The 2016 amendments to Singapore’s Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act: A missed opportunity

• Main Authors: LOO, Wee Ling, ONG, Ee-Ing
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2017
• Subjects: Consumer protection; Unfair practice; Comparative law; Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act; Hong Kong Trade Descriptions Ordinance; Australian Competition and Consumer Act; Australian Consumer Law; Consumer remedies; Voluntary compliance; Deterrence; Reform; Guidelines; Injunctions; Investigatory powers; Criminal sanctions; Civil pecuniary penalties; Asian Studies; Consumer Protection Law; International Trade Law
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2543; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4501/viewcontent/2016_ConsumerProtection_MissedOpp_2017.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

Singapore hasrecently amended its Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act in response to calls for tougher action against unscrupulous traders. The revisions were aimed at strengthening the government’s ability to deter and punish errant traders, witha focus on deterrence. To this end, the government introduced new investigatory powers, enhanced court powers and added one substantive consumer remedy. Despite this, the authors argue that Singapore’s consumer protection regime remains inadequate because: unfair practices have yet to attract criminalsanctions; no guidelines were issued to provide transparency and clarity on how the broad investigatory powers and harsher court powers are to be implemented; no measures to encourage reform were introduced; and consumer remedies remain insufficient. In this article, the revisions are discussed with a comparison tothe Hong Kong and Australian regimes. Suggestions for further reform are then made for the purpose of achieving a more robust and comprehensive consumer protection regime.