SINGAPORE — Lawyers, retailers and consumers have welcomed the proposed enhancements of consumer rights as a move in the right direction to close a gap in the existing legislation and deter bad hats from hiding “behind a corporate veil”.

In particular, the proposal to extend injunction orders to individuals, whereby those who are served with one must publicise this fact, garnered support as well as raised questions they hope will be addressed in the coming public consultation sessions.

Lawyer Amolat Singh, managing partner at Amolat & Partners, said: “This proposed enhancement is specific and targeted ... so that these errant retailers do not run around in circles, setting up another shop and continuing their bad practices.”

Mr Robson Lee, a partner at Gibon, Dunn & Crutcher, said the proposed provision in the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act would close a loophole in the law, which takes only errant businesses to task currently.

“(The individual) can’t camouflage behind a corporate veil,” he said.

Retailers also felt that the proposals would help to weed out bad apples in the industry. Clothing retailer Marcella Holdings co-founder Lai Chang Wen said employees who engage in unfair trading practices could then shoulder the consequences, while companies not complicit in these practices can avoid being dragged down with the errant employee.

Some consumers TODAY spoke to agreed that the suggested changes will have a deterrent effect.

But others, such as assistant warehouse manager Yeo Shuan Chee, who met a dishonest used-car dealer who went on to set up business in another location, called for more publicity about blacklisted retailers, as consumers might overlook these details.

“To better protect consumers, the authorities should suspend their businesses,” he added.

Some others hoped the amendments to the law will be fine-tuned such that individuals will have a way to end an injunction order and start afresh.

Audio retailer Atlas Sound & Vision chief executive Michael Tien pointed out that an individual with an injunction order could be a sole business proprietor: “Is it fair to say that the shopkeeper is forever liable ... Is there room to explore a certain time frame?”

Lawyer Mr Lee noted that some shop owners might run separate businesses, and the unfair trading practices of one business might not have a bearing on the other. He also questioned whether an individual could be cleared of an injunction by meeting certain criteria.