professor Randolph Tan asked if stringent enforcement could exacerbate the challenges faced by businesses especially when the economy is weak.  I would like to assure him and Members of this House that enforcement is intended for errant retailers under injunction orders. This is a small number compared to the majority of retailers in Singapore which do not engage in unfair trading practices. Retailers who do not carry out unfair trading practices therefore should have nothing to worry about stringent enforcement. Enforcement actions should not impact the majority unless you are engaging in unfair practices. And in fact, in challenging economic times, it is even more important that these measures will help prevent a few bad eggs from affecting the businesses of the entire industry. 

Resourcing and operationalising the administrative agency’s work

22.       I would like to assure Mr Leon Perera, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Associate Professor Randolph Tan that SPRING as the administering agency for the CPFTA will be sufficiently resourced to effectively carry out its investigation and enforcement functions.  It will be set up by the time the finalised amendments to the CPFTA are operationalised by end 2016.  I would also like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that SPRING will work closely with other agencies and entities.  I would like to clarify with Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms K Thanaletchimi that even though SPRING is the administering agency for the CPFTA, the CASE and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) will remain the first point of contacts for local consumers and tourists respectively because again, education is key.  CASE and STB will assist consumers to resolve their disputes with businesses, and obtain redress through negotiation, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements.  I hope that the strengthening of the injunctions will move more cases towards the front end of the spectrum – towards education, awareness, mediation and voluntary compliance. This should send a signal to businesses who are even contemplating egregious behaviour to stop immediately. This is what we hope to achieve. However, if during SPRING’s investigations, SPRING finds that the errant retailer may have engaged in activities criminalised under the Penal Code, SPRING will not hesitate to refer the case to the Police for further investigation. So we hope to move cases to the front end, into the preventive aspects of retail behaviour. But if so required, police action will be taken for criminal behaviour.  

23.       Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has also asked why auxiliary police officers instead of regular police will work with SPRING to investigate errant retailers.  Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted that SPRING’s officers need to be trained to carry out investigation and enforcement work. The appointment of auxiliary police officers to undertake investigations is not unique to the CPFTA.  As I have mentioned earlier, it also does not mean that the Police will not investigate if the errant business engages in activities criminalised under the Penal Code.  SPRING will refer such cases to the Police to investigate. This ensures that only cases that require definite inspection will be referred to the Police so not to over stretch the bandwidth of the Police. I would like to assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that SPRING will put in place robust procedures for carrying out investigations, and SPRING’s officers and the auxiliary police appointed to undertake investigations will be sufficiently trained.

24.       I would like to assure Associate Professor Randolph Tan that Singapore’s approach to consumer protection is a balanced one which recognises that the majority of businesses here engage in fair trading.  Hence, the amendments to the Act do not impose onerous costs on businesses which have sound trading practices.  SPRING, whose existing mandate which is to oversee the growth of enterprises in Singapore, will balance this and its expanded role as the administering agency for the CPFTA to ensure that business interests are also adequately looked after. 

25.       Mr Dennis Tan asked about Clause 12(i) and 12(j) and the power to enter premises. Let me take the member to Clause 12(g) which gives the requirement for reasonable grounds to suspect egregious activity or unfair trading practices is taking place before the powers for Clause 12(i) and 12(j) are to be enacted. Now the default position is to enact the power through a court warrant, but in certain circumstances in which the egregious behaviour requires more urgent action, where tourists for example in large numbers, may be harmed or fleeced by an egregious retailer, then there could be reasons for us to enact a search of the premise to gather evidence much earlier without a court warrant. But in that case, as Clause 12(i) has specified, there will be a two days’ notice given to the retailer so that they are notified that there will be an action being taken at the premises of the retailer. So this is not a default position. Clause 12(k) also provides how items that are taken during the search were to be handled, so that the interest of the retailer whose items may have been taken as evidence can be protected as well. As Mr Patrick Tay said earlier, he is looking for speedy, resolute and robust action from SPRING. This clause allows us to act much quicker for retailers that have engaged in extreme egregious activities. Now as I have said earlier, by the time we have to evoke investigation powers of SPRING, towards filing an injunction, there would have been evidence from engagement through CASE, multiple retailers, multiple feedback from consumers about the retailer’s egregious behaviour, so there is sufficient evidence from the sheer number of people who have been complaining, from evidence gathered by CASE, to allow us to get a sense of the urgency of the case at hand, for SPRING to evoke such powers.

