Those of our residents who have long-standing neighbour disputes have been looking forward to this Bill for a few years. In HDB estates, the usual route for dispute management has been to activate HDB or the Town Council, thereafter to recommend mediation. If mediation is not possible or does not succeed, then parties end up in court namely the CDRT, where some residents end up frustrated and distressed when their cases were dismissed, because they did not have the “solid evidence” that the court required. It is clear that the existing procedures are inadequate.
This Bill is the culmination of the multi-year effort of several Ministries and agencies, which must be duly acknowledged. It is also clear that the enhanced CDMF (community dispute management framework) will be a resource-intensive exercise, requiring standby teams after office hours and active management of difficult cases by the new Director-General of Community Relations. The work will not be easy.
As there are many MPs speaking on this Bill, I will be succinct.
There are three particular features of the Bill which I find useful.
First, there are avenues for quicker intervention on the ground. These avenues include measures such as the Director-General of Community Relations issuing abatement orders, and the CDRT being empowered to issue interim orders. These can be very useful when urgent action is needed to manage the ground situation.
Secondly, noise sensors may be deployed at the complainant’s premises or common areas to help determine the intensity and the source of a noise disturbance. On this, MCCY acknowledged in its August statement that “sound recordings made by complainants are often not useful for the purposes of determining the volume (as playback can be distorted) or source of noise”. The Senior Minister of State touched on this point earlier. Several of my residents will be vindicated to hear this official acknowledgment that it was not their fault that they could not come up with the necessary evidence to prove their cases at the CDRT.
Thirdly, greater responsibility will be placed on landlords to manage noisy tenants in the proposed Section 10A. Landlords may be required by the court to put up compliance bonds, where up to $20,000 may be forfeited if their tenants fail to comply with orders of the CDRT. Indeed, it is quite common to receive complaints of noise nuisance from units which are sublet. It seems fair to place more responsibility on landlords who are earning rental income when their neighbours suffer.
That said, I would like to raise three queries about the Bill and its implementation. These relate to the Community Relations Unit (CRU), the CDRT processes and HDB’s increased powers.
First, on the Community Relations Unit (CRU). It is somewhat disappointing that the CRU, which will have powers of intervention on the ground, will only be activated in Tampines Town on a one year pilot. The basis for selection of Tampines and only Tampines is not clear. Likewise, I have the same question as the others. Is there a timeline for the CRU to be rolled out nationwide? I can think of a few chronic cases in my ward where the CRU could potentially make a big difference, and a wait of several more years will be hard to explain. A sub-question relating to the CRU is about its officers, from Director to the ground. Will these persons be full-time and focused only on CRU work? Or will they be double-hatting with other duties? Whether they are full-time or double-hatting will affect their capacity to work on dispute cases.
Second, regarding the CDRT processes. There is a significant change to the CDRT regime in Clause 21 of the Bill, regarding the award of costs in CDRT cases. The Minister touched on this earlier. The current position is that costs will generally not be awarded to parties in CDRT cases. This non-award of costs makes sense, as parties generally present their own cases at the CDRT where lawyers are not allowed. Under Clause 21, this is being amended to generally permit the award of costs and disbursements in accordance with the Rules of Court. Could the Minister further elaborate on the rationale for this change? For example, will this change somehow allow a clawback of the costs incurred by the CRU to manage a case? More generally, I wonder what range of costs is being envisaged to be awarded and whether this will be punitive to the losing party.
Finally, my third query is about HDB’s powers to compulsorily acquire a flat. Clause 36 of the Bill proposes to enable HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner or an authorised occupier related to the owner is convicted of an abatement offence and has a prior record of another abatement or exclusion offence. I am quite worried about the scenarios that could play out under this new power of HDB. Suppose, for instance, an adult child of a family has mental illness, and shouts and bangs doors at odd hours, thereby interfering with the neighbours’ peaceful enjoyment of their homes. It is foreseeable that the neighbours may take action and complain to the CRU which then issues abatement orders to the household. If the required history of non-compliance is chalked up, HDB may be empowered to act under the new S 63(o) of the Housing & Development Act to compulsorily acquire the flat. This is a drastic measure, as the Senior Minister of State acknowledged earlier. Given that compulsory acquisition will result in a below-market compensation being paid to the owners, how will the family move on from here? If their flat is still not fully paid up, the situation will be compounded. Will HDB assist them to find and afford their next home?
Clarity on the questions I have raised would be necessary. That said, I support the Bill.