The Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF) was started in 2014 to facilitate effective resolutions and foster a more gracious and harmonious living environment for all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, this Bill brings in new and much needed enhancements to the framework. I have been looking forward to this Bill for some time. I support this Bill but have some questions and concerns.
CRU and initial team and resources and prospects for expansion
Mr Speaker, under this Bill, a new Community Relations Unit (CRU) is being piloted to address a small minority of severe neighbour noise disputes and hoarding cases. I note that an experimental unit will start work at Tampines. Can the minister share some more details regarding the size of the initial team? And what is the Government’s current plan to scale up from this initial team? When is the department expected to operate at the national level covering all constituencies?
Scope of matters covered or to be covered by CRU
Mr Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding the CRU.
Firstly, I read in a Straits Times article dated 12 August 2024 that the CRU will only step in after neighbours have failed to resolve disputes among themselves while at the same time, the CRU officers will be able to issue directions for residents to go for mediation. May I clarify what is the requirement to determine that neighbours have failed to resolve disputes among themselves before residents can seek CRU’s intervention: a request by one resident for mediation at CMC which was rejected by the other resident, or a request to HDB to engage the neighbour which was unsuccessful?
May I also know whether the department has intentions to expand the scope of the disputes it will cover, beyond noise and hoarding and, if so, what is the estimated timeline? Indisputably, noise nuisance is a very common cause of neighbours’ dispute. However, there are many other types of disputes between neighbours e.g. disagreement over the placing of articles outside their homes, behavioural issues, smoking in one flat affecting another unit, etc.
Clarifications on the qualifications for and powers of CROs
The proposed Section 13C allows the Director-General to appoint 3 types of personnel to be Community Relations Officers (CROs): one, a police officer; two, a public officer and three, an officer or employee of a statutory board. I find it odd that the criteria to be a CRO as listed in this Bill, is not by way of specified training or qualification but as long as a person who holds one of the appointments specified. May I know what is the training which a public officer or an officer or an employee of a statutory board needs to undertake to qualify as a CRO? Certainly, there is a whole range of public employees doing a wide range of work from clerical, administrative to operations across different types of agencies. The criteria can be more clearly defined.
I also note that the Bill proposes to give powers to the CROs to carry out a number of stated duties such as entering residences to collect evidence, issue advisories, notices or orders, etc.
Regarding entrance to residences, may I ask in what circumstances will officers enter homes to collect evidence without the need for consent from flat owners?
While it is important that such entry, even without the owner’s approval, is done judiciously and with due respect to the owner of the residence in question, on the other hand, requiring consent may in turn frustrate or delay entry leading to removal of evidence of nuisance creation. How will the authorities address the contending considerations?
Noise sensors
I hope the proposed deployment of noise sensors will greatly assist with reduction of noise nuisance. Detection of noise and identification of the actual source of noise are often not as straightforward as we imagine. A knocking noise that ostensibly comes from the direction of the flat above may well come from another flat or source and may have a different cause from what we imagine.
During COVID, a persistent noise in the still hours of the night every day caused consternation among residents from more than half of the flats in a particular stack in a block in my constituency.
Residents spoke to their neighbours above or below their flats. However, the source of noise remained inconclusive after many months, with some believing later that the sound came from a unit to the right of the units affected.
I hope the proposed noise sensors will help to improve certainty in the detection of noise and assist to eliminate or minimize noise that will cause friction between neighbours.
Regarding the deployment of noise sensors by CRU officers, I note that consent is required of the owner of the affected unit. I wish to seek a clarification from the minister whether the authorities expect the deployment of sensors to be within the complainants’ flat or even in common corridors or other common areas? Will the authorities deploy such sensors in a flat where the alleged source of noise is believed to come from? If so, is consent required by the owner and what happens if the owner withholds consent?
Currently I often hear complaints from residents telling me that their neighbours would stop making noises after they were spoken to by HDB or NEA but after a while, the noises would return. Likewise, we often see feedback of highrise littering or feeding of birds resuming after a period of deployment of NEA’s cameras following earlier complaints.
Mr Speaker, resources are often limited and I am not sure whether these noise sensors may be comparably limited in supply, as say, NEA’s detection cameras for high rise littering. I hope the minister will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of such sensors for use for different cases. How would the authorities deal with recalcitrants repeating their noise nuisance after the noise sensor have been taken off? What can be done to deter residents from playing a so-called “cat and mouse” game?
Mr Speaker, after the first reading of this Bill, an Hougang resident wrote to me highlighting his concerns that frequently before a party takes a dispute to mediation, they might not have suitable evidence of the noise complained of and this would often hinder a successful or a fairer mediation and resolution of the dispute. He suggested that the Government should allow residents the option to have the use of noise sensors before they proceed with mediation. I agree with this suggestion. Clearer evidence of nuisance will provide a more accurate and objective focus for parties and their mediators and enhance the resolution process. This proposal will also require the CRU to reconsider any requirement that parties must try and settle the matter first before CRU will take on the case.