Tourists

26.       Mr Leon Perera asked about the provisions for tourists who have disputes with errant retailers.  The Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) usually hears cases within a month of filing.  However, tourists who are in Singapore only for a short time, may opt to appear in person at the SCT and be heard within 24 hours.  Those who do not wish to appear in person at the SCT or are unable to remain in Singapore until their cases are heard have the option of assigning the CASE to present their case on their behalf at the SCT.  This is provided for under the Small Claims Tribunals Act.

27.       Mr Louis Ng asked what is being done to help tourists and foreign nationals to avoid falling prey to errant retailers who engage in unfair practices.  STB has worked with the CASE and the Police to develop a brochure with advice on the precautionary measures that visitors should take when purchasing electronic products in Singapore.  This brochure is distributed at Sim Lim Square and other key touch-points such as the Singapore Visitor Centre at Orchard Gateway and STB’s office at Tourism Court.  Consumer protection advisories with smart shopping tips such as checking of receipts and invoices are also available on the YourSingapore website.

Timeshare

28.       Let me talk about timeshare, which Mr Zainal Sapari has asked if the administering agency will take injunction action against timeshare businesses who engage in unfair trading practices.  Timeshare businesses, like all businesses that engage in transactions with consumers, are required to engage in fair trading practices.  Errant businesses, including those in the timeshare sector, who persist in unfair trading practices may be investigated, and have injunction action taken against them by SPRING, the administering agency for the CPFTA.  If they are handed injunction orders by the Courts, then they are required to comply with the requirements which SPRING will enforce.  Mr Perera and Mr Saktiandi Supaat may be assured to know that the number of complaints on timeshare businesses filed with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has dropped significantly since the introduction of tighter regulations on such contracts in 2009 and 2014.  In 2015, the timeshare as a problem has dropped out of the top 10 sectors with the most complaints to CASE.

Consumer education

29.       I would like to assure Ms Low Yen Ling, Mr Louis Ng , Mr Leon Perera, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will place priority on raising consumers’ awareness of the changes to the Act.  This will augment ongoing consumer education initiatives to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions such as being aware of scammers and their tactics.  Business models can change and consumer shopping patterns may also evolve, so it is not always possible to use legislation to cover all manners of consumer actions.  Consumers therefore need to be prudent and exercise discretion and judgement in their transactions.  Therefore, as I said many times before, consumer education has been and will remain a key pillar of our consumer protection framework.  SPRING and CASE will work together on consumer education after the Bill is passed.  As the administering agency, SPRING will put up information on the legislative changes and a list of frequently asked questions on their webpage to help consumers better understand the changes.  SPRING will work with CASE to publicise information on errant businesses that have been issued injunction orders by the Courts.  And CASE will also disseminate information on the changes to the Act at its upcoming events and outreach activities such as consumer education advertisements on toggle.sg. 

Redress for consumers

30.       Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Leon Perera asked about compensation for consumers who were affected by the unfair practices of errant retailers before injunction action was taken.  The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) will remain the first point of contact for locals and tourists, respectively and will assist consumers with their disputes with retailers, including obtaining redress or compensation through negotiation, mediation and voluntary compliance agreements.  Consumers can also take civil action via the Small Claims Tribunal.

