Singaporeans have rightly been outraged by the antics of Jover Chew and his like. Quite a lot has been written about it, so I would like to deal with a more difficult issue: how can we deal with unethical business conduct?
First, let me touch on what will not work. I have read several posts which suggest that the police should take a more active role in such matters. That is a natural reaction, but we need to appreciate the serious practical difficulties. In many cases, the evidence will be difficult to establish, and it will be a case of I-said-he-said. It will also be unclear if the conduct is criminal. Further, bringing criminal charges is a serious matter which may affect someone’s livelihood and reputation. There are after-all less-than-honest customers as well and it would be wrong for the police to act on the presumption that the customer is always right. We would therefore insist that all complaints are investigated thoroughly. That means devoting significant policing resources to what will likely be numerous and relatively small claims. Our boys in blue are already over-stretched.
Civil recourse is preferable. Aggrieved parties may bring cases to the Small Claims Tribunal. But because courts and tribunals have to follow due process to ensure fairness, cases take time to resolve and may be difficult and intimidating for lay persons to navigate.
This is not an uncommon problem. Some months ago, I spoke in Parliament urging the MOM to set up a tribunal to resolve employment disputes quickly and cheaply. It is often difficult for an individual to sue his ex-employer for wrongful termination or denial of benefits, particularly when he has to at the same time hold down or look for a new job. Many therefore settle or simply give up.
So what can we do? In my experience as a lawyer and MP, the large majority of disputes, be they consumer or employment, can easily be resolved quickly by an independent person or adjudicator, without the need for formal procedures or rules of evidence. Parties aggrieved by the decision can resort to more formal court process, but they must first comply with the adjudicator’s decision. In other words, if the adjudicator finds that a customer has been wronged, the business owner has to pay up first before he can take the case further. I suspect most will not.
There is precedent for such a process. Construction disputes can now be quickly and cheaply determined via adjudication hearings before a non-legally trained professional, such as an architect, who can make interim awards. Parties can still have their cases arbitrated or resolved in court, but they must first pay on the award. This ensures that the “big-boys” do not use the legal process to delay payment, and thereby win by starving their opponents of capital.
There is no reason why we cannot have a similar, simple adjudication process for disputes which most individuals are likely to encounter, namely consumer and employment matters. We have many well qualified seniors who can act as adjudicators, as several now do as mediators in our Community Mediation Centres. Time and expense will be more manageable hurdles. Where the adjudicator finds dishonest conduct, he can refer the matter to the police or other government agencies for further action. That will be an effective filter for cases which require more detailed investigation.
One final suggestion - for convenience, we can locate one of the offices of the adjudicator at Sim Lim Square.
Hri Kumar
*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/consumer-protection-a-practical...