Tenanted units
Mr Speaker I welcome the new measures in this Bill to handle noise nuisance arising from tenanted units.
In many cases, there may be a number of tenants living within a unit. I have also in the past received feedback of noise issue from tenants who do shift work or work odd hours and return to their flat each day late at night or early morning or even getting up to go to work in the early hours of the morning.
To be fair, the tenants, whether local or foreign, who may be the subject of feedback may be a small proportion of the total number of tenants. I sense that this is often due to a lack of understanding on the part of the tenants that they might have subconsciously generated noises which may seem louder during the quiet hours of the night. Besides language barrier, there are sometimes practical communication difficulties trying to get through to these individuals when agency staff are often only at work during the usual office hours.
Mr Speaker, even apart of the new provsions I have always thought that HDB can impose obligations on owners renting out their units by way of imposing appropriate covenants ast the onset when tenancies are entered into or when owners are seeking permission from HDB to rent out their units. In this way, owners can be made to under their responsibilities in respect of their tenants’ behaviour and tenants can also have a beter understanding of what is expected of them. In the worst scenario of non compliance, HDB can withdraw their permission for subletting.
Mediation
I will next speak on the issue of mediation.
Mr Speaker, in my speech at COS 2023, I had called for mediation to be made compulsory. The rationale for my proposal at COS last year was that (and I quote from my previous speech): “as mediation at CMC requires the agreed participation of both parties to a dispute, many such disputes do not stand a chance of being resolved by mediation, simply because one of the parties opts out of mediation”. I have observed from my experience with residents’ disputes that, as residents know that mediation is not mandatory, many would deliberately not respond to mediation. Indeed Minlaw shared in its paper on this Bill of 24 August 2024 that less than 30% of the total cases registered at the CMC proceed to mediation because one party does not wish to participate in mediation. I have also shared that notwithstanding that mediation may not always be suitable for every dispute, I had felt that, for a good number of cases, it was “a good opportunity wasted for parties to try and resolve their differences during mediation, when parties have the option to opt out”.
Mr Speaker, I am glad that the Government will make mediation mandatory before one can proceed with CDRT proceedings. The Bill will also allow the CRU and the Community Mediation Centre to direct parties to attend mediation. However, the net can be cast wider to achieve more resolution if the requirement is not tethered to the commencement of CDRT proceedings. I say this because many residents are still reluctant to proceed to CDRT due among other things to the formal requirements imposed.
Mr Speaker, the Bill also allowed consenting parties to register their mediated settlement agreement as a CDRT order. This will carry the same force and effect as an order of court. This is a good measure. I have spoken to residents who went to mediation at CMC and notwithstanding what was agreed at mediation with their neighbours, there was still non-compliance in part or in full rendering continuing frustrations and tensions between the feuding neighbours. Allowing mediated settlement terms to have the weight of an order of court will ensure greater compliance by both parties to the mediated settlement terms to ensure longer term resolution of the dispute.
Other clarifications
Mr Speaker, I have one other clarification. Regarding the proposed Section 20 which amends a current provision of the Act allowing application for transferring of claims from CDRT to a court, may I take the opportunity to clarify with the Minister, in the case of such a transfer, will parties be allowed to appoint a lawyer to represent them, as is the case for state court proceedings? However, if this is allowed, would this potentially lead to any injustice since parties are not allowed to engage counsel for CDRT cases and especially if only one party is allowed to do so?
Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
议长先生，目前，邻居之间 的纠纷 须要 居民到 社区调解中心 或到 邻里纠纷 审裁庭 诉讼，但许多人 不愿意这样做。
我希望 社区 关系处 的成立 将会 大大改善 我们处理邻居纠纷的过程。
我盼望 淡宾尼的 试点计划 能尽快完成, 更期望 社区关系处 的职责 范围 能扩大至 噪音与 家中 囤积 杂物 问题之外。
我期盼 这单位 能尽快 扩展到全新加坡，包括后港。
我也支持 在将案件 提交 邻里纠纷 审裁庭 之前，强制各方 出席和解的修正。我曾在处理许多邻居纠纷中 遇到各方如何回避出席和解， 并曾在国会中提出过这个问题。我相信强制各方出席和解是一个解决问题的好机会。
议长先生，我支持这项邻里纠纷解决（修正）法案。
Mr Speaker, in closing, I welcome the key changes in this Bill. In particular, the setting up of the CRU which I hope will bring significant improvements in the way we currently manage disputes in the community. I look forward to the day the CRU will expand its operations to the rest of Singapore including Hougang. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and concerns. I support this Bill.