Saturday, August 11, 2012

CASE should take a more active approach



8 August 2012

Editor, 
Forum Page
Straits Times

I read the the letter from Mr. Lim Biow Chuan, President of the
Consumer Association of Singapore (Tutor breached law: Case, ST 8 Aug 2012) with 
some disappointment.

Mr. Lim said that the tutor, who had falsely advertised his qualification, had 
breached Section 4(b) of the Consumer Protection and Fair Trading Act and asked
consumers to take legal action for the breach. 

In my view, a breach of a written law, is usually an offence that should be prosecuted
by the relevant authority. In this case, the law is administered by the Consumer 
Association, which should be the party to take the appropriate action.

Even if CASE does not have specific responsibility to enforce this law, it should be the 
party to act on behalf of consumers on a matter of public interest and knowledge. CASE 
should not expect ordinary consumers, who do not have financial and legal resources, 
to take legal action on their own. 

There is a potential criminal offence of cheating, when a party
knowingly put up false statements to take money from the unsuspecting public. It 
would be appropriate for CASE to put up a complaint to the Police that this matter 
to be investigated.

In recent years, the standard of business ethics has deteriorated in Singapore due to
weakness in enforcement of the law. It is time to review the situation and revert to a more
active approach.

Tan Kin Lian


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree absolutely. It has become the 'best' practice with regulators.
If there is a murder is it right for the police to advise the victim's relative to take legal action against the aggressor instead of prosecution?
MAS too has this stand. It should prosecute insurance agents if there is breach of the FAA instead of advising the policyholders to settle with the insurer.

Anonymous said...

This is the Gov way of saying 'NIMBY'
Not in My backyard.

The MOE is not going to do it
The Police is not going to do it
The ACCRA is not going to do it
The Consumer Assoc is not going to do it.

But singaporeans did wish for less control right?
less meddling from the Gov right?

So, now its an opportunity for citizens to handle things on their own, they cannot rise to the challenge.

We have a long road to walk.. a very, very long road.

Hs said...

Can't agree more.

Raymond said...

Our Toothless Tiger!!!

Which I am sad to say that I am a Life member who supported them when they started.

Anonymous said...

This is not much different from cases of assault whereby if the victim does not make a report, the police will not do anything.

So, of what use is passing a law that does not do what it is intended to do?

Anonymous said...

I totallu agree, this is Singapore. No one wants to take responsibility and be the 'bad' guy to take action. We can see in the recent years how many issues occured eg MRT over crowding, influx of FT, minibonds etc. To the present policy makers, hey I better do not interfere if not it shows I am not working.
But one thing good about Singapore is that they will take 'good ideas' and implement subtly and take their credits.
Hope whoever read this will reflect this.

Anonymous said...

Few years back I had a problem on a course I signed up which is not delivering on it's promises. I called CASE and they informed me that the most they can do is write to the organization. Given such response, I took it upon myself and settled with a full refund after emailing to the course provider boss. CASE has PAP/NTUC fingerprint all over the place. (MP Yeo Guat Kwang/ CASE secretary Seah Seng Choon) On one hand, they are selective of cases they take, on the other hand, they are careful not to make PAP looks bad. So, if you have a case against Govt e.g. minibond or Pinnacle, no use talking to CASE. Conclusion? Big case cannot do, small case also cannot do. To play safe, stick with complaints from Sim Lim Square & People's Park, Timeshare, HDB renovation, the yearly normal problems.

Blog Archive