Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.08 pm

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Sir, this is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Ministry of National Development (MND) and Ministry of Law (MinLaw). The Bill has been put together after a holistic review of the Community Disputes Management Framework, or CDMF in short. In doing so, we have also consulted extensively with the public and other stakeholders. This included more than 30 focus group discussions with members of the public, academics as well as frontline personnel.

Sir, let me start by broadly outlining the main enhancements in this Bill to the CDMF framework in three key areas.

First, the Bill will strengthen the community mediation framework. It will empower authorised officers to direct disputing neighbours to attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre. This will effectively make mediation mandatory.

This move will strengthen our ability to bring neighbours together, in an amicable environment to discuss their differences and understand each other's perspectives. Mediation is quick, it will be made free, and thus far, has proven effective. We will therefore strengthen this framework to encourage neighbour disputes to be amicably resolved, as a measure of first resort.

Second, the Bill proposes the setting up of a dedicated Community Relations Unit, or CRU in short. CRU officers will have a range of investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in neighbour disputes. This includes the power to issue advisories, warnings and abatement orders. The CRU will focus on addressing severe noise and hoarding disamenity cases. A substantial proportion of neighbour dispute cases involve noise disamenity. This will plug an existing gap where agencies do not presently have sufficient powers to intervene, to more effectively deal with some individuals who are seriously disrupting the community harmony with their behaviour.

Third, Sir, the Bill enhances the powers and processes of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, or CDRT in short. By and large, once this new framework becomes fully operational, we expect most of the disamenity cases to be addressed by the mediation enhancements, or by the CRU framework that we will put in place. There will, however, be a small fraction of cases that will be harder to resolve, where parties might be intransigent and where the issues at hand might have become deep-rooted. These will come before the CDRT.

By the time these cases get to the CDRT, these cases will need to be managed quickly and effectively. We will therefore revise the CDRT framework to enable this.

In my speech, Sir, I will first set out our overall approach to managing community disputes. And thereafter, explain the details which underpin each of the three areas of enhancements. My colleague, Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann, will be overseeing the CRU powers under the new Part 2A. She will share more details on the CRU framework and directed mediation by frontline officers in her speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a densely populated city-state. When individuals, most of us, live close to one another, some degree of friction will inevitably arise. Over the past three years, public agencies have received more than 90,000 pieces of feedback on neighbour noise alone. Let me just say that again – 90,000 pieces of feedback on neighbour noise alone! On average, that is around 2,500 complaints every month, or over 80 complaints every day.

Noise complaints, by far, form the vast majority of all neighbour disputes feedback received by agencies. Most complaints, not surprisingly, come from Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates – since around 80% of our population reside in HDB estates. But having said that, we are not unique in having this problem. Other cities around the world face similar issues. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, it has been reported that at least two in five people have had disagreements with their neighbours. And like in Singapore, noise disamenity is the top cause of disputes in the UK.

In 2014, we formalised our approach for managing neighbour disputes under the umbrella of the CDMF. That was when we first set up the CDMF. The CDMF seeks to promote good relations among neighbours to minimise the occurrence of disputes. So, it is not just a question of dealing with the disamenity, but how do we go upstream to manage the conflict at an early stage. It also seeks to encourage neighbours to resolve issues amicably among themselves when such disputes arise. It helps to promote community mediation as the primary source of assistance if neighbours need to resolve their differences, and it provides for the CDRT, as an avenue of last resort.

So, as a primary starting point, I want to emphasise to Members in this House, that even as we introduce this Bill to substantially strengthen the CDMF framework, our aim remains building a strong, resilient and cohesive community where neighbours are friendly with one another, they are more likely to be tolerant and understanding. And they will then, in turn, be more open to discussing minor annoyances which may arise and then aiming to constructively address them without escalation.

We have thus far, taken steps to foster a shared understanding of community norms among residents when it comes to noise. Let me share one initiative.

In 2022, MND brought together representatives from various sectors and set up the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise, or CAP in short. More than 4,400 members of the public, participated in CAP's engagements. Many agreed that the first step in managing noise disputes should be communication with neighbours. The CAP also highlighted the importance of practising considerate behaviour. It highlighted some simple, but sometimes we take for granted, practical steps that residents can take in their day to day living. For example, using door stoppers to prevent the accidental slamming of windows and doors. Or closing the windows when engaging in noisy activities, like karaoke and other such pursuits that one might enjoy at home.

Since then, MND has worked with the Singapore Kindness Movement and agencies like HDB to promote the community norms and encourage considerate behaviour.

Despite this, occasionally, I think we have all come across in each of our constituency occasions where disputes between neighbours will arise. These disputes do not usually raise law-and-order issues. So, it is not a matter for the Police. Instead, these disputes usually, though not always, stem from differences in lifestyles, schedules, depending on working schedules, preferences at home. We might have parents with young energetic children – nothing wrong with that – but they live next to teenagers preparing for exams or the elderly who might need their rest at an earlier hour in the day. The laughter of children may bring joy to many but, in some situations or occasions it is an intrusion on peace and tranquility. Nothing wrong with the needs of both sides but, sometimes, finding that common ground to alleviate this dispute is a challenge.

When such disputes arise, our guiding principle has been that neighbours should proactively and constructively engage with one another and try to reach a workable compromise. If they are unable to do so themselves, they should seek assistance from a community mediator. Mediators at the Community Mediation Centre, or CMC for short, have deep experience in facilitating effective dialogue between disputing neighbours and encouraging them to find common ground.

This, we feel, and continue to feel even with the new CDMF framework, is the best way to resolve a dispute between neighbours. It is non-confrontational, it preserves the long-standing relationship as far as possible and, overall, maintains harmony in society.

Indeed, as an Asian society, amicable resolution is not unknown. Respected elders in the community in the past, like village headmen or clan or religious leaders, used to help in this process. They stepped in, lowered temperatures, heard both sides, found common ground.