Increase claim limit under the CPFTA

31.       Ms K Thanaletchimi asked if the claim limit under the CPFTA could be increased from $30,000 currently.  Data has showed that less than 1% of the number of complaints that the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has received over the last three years exceed the claim limit under the CPFTA. So at this moment, we are maintaining careful watch, and we do not think that there is any need to adjust this number at this point in time.  (If pressed) MTI will consider this for the next round of enhancements as we are continually reviewing the relevance and effectiveness of our consumer protection framework. 

Lemon Law: Pre-owned goods, perishables and consumables

32.       Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if pre-owned goods are covered by the CPFTA and if so, the forms of redress that consumers can ask for if the retailers misrepresented the goods to the consumer.

33.       Now, second hand goods are covered by the “Lemon Law” or the “additional consumer rights in respect of non-conforming goods” as stated in the CPFTA.  However, what constitutes “satisfactory quality” would need to take into account the goods’ age at the time of delivery, and the price that is paid.  This is to be fair to the retailers as well. Based on this, the CPFTA provides that the consumer may require the retailer to repair or to replace the goods if they fail to conform to “satisfactory quality” within six months of the purchase.  If the cost of the remedy demanded by the consumer is disproportionate in comparison, then the retailer may offer one of the alternative remedies provided for in the legislation such as a reduction in price or return the product for a refund.  Now, as per existing laws, the refunded amount may be reduced to take into account the use that the consumer had of the goods that they have received.

34.       Ms K Thanaletchimi asked how the Act will apply, if perishables and consumables, which are covered by the Act up to the normal shelf life of the consumable or perishable, are consumed or partially consumed by the consumer.  Now, to the extent that the item comes in a package, the consumer can seek recourse from the retailer for replacement if can be ascertained, either from what remains from the partially consumed product, or by some other means, that the item failed to meet “satisfactory quality” within its normal shelf life. The consumer may ask for a refund if the retailer does not replace the item. Consumables and perishables are also covered.  However, the “rebuttable presumption” that defects discovered within 6 months of delivery existed at the point of delivery, will only apply up to the normal shelf life of the consumable or perishable.  Ms K Thanaletchimi also asked if poor sound quality at a concert is covered by the Act.  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 which once it has already been rendered.

Multi-level Marketing

35.       Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Leon Perera asked if the Act applies to multi-level marketing, or MLM.  Multi-level marketing, or MLM, is not an excluded transaction in the First Schedule under the CPFTA.  I would 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. 

Conclusion

35.       To conclude, 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 sensible. The amendments to the CPFTA 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 the majority of businesses who engage in sound business practices. 

37.       Let me illustrate this using with the Mobile Air incident, the Jover Chew case, and how it would have been handled under the amended CPFTA.  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 investigation.  And under the new amended Act, SPRING will have the power to gather evidence which will be submitted to the Courts. The Courts may then issue an injunction order against the recalcitrant retailer.  And we may have the means to actually take this injunction action, and investigate much quicker as well. As part of the injunction order, the errant retailer may be required to publicise its injunction status such as putting up prominent notices within the shop premises, and notifying potential customers of the injunction order prior to them making a purchase, thereby stopping other tourists from falling prey. This raises consumers’ awareness, and then consumers, be it tourists or locals, can then decide if they still want to purchase from this particular errant retailer. The individuals that are involved in this affair, engaging in the unfair practices, may also have injunction orders issued against them, and may be required to similarly publicise their injunction status.  This will prevent them from sidestepping the injunction orders. SPRING will also work with the CASE to publicise the injunction orders issued by the Courts on errant retailers.  Taken together, these measures would 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.  

38.       The amendments send a strong deterrent signal to the small number of businesses who engage in unfair practices, which 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 will no longer be taken against errant retailers. If during SPRING’s investigations for the injunction, SPRING finds that the errant retailer 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. 

39.       As several speakers have emphasised, raising consumer awareness and ensuring that they make informed purchasing decisions remains a key pillar of our consumer protection framework. The CPFTA is only one aspect of consumer protection, and that can only help after something has happened.  As doctors would always say, and which Ms Low Yen Ling says, “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.

40.       Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I beg to move.