Times may have changed. But I think the underlying principles of amicable resolution through discussion and compromise remain just as relevant, if not more, relevant today.

Indeed, many neighbour disputes have been resolved in this way and that was one of the considerations we took into account as we formulated the enhancements in this Bill. Today, around 90% of neighbour noise feedback is resolved after grassroots and other community leaders or HDB officers helped both sides to reach an amicable compromise. Many of the remaining disputes are resolved after neighbours attend mediation at the CMC.

So, we know that conciliation is effective in resolving community disputes. It saves time and cost and, as I said, preserves the longer-term goodwill in the relationship.

And so, this has remained the guiding philosophy with which we have approached the proposed enhancements to the CDMF framework in this Bill.

So, let me start on the three buckets of enhancements with mediation.

The first part of the enhancements is straightforward. We want all suitable cases to go through an amicable mediation in the first instance. We will, therefore, empower authorised officers to direct disputing parties, the neighbours, to attend mediation at the CMC in appropriate cases.

Today, we have often heard of many cases where one or both sides refused to engage in mediation even though we might think that is the best option for them. They might refuse to consider mediation for a variety of reasons. Some are personal ones, some perhaps may be ill-conceived ones. Or they register for mediation, but then do not show up.

The new directed mediation powers will strengthen our ability to address such cases. It will enable us to bring neighbours together for a good discussion in a non-confrontational space, at the CMC or perhaps some other agreed venue, and coming together is a critical step in finding a solution to resolving a dispute.

So, Sir, under the new section 13M that is inserted under clause 14, authorised persons, such as a community relations officer or an officer from the CMC, may issue a Mediation Direction to individuals involved in a complaint or dispute involving alleged unreasonable interference.

Public officers or officers from a statutory body, such as HDB, can also be appointed to issue Mediation Directions. Parties who receive a Mediation Direction must attend mediation at the CMC. Failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, will be an offence.

The statutory thresholds for Mediation Directions to be issued under section 13M have been deliberately kept low. Authorised officers, such as HDB officers, may issue these Directions if there is a complaint or dispute involving neighbours, and that complaint or dispute relates to alleged unreasonable interference.

Officers are not required to conduct detailed fact-finding to determine who is right or who is wrong, or, indeed, the nature or extent of the alleged nuisance. The role of these frontline officers, as first responders to a community dispute, is not to determine fault in that first instance, but to bring the neighbours together for open dialogue and, if need be, through a Mediation Direction.

As I mentioned earlier, mediation at CMC is quick and effective. Our statistics have shown that, today, more than 80% of voluntary mediation cases at the CMC are settled amicably. Since 2014, CMC mediators have helped to make peace between neighbours in more than 2,400 cases. These are cases, of course, where the parties had agreed to attend mediation and did attend meditation. We might, therefore, expect to see the settlement rates become lower once directed mandatory mediation takes place. But if we can even help more neighbours to make peace through a consensual, amicable arrangement, that is still a good outcome.

And even if after going through the process, mediation were to be unsuccessful in that it did not result in a compromise or an amicable solution, time, I think, is not wasted. Parties would have heard each other’s perspectives and this can help to lay the groundwork for eventual resolution.

Next, Sir, as we strengthen the ability to foster open dialogue between parties, we should also give more "bite" to the settlement agreements that parties enter into, after a successful mediation. So, under the new section 31A, we sought to strike a balance. Parties who come to a settlement can opt to register their settlement agreement as a CDRT order if both parties consent.

Thus, if one party to the agreement breaches the settlement terms, assuming it is registered, then the other party can quickly proceed to use the simplified CDRT process to enforce the settlement agreement in the same way as a CDRT order. This helps to facilitate quicker and simpler recourse if registered settlements are breached. And in such situations, I would hope that neighbours, disputing parties, need not be trigger-happy to always seek enforcement applications in the first instance. They can sometimes inquire with their neighbours as to why or how such an order came to be breached or an agreement came to be breached and I would say if you can speak to your neighbour first, there is a good chance you might then find a way to reach a compromise and resolve the matter, having already done so once.

The simpler Court enforcement process is there to ensure that, if it is indeed breached and there is no subsequent solution found, then, thereafter, the relief can be quick and expeditious. But that, really, I would encourage as a measure of last resort in this case.

Sir, let me move on next to the CRU. This is the second bucket of enhancements to the CDMF.

Sir, we have seen cases where the disamenity in question does not amount to law-and-order issues. But at the same time, they are severely disrupting community peace. For example, we have heard of cases where a neighbour deliberately disrupts the peace by banging loudly on the walls or the ceilings throughout the day and, even sometimes, in the middle of the night continuously.

There are also cases where the acts might not be deliberate or consciously deliberate. But the community nonetheless suffers disamenity, impacting harmony and quality of life and, sometimes we see severe hoarding cases as some examples. Fortunately, at this point in time, these cases are still in the small minority. But if left unaddressed, they can escalate and, thereafter, have an outsized impact on the community. So, we are thinking of how we can pre-emptively disrupt this.

Today, agencies do not have sufficient powers to effectively address them. We have considered this carefully and also studied what other countries have done. In our public consultations, Singaporeans have generally agreed that we need stronger levers to act decisively and effectively in these types of cases. We have decided, therefore, to set up a dedicated CRU.

Under the new Part 2A, the Bill proposes for CRU officers to have a range of powers to investigate, take decisive action in neighbour disputes that involve unreasonable interference, and this includes the kinds of cases that I have given examples of.

Officers may investigate, for example, by taking statements from neighbours or taking photographs and recordings, which can then have evidential value. This can help ameliorate cases which very often we see descend into a "he said/she said there is this noise at that time" or "this volume and that volume". I think this helps to cut through all that and allows objective statements and evidence to be taken.

Under the new sections 13I and 13J, the CRU may also leverage on technology and deploy noise sensors, with consent, to collect objective evidence of noise events.

After investigations are completed, officers may issue advisories or warnings, as appropriate. These warnings or advisories do not carry penalties, in the first instance.

But if they are not heeded, then an abatement order under section 13L may be issued subsequently. An abatement order can require the recipient to stop any acts that are causing unreasonable interference to surrounding neighbours and it will be an offence under section 13L subsection 5 to disobey an abatement order without reasonable excuse.

I hope we do not always have to resort to issuing an abatement order. Sometimes, the mere presence of a uniformed officer with powers will be sufficient in itself to abate certain behaviours. Other times, a warning may then have to be issued.

Over time, Sir, we hope to see this framework have a salutary effect or a self-moderating impact on both the community and individual residents. The community will know the boundaries, and then begin to self-police.

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will expand on the details on the new CRU. But before I leave the topic, let me explain the thinking behind the role of the CRU and the scope of its powers.

The statutory powers that will be conferred on the CRU in this Bill under the new Part 2A have been drafted to cover a range of matters. These are matters which usually cause community disputes. They can cover a wide range of acts or omissions, which can lead to unreasonable interference with a neighbour’s enjoyment or use of place of residence and this is intended to cater for flexibility in the CRU's deployment to allow it to do its work effectively.

However, it is not intended for the CRU to become the first responder in all cases, and that is simply not possible.

The CRU will focus its resources only on severe neighbour noise cases that are causing disamenity to the community and also severe hoarding cases. As I explained earlier, this noise, in particular, forms the vast majority of neighbour disamenity complaints and we have got to balance resources against what impact can be felt in the community and how we feel these resources best make a difference to resolving disputes between neighbours.

The CRU will, of course, have discretion to judge the severity of these matters and cases, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and we will reflect this in subsidiary legislation made under section 13Z read with section 13G.

It is, therefore, not our intention in this Bill to be overly prescriptive. CRU Officers will assess on a case-by-case basis and have the ability to make a judgement call. In general, due to the transitory nature of noise, a case would be considered severe only if it persists over a period of time. But, in some cases, a single occurrence might well possibly be treated as severe.

For example, if a person deliberately takes a drill to his wall or ceiling at 3.00 am, in the middle of the night with the intent of waking up his neighbours, then HDB officers might well look into this the next day and, if it happens again, the CRU may treat it as "severe".

I would also like to caution that we must strike a balance between the CRU stepping in to manage a dispute and also at the same time leaving enough room for neighbours to settle their private disputes between themselves. I think we have to strike that balance very judiciously and very carefully. If we intervene too much, we take away the community's ability to self-police and self-moderate, which is the essence of really good neighbourliness.

With the CRU framework, the Government is already taking a significant step forward, to lean forward to help to resolve these cases, particularly if they threaten to have a wider negative impact on the community.

Fundamentally though, we believe that most neighbour disputes ought to be addressed by strengthening the community in the manner that I have outlined earlier and creating an overdependence on the state to police community behaviours at home will invariably weaken the community’s ability to self-moderate.

In addition, we must be prudent with how we spend our limited resources and manpower. And I think Members can appreciate that, for a matter like this, for the CRU to be stepping in on those occasions with the kinds of cases and the volume of cases or noise that I have outlined, it is very resource-intensive. And this is a substantial endeavour, both in terms of resources as well as manpower.

As such, we intend to, first, pilot the CRU in the HDB estate of Tampines town. The learnings from this pilot will help us understand how to effectively scale up these operations and make it effective and efficient island-wide.

During the CRU pilot in Tampines, grassroots leaders and frontline agencies will continue existing efforts to manage neighbour disputes, both in Tampines as well as applying in the rest of Singapore. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will share more details on the CRU.

I move on, Sir, to the third bucket of enhancements in this Bill, which is the CDRT. We intend, as I said earlier, for the CDRT to remain an avenue of last resort. I mentioned earlier that many difficult noise and hoarding cases should be addressed by directed mediation enhancements or by the CRU framework.

We are hopeful that, eventually, only a small fraction of cases will remain unresolved after these layers of upstream intervention. By the time we get to this stage, however, these cases are likely to be quite severe and protracted, involving a recalcitrant party.

We will therefore enhance the CDRT's processes and powers; and equip it to deliver quicker and more effective relief. Some of the CDRT enhancements will also go towards supporting upstream amicable resolution efforts.

Let me take Members through the key amendments. First, under the new section 18A, there will be a general requirement that residents must first attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. This, I think, is just the flip side of imposing mandatory mediation. This ensures that neighbours do not take each other to the CDRT, without at least first trying mediation.

We do this, because when we look back at our cases, in the last five years, more than 70% of CDRT claimants indicated that they did not first attempt CMC mediation, before filing a CDRT claim.

So, we think that there is a reservoir of cases out there that will benefit from mandatory mediation, even on the existing framework as it currently exists. And this is not what we want to see. We accept that there may be some cases that could not or may not be suitable for mediation – and there is, therefore, flexibility in section 18A to waive pre-filing mediation for such cases.

But, by and large, I would say residents should go for mediation first. Court proceedings should be the last resort. It is always better for parties to agree on an arrangement that both are comfortable with and both are prepared to abide by, than for a third party to adjudicate and then direct what one party can or cannot do. This, in the long term, leads to more lasting peace in the community.

Next, under new sections 13I subsection 4, and 13J subsection 4, the DG of CRU and CRU officers may disclose information gathered, in the course of their work, to the CDRT. This brings the CRU process closer to the CDRT, if necessary. This will help to alleviate the evidential difficulty highlighted by a number of CDRT users. They often tell us when we conduct our focus groups discussions and take feedback, "How do we gather evidence of noise which is transient or transitory, and how do we ensure that when we get to the CDRT, we can establish the provenance of that piece of evidence".

So, we decided that we would bring the process of the CDRT closer to that of the evidence collected by the CRU.

In the proposed new framework, therefore, if the CRU had previously looked into the case, and a CDRT claim is thereafter filed, then the evidence gathered – such as observations, noise sensor data, statements from neighbours or previously-issued warnings and compliance or non-compliance therewith – can be submitted to the CDRT, for consideration.

This is so that claimants need not start all over again to prove their cases afresh. They will not need to gather evidence from ground zero that CRU officers had already gathered and which they possess. This will also help the CDRT come to a fair decision in a shorter period of time.

Third, under the new section 12A, the CDRT will be empowered to issue a Mandatory Treatment Order, or MTO for short. MTOs can be issued if the CDRT has reason to believe that the respondent's acts of unreasonable interference stem, at least in part, from an underlying psychiatric condition. Such a condition sometimes causes a person to disrupt the community, with noise or even hoarding, sometimes even unknowingly. In those cases, the issue therefore is not just a disamenity one. Hence, the MTO is intended to address the root cause of certain acts that a resident may engage in.

Our priority will remain to persuade the resident to voluntarily go for treatment, and I want to emphasise that a CDRT-issued MTO will be a measure of last resort, taking into account the circumstances.

Members will see that the Bill provides for a robust framework to ensure that MTOs are issued only in deserving and appropriate cases. And I think it is worth outlining the framework to Members in some detail.

Under section 12A subsection 1, the claimant must first establish that the respondent has caused unreasonable interference. Next, the CDRT must have reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent is likely suffering from a psychiatric condition; and the psychiatric condition is likely contributing to the acts of unreasonable interference. So, there must be a nexus between the behaviour or the suspected behaviour and the interference.

There is an On-site Psychiatrist Scheme in the State Courts to facilitate this assessment. After both conditions are met, the CDRT must, under subsection 8, call for a formal assessment from an appointed psychiatrist.

The respondent may also submit a report from a psychiatrist of his choice, and the CDRT can only make a MTO if the formal assessment report certifies certain matters – such as the respondent's suitability for treatment. These measures ensure that improper applications are dismissed early, so that the party is not put through the course of the proceedings unnecessarily. It also ensures that MTOs are only made in appropriate cases.

Next, let me touch on costs orders. Clause 21 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 25 and clause 27(c) expands the existing rule-making power on costs.

At present, Members may know that other than disbursements, costs cannot be awarded in CDRT proceedings. We will amend this and align with the general costs position under the Rules of Court 2021. In particular, the CDRT will be able to award costs to self-represented persons, on the usual costs principles. This compensates him for the time and work required for the proceedings.

We also intend to make subsidiary legislation to the effect that costs can be awarded against a party who did not make efforts at amicable resolution. This will include situations where a resident declined an invitation from his neighbour to attend voluntary mediation, without good reason. So, in other words, even before you invoke mandatory mediation, if a neighbour approaches one party to offer voluntary mediation outside of this rubric, and one unreasonably refuses to take up the offer, the Courts at the CDRT can take this into account when considering the cost orders to be made.

The intention, ultimately, is to encourage dispute resolution at the earliest possible opportunity. And it would be best if neighbours go for mediation voluntarily – and not just wait for a Mediation Direction to be issued.

Next, under the new section 5A, the CDRT will be empowered to issue Interim Orders on a prima facie threshold if the acts of unreasonable interference are likely to continue, likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant, or his day-to-day activities, and it is just and equitable for an interim order to be made.

This will help claimants with serious cases to obtain relief more quickly, even as they wait for their cases to make their way through the process of the CDRT. Even though we have expedited it, there might be some occasions where the disamenity of the interference is pressing and severe.

Next, the new section 10A, addresses tenant-occupied properties. We have heard feedback that some landlords adopt a "hands-off" approach, refusing to intervene even after being informed and being made aware that their tenants are causing a nuisance. This is not desirable. Landlords are key stakeholders in this ecosystem. They have a responsibility to exercise some oversight on their tenants' conduct.

Hence, under the new section 10A, residents who experience unreasonable interference from a tenant-occupied property can notify the landlord. The landlord must then act to abate the nuisance from his tenant. If the nuisance is not abated, and the affected resident succeeds on a CDRT claim, then the CDRT can make an order against the tenant. Concurrently, the CDRT can require the landlord to put up a bond to secure his tenant's compliance with the CDRT order. And if the tenant does not comply, then the Court may forfeit all, or part of, the landlord's bond.

This effectively brings forward the existing compliance bond that can currently already be made against a landlord. There is already a provision for such a landlord's bond in the current framework. It empowers the affected resident, under these amendments, to involve the landlord at an early stage, and this improves the chances of an amicable resolution in these cases.

Next, while mediation should be the first resort, there can be exceptional situations where it is necessary for the case to be brought before the CDRT. Under the new section 17A, the DG of CRU may apply for a dispute to be heard and determined by the CDRT, if satisfied that this is necessary in the interests of preserving the community peace.

For example, there may be a protracted dispute between neighbours, where both parties, for example, could agree on the specific noise event, such as children playing in the corridor or making noise beyond a certain level and so on.

But they may disagree strongly on whether that constitutes unreasonable interference. Or parties may have tried for some time, and there is evidence of that, but are unable to resolve this through other means, after multiple rounds of mediation, and they keep looking to CRU to make an intervention or make a finding, whilst at the same time, both parties themselves refuse to submit the case to CDRT for adjudication.

In such cases, by way of example, the DG of the CRU may bring this to the CDRT for resolution and the CDRT can require disputing residents to attend Court and examine the dispute, before making orders.

Along with that, the CDRT will be empowered, under the new section 5B, to vary an order, if there is a change in the personal circumstances of the applicant and it is just and equitable to do so. For example, when the original terms are no longer workable. The CDRT may also vary its order to address situations where respondents attempt to circumvent the original order.

Next, the CDRT processes are designed to be simple, judge-led and accessible. And with these amendments, we intend for it to be more so. But this also raises the possibility of abuse. Once you set the bar too low, it is easy to access, and people file claims easily. And just like we come across occasions where our residents complain to us of a disamenity of a neighbour, you may also have heard of the shoe being on the other foot, where the neighbour comes to us to complain that they are unreasonable complaints or calls to the Police or calls to HDB being made by the neighbour.

In such cases, sometimes parties may exploit the simple low-cost process and commence unmeritorious claims and sometimes repeatedly so. Therefore, under the new sections 31B to 31E, the CDRT will be empowered to make civil restraint orders. For example, if a person makes two or more applications that are totally without merit or are an abuse of process, then the CDRT can restrain the person from making further applications, unless permission is granted.

Sir, on a final note, this Bill also amends the Community Mediation Centres Act or the CMC Act, the Housing and Development Act and the Police Force Act. These are all, as a consequence of the enhancements that I have outlined.

The CMC Act is amended to support the new directed mediation framework. The amendments also clarify that community mediation may be conducted by virtual means, like video conferencing and this adds to the convenience of parties attending mediation.

The Housing and Development Act is amended to enable HDB to consider compulsory acquisition of HDB flats in egregious cases – and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will expand on this point later.

The Police Force Act is amended to repeal the existing community warden powers under sections 65C and 65D. This is because it is no longer required, with the creation of the CRU.

Other consequential amendments are made under clauses 30, 38 and 39 of this Bill.

Sir, let me conclude. I hope that the enhancements under this Bill will address many of the cases that are escalated to agencies every year – and you heard the numbers earlier. For example, cases where neighbours are unwilling to take the first step to engage with one another, or for one reason or another, refuse to do so.

Or cases where the neighbourly relationship has deteriorated to the point where a person is deliberately disrupting the community peace, sometimes to get back at the neighbour. Or cases where CDRT claimants find it difficult, when they go through the process, having had mediation, but failed – and the case is protracted, it is intransigent, it is severe, but you go through a process where you then have to lead evidence afresh, almost from ground zero again. All that, we try and change and improve with these sets of amendments.

At the same time, Sir, I wish very much to emphasise that these enhancements cannot be seen as a silver bullet – they are not a panacea, they are not a silver bullet, they cannot address everyone's disputes and ills between neighbours. There will likely be cases that will continue to resist resolution, even under this enhanced framework.

Ultimately, this is delicate work, as I mentioned earlier, to balance between intervening too much with the framework that allows us all these measures of relief, but also empowering neighbours themselves to take ownership and responsibility of their own difficulties, their own neighbourly problems and resolve them themselves.

Ultimately, I call on all Members to help us, through our interactions with our residents, to build a gracious society, where neighbours are conscious of their roles in the community, to exercise mutual consideration for one another, and where differences are best bridged through discussion and compromise, and not necessarily by direction or order. Sir, with that, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

1.45 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, MND has been working closely with MCCY and MinLaw on the review of the CDMF.

We will play two roles in supporting the enhanced CDMF. First, the Municipal Services Office (MSO) will host the dedicated unit to address severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. Second, HDB, which helps to manage neighbour noise disputes within HDB flats today, will pilot the early issuance of Mediation Directions by frontline officers.

As the Minister-in-charge of MSO, I will therefore be speaking on Part 2A of the Bill which deals with the operationalisation of the Community Relations Unit, or CRU for short, and allows Community Relations Officers and officers appointed by the Minister to issue Mediation Directions.

The CRU will comprise the Director-General (DG) as well as other authorised officers to be appointed by the Minister, and the Community Relations Officers and Auxiliary Community Relations Officers appointed by the DG, or CROs and ACROs for short.

I will speak on the types of cases CRU will take on, the powers this Bill will equip it with, how it will intervene and the safeguards we will put in place. I will also share an update on our plans to pilot the CRU, starting in Tampines. I will then speak about the issuance of Mediation Directions by frontline officers, which HDB will pilot, also starting in Tampines.

Minister Edwin Tong earlier stated that the CRU will focus only on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases.

The two main archetypes of severe noise cases that CRU will focus on are: one, severe and prolonged cases, where noise is being used to cause suffering to the surrounding neighbours; and two, cases where the acts that cause noise could be due to an underlying mental health condition.

Take the first scenario. Let us say there are two neighbours who live next to each other in Tampines town – Mr X and Mr Y. Mr X reports that Mr Y has been making intense banging noises from late night to early morning for the past 10 years. However, Mr X is unable to provide agencies with clear evidence that the noises are caused by Mr Y. According to Mr X, Mr Y tends to play a cat-and-mouse game. He stops banging when officers visit, but resumes banging right after officers leave.

In such a case, CROs may exercise their powers under the new section 13I and take statements from Mr X, Mr Y and surrounding neighbours. They may also require Mr Y to attend interviews. If Mr X wishes for CROs to deploy noise sensors and the relevant Town Council agrees, CROs may also deploy noise sensors in Mr X's unit, as well as along the common corridor to collect objective evidence of the reported noise, to measure its intensity and triangulate where it is most likely to be coming from.

Subsequently, if CROs are satisfied that Mr Y is indeed engaging in acts that are deliberately disrupting the peace of the neighbours throughout the day and night, then a written warning may be issued to Mr Y, which warns him to cease making the noise with immediate effect. If Mr Y persists with his actions, then the DG of Community Relations may issue an abatement order under the new section 13L and direct Mr Y to stop the noise. If Mr Y does not comply with the abatement order to stop, then that will be a criminal offence. The DG may also seize the item that Mr Y used to cause the noise.

We will equip CRU officers with powers to carry out their tasks and also put in appropriate safeguards.

First, under the new section 13E, before exercising any power, CROs and ACROs must identify themselves by showing their official identification card. Members of the public will be able to go to an MND webpage, to verify that the person standing before them, is indeed from the CRU. Impersonation of a CRU officer will be a criminal offence under section 13Q.

Next, under the new section 13I, CROs will have powers to take statements, photographs and recordings. They may also issue advisories and warnings. These are standard powers for public officers who perform enforcement functions. Advisories and warnings do not carry penalties. However, if they are not heeded, further enforcement action may be taken.

CROs will also have powers to issue Mediation Directions under section 13M. Minister Edwin Tong explained this in detail earlier.

Under section 13L, the DG can issue an abatement order to an individual, if he is satisfied that the individual is engaging in an act or omission that causes unreasonable interference. This is modelled on what countries such as the UK and Australia have done. An abatement order requires the recipient to stop any acts that are causing unreasonable interference to their neighbours. The recipient can also be required to take steps to ensure that other persons in the home, such as family members, stop the acts which are specified in the order. Failure to comply with an abatement order will be a criminal offence, punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both.

CROs will also be empowered to leverage on technology to do their work. In particular, under sections 13I and 13J, CROs, assisted by ACROs, may deploy noise sensors to collect objective evidence on matters, such as the direction, timing and intensity of the noise nuisance.

This addresses a gap today, where complainants attempt to collect evidence by making simple audio recordings, often on their mobile phones. These recordings are unable to tell us the intensity or direction of the noise disturbance. They can also easily be distorted upon playback or edited and therefore cannot be relied upon for official investigations or court proceedings.

The deployment of noise sensors gives us a sensible alternative to deploying officers on long and possibly futile stakeouts. We also hope sensors can deliver evidence in cases where the nuisance-maker stops the noise when officers are present but starts making noise again once the officers have left.

In relation to the deployment of noise sensors, I would like to assure Members there will be safeguards to protect residents' privacy. These safeguards incorporate feedback from the public engagements that we have conducted. Let me elaborate.

First, noise sensors will be deployed only after CROs, assisted by ACROs, have done initial investigations and narrowed down the unit where the noise might be coming from.

Second, noise sensors will only be deployed with consent, as laid out under the new section 13I, subsection 1. So, if the sensor is to be installed in someone's home, then the owner or occupier of the home must grant consent. If the sensor is to be installed in the common areas, then CRU must seek consent from the managing agent of the common area.

In the course of public consultations, some members of public suggested that CRU should be empowered to deploy noise sensors without obtaining consent, for example, within the home of a suspected noise-maker. We considered this carefully but decided that it is not necessary to take this step for now.

Third, to prevent tampering, raw data that is collected by the sensors will be transmitted in real-time to Singapore-based servers for processing. Strict access controls will be placed on these servers and the raw data will be automatically expunged once it has been processed. Only processed data will be retained for the purposes of CRU's investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. This processed data will provide objective, untampered evidence on the direction, timing and intensity of the noise events above an ambient baseline. The actual sounds, including any conversations that were picked up by the sensor, will not be available to our officers.

As a deterrent and an absolute last resort, for the most severe of cases that involve recalcitrant nuisance-makers, CRU may refer the matter to HDB after exhausting other levers, for HDB to consider compulsory acquisition. HDB has compulsory acquisition powers which have been used very sparingly. We recognise that it is a very severe action, which would affect not only the nuisance-maker but also the rest of the person's household. We will not take this course of action without due care and consideration. We may consider referring the case to HDB to consider compulsory acquisition if all other levers have failed to abate the nuisance and measures are required to protect the wider community. Therefore, clause 36 of the Bill amends section 63 of the Housing and Development Act to empower HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat.

HDB may consider compulsory acquisition of the flats of severe and recalcitrant nuisance-makers, if, for example, the owner or an occupier has been convicted by the Courts at least twice for disobeying an abatement order or a CDRT exclusion order.

The second noise scenario that CRU will focus on involves persons who may have mental health conditions. For example, let us consider a case where a resident who lives on his own has been shouting to himself for extended periods of time, even late at night. The surrounding neighbours inform CRU that the resident might have an underlying mental health condition, as suggested by his behaviour.

For cases with mental health conditions, the aim will be to facilitate assessment, confirmation and treatment of the mental health condition. In this case, CROs will work with partner agencies, such as the Agency for Integrated Care, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and the Police, to facilitate assessment, confirmation and treatment of the underlying mental health condition.

If all attempts to persuade the resident to voluntarily seek mental health treatment fail, then, as a last resort, the DG may make an application to the CDRT under the new section 17A.

If the CDRT is satisfied that the resident has indeed engaged in acts of unreasonable interference and the CDRT has reason to believe that the resident is likely suffering from a psychiatric condition that is contributing to his behaviour, then the CDRT may exercise the mandatory treatment powers under the new section 12A.

Sir, I have talked about severe neighbour noise cases, which will be the bulk of the cases managed by CRU. Let me now talk about our approach for severe hoarding cases.

While the volume of cases is not high, it is an issue that not only causes dis-amenities, but also poses public health and safety risks. It affects not only the hoarder, but also surrounding neighbours.

In severe hoarding cases, the home may be infested with pests due to rotting food. The accumulation of clutter is also a potentially fatal fire hazard, as occupants may be unable to escape if a fire should break out. The pests and stench may prevent surrounding neighbours from the normal enjoyment of their own homes.

The root causes of a hoarder’s behaviour are complex. They could be due to trauma, grief or underlying mental health conditions. Given the complexity of the issue and the hazards it causes, the Government has been taking an inter-agency approach to address the issue. There is a Hoarding Management Core Group, or HMCG, led by the MSO, to coordinate efforts across agencies to resolve protracted and severe hoarding cases. Agencies adopt a concerted approach combining enforcement efforts with community and social interventions.

Together with community partners, we have made some progress in reducing the severity of many hoarding cases. However, some cases remain protracted and unresolved because it is difficult to gain hoarders' cooperation to declutter.

Frontline officers face real tensions on the ground, in balancing between the person's right to choose how they want to upkeep their own home and their neighbours' enjoyment of their own residences. Officers often need to engage and persuade the hoarders repeatedly, to obtain their cooperation to declutter. Despite our best efforts, there are cases where hoarders refuse to cooperate. Even if their homes were successfully decluttered once, the clutter may recur as habits do not change quickly.

To better address severe in-unit hoarding, clause 11 of the Bill inserts a new section 11A into the CDRA. The provision empowers the DG to apply to CDRT to declutter a residential unit, as a measure of last resort premised on public interest and only after existing regulatory levers from frontline agencies have been exhausted. This is necessary to protect public health and safety.

The DG may apply to the CDRT for an order to address hoarding, under the new section 11A, after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to the hoarder's neighbour and the hoarder has failed to comply with the CDRT's order to declutter.

If the order to address hoarding is granted by the CDRT, then CROs will be authorised to enter the unit in question, remove and dispose of any hoarded materials and/or items that are causing unreasonable interference and take any other actions a specified by the Court.

Let me address the CRU pilot. As Minister Edwin Tong mentioned, we will start the pilot within the HDB estate of Tampines Town. The concept of operations is also new. We will, therefore, need to test it, refine it and then test it again. This will be an iterative process. The pilot will allow us to assess how the model could be scaled up in a sustainable manner.

Tampines was chosen, as it has an average caseload compared to other towns in Singapore, which will give us a representative setting in which to test the model. We have formed the initial team of officers, who are working on developing their operational procedures. We hope to begin operations from the second quarter of 2025.

As part of the pilot, we will also look at directed mediation as an early lever, to arrest and resolve the dispute upstream, before they worsen. We hope that more disputes can be addressed early, between neighbours and with the help of agencies and grassroots leaders or GRLs, if needed.

If residents are unable to resolve the conflict by themselves, in many instances, they will reach out to GRLs and frontline agencies, such as the HDB, for assistance. By and large, GRLs and frontline agencies are able to resolve most cases through informal mediation.

This should and will continue to be the case going forward. However, as mentioned by Minister Tong, we will give selected frontline responders an added tool of directed mediation, to bring neighbours together to discuss their differences. We hope this approach will help to bring even more cases to an amicable resolution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. MND, MCCY and MinLaw consulted extensively on the enhancements to the CDMF and, in particular, the CRU framework. In the course of our consultations, many members of public expressed strong support for the CRU. Some have even asked when the CRU can come by their unit and conduct enforcement on their neighbour.

So, let me end with a few points. We recognise that enforcement tears at the fabric of neighbourly relations and should be reserved only for serious cases. When neighbours are engaged in a dispute, our priority must always be to bring them together, to understand each other's perspectives, needs and interests, and to cooperate on a solution that is workable for all sides.

It is neither desirable for community spirit nor sustainable for the Government to step in to resolve differences between neighbours all the time. I call on all Members to help us with this. When your resident comes to you and says that his next-door neighbour is making noise, please, advise him to speak to his neighbour first and encourage them to go for mediation. If these basic strategies do not work, then the case might be a severe or prolonged one. CRU would be alerted by HDB or other frontline officers handling the case.

Our officers could: move the case towards mediation; make investigations leading to the issuance of warnings, abatement orders or even mandatory treatment orders down the line; or help to make eventual CDRT proceedings smoother with the evidence that they have collected.

Ultimately, the CRU must not function as a first resort. It is intended to complement and not substitute the interlocking system of positive community norms, good neighbourly relations and amicable dispute resolution through friendly discussion and compromise.

I also call on Members to continue supporting MSO's ongoing efforts with our partners and agencies to build pro-social norms that contribute towards harmonious living. These include: the MSO's Love Our 'Hood Youth Challenge for youths to transform their creative ideas into effective solutions to create a better living environment; and HDB's Singapore's Friendly Neighbourhood Award, where we recognise and celebrate the efforts of Singaporeans who have gone the extra mile to connect with and care for fellow residents.

When we have strong community norms that value harmony and reinforce considerate behaviour in the neighbourhood, fewer cases of community disputes will arise. And where they do arise, involved parties will be more likely to resolve their differences through mediation without prompting. Which means less reliance on intervention through CRU or other agencies. This is an outcome worth working towards even though we know it takes effort and time.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): The establishment of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) is an important step in resolving neighbourhood disputes and is a new initiative by the Government. To lay a solid foundation for the CRU, we have decided to pilot it in Tampines for one year. Through this smaller-scale implementation, we will firm up CRU's concept of operations before expanding it island-wide.

The CRU serves several purposes. For neighbour noise disputes that can potentially be resolved through mediation, Community Relations Officers (CROs) can issue mediation directions to expedite the resolution process. For cases that cannot be resolved by mediation, CROs can investigate these cases and issue warnings, abatement orders, or apply for court-ordered Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTOs).

Evidence gathered by CROs through their investigations can be useful in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals' proceedings, saving manpower, resources and time.

It is important to note that while the CRU plays a crucial role, it is not a panacea. Communication between neighbours is necessary and cannot be replaced. We must retain the community's ability to resolve disputes on their own. Guided by these principles, we plan to commence operations in the first half of 2025.

After the Bill is passed, we will continue to draft subsidiary legislations and further refine our operational processes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

2.06 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, the Community Disputes Resolution Act was enacted in 2015. At that time, the then-Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, Mr Lawrence Wong, said that the Community Disputes Resolution Bill 2015 proposes to introduce a new statutory tort for private disputes between neighbours.

He stressed that there is a need to strengthen our approach to managing such disputes. He emphasised individual and community ownership, and how everyone has the responsibility to be a considerate neighbour so that residential living will be more pleasant for all. When problems arise, residents should first seek to resolve the matter amicably with their neighbour, failing which, they should try mediation.

Sir, when the Bill was introduced in 2015, I supported the introduction of the new statutory tort. I had voiced my concerns as a Member of Parliament (MP) about the many cases of disputes between residents about noise, about encroachment of space, about littering and so on. But despite the many cries for help from the residents, there is hardly anything that the authorities can do to resolve such disputes.

At that time, many MPs hoped that the CDR Act could help parties resolve their differences. Sir, fast forward nine years after the Bill has been passed, it is timely to review the effectiveness of the law. Unfortunately, it seems that the number of complaints that I receive as an MP has not come down. I still see many Meet-the-People Session cases and still receive many emails about the same issues of noise, hoarding, encroachment of common space and then, people whose cigarette smoking affects their neighbours and so on.

Many MPs in this House have also raised queries about similar issues and they have asked about the effectiveness of the Community Mediation Centre in resolving disputes. MPs like Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Louis Ng and former- MP Ms Lee Bee Wah, spoke frequently about their residents complaint about how second-hand smoke affects their resident's health.

The media has also reported various cases about neighbours from hell and how the noise from an inconsiderate resident staying at Punggol Central had driven six families away. There was another reported case about a resident in Pending Road who had to tolerate hammering sound and loud lion dance music in the middle of the night. Thus, I welcome the amendments to this Bill as it would allow the Government more levers to resolve neighbourly disputes which have a negative impact on the community.

Sir, I support the setting up of a CRU under clause 14 of the Bill and this is to deal with severe neighbour disputes. In fact, when the Bill was introduced in 2015, I had called on the Government to set up a Neighbourhood Police Centre staffed by Police Officers who specialise in neighbour disputes. At that time, I had said that, "from experience, the presence of the Police is frequently very helpful as citizens respond better when there is Police presence". Thus, having a person in authority and, possibly, a person in uniform, to deal with difficult neighbours would be really helpful in persuading unreasonable neighbours to be more circumspect in their behaviour.

This is especially so, if the DG of CRU now has specific powers to issue an abatement order against a suspected individual responsible for any act or omission causing unreasonable interference. Sir, the DG also has the powers to issue a Mediation Direction to compel parties involved in a neighbour dispute to attend mediation.

Frequently, many efforts to resolve quarrels between neighbours fail right at the start because one party simply refuse to attend the mediation. It may be because of "face". But if parties are compelled to attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre, at least there is a 70% chance, or higher, that the dispute may be resolved. If they refuse to attend the mediation, the chances of resolution is zero. At least, with compulsory mediation, each party gets to speak up about their struggles with the noise created or the obstruction or the second-hand smoke.

Experienced mediators tell me, that getting parties to speak to each other in a neutral environment helps very much in resolving disputes.

I also support the powers given under the Bill to deal with hoarders, which include the powers to make a mandatory treatment order. The effect of hoarding affects many residents. I can still recall a case few years ago, my residents invited me to visit their homes to see how their neighbour's hoarding had caused obstruction to the common area. I went down the stairs and it was cluttered by the hoarder's collection of rubbish.

For several years, these residents suffered in silence and were concerned about the obstruction, the risk of fire and the risk of having pest infestation affecting their neighbours. Thus, one hoarder would easily affect the living environment of four to five of their neighbours on the same floor. Sir, for that case, I asked the Town Council to help clear the accumulated rubbish from the home of the hoarder. I did it, again and again. But the next day, the hoarder will simply collect these rubbish in a matter of days and start accumulating them back outside his home, inside his home. When I took a peep into the home, it was full of clutter with rubbish. I do not even know how that resident got in or out of the home.

Thus, without a treatment order, the hoarding could continue indefinitely, causing grief to all the neighbours on the same floor. In the particular hoarding case in my constituency, the case was resolved by multiple visits by a social worker who eventually persuaded the hoarder to go for treatment for anxiety.

Sir, I also welcome the powers given to the Tribunal to deal with unmeritorious or vexatious proceedings. Unfortunately, sometimes, there are cases where an innocent resident faces allegation of causing noise when the noise may originate from elsewhere. His neighbour may visit him multiple times or even scold him or his family. The Police may knock on his doors late at night and he may face hostility from simply one complainant.

Sir, in such a case, I would submit that the Tribunal should also have a provision to allow relief to an innocent party who may be dragged to court unnecessarily by another resident who may blame him for the noise without any basis.

I have said, in 2015, when the Bill was enacted that this CDR Act is not a silver bullet which will resolve all neighbour disputes – and Minister Edwin Tong says it, too. I would say that, the amendments to this Bill is also not a silver bullet that will solve all neighbour disputes.

But I totally understand the Government's stand that they do not wish to legislate social behaviour and that disputes between two neighbours should be considered private disputes. I believe that, for many disputes, it is a matter of being considerate for your neighbour. Thus, the residents ought to have a discussion with their neighbours to share their concerns in an amicable manner. The golden rule or the rule of reciprocity should apply, "Do unto others what you want them to do unto you".

I do urge the Government to consider that not all disputes between neighbours are private disputes. In 2019, it was reported in the media about the "neighbours from hell" in Punggol. They had terrorised other innocent residents for several years. Sir, I would submit that, in such cases, the Police and HDB should not shy away from prosecuting unreasonable residents for being a public nuisance under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. In my view, the Police should have acted against the "resident from hell" who had harassed other neighbours unreasonably. It should not have been dealt with as a private dispute between two neighbours, but a public nuisance caused by one unreasonable person who has affected the public.

Sir, I support the Bill and I wish to seek clarifications from the Minister as follows.

First, I hear with excitement that the CRU will be set up in Tampines. Like many other Members present, we all have cases that we wish to refer to the CRU for resolution immediately and we would like the CRU to be implemented and be effective as soon as possible. I understand Minister Edwin Tong's and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann's constraints, but I do urge the Government, let us put the CRU to work as quickly as possible because all of us have many cases that we would like to refer to the CRU.

Next, Sir, I also wish to ask about the monitoring equipment or the noise sensors that can be installed to monitor the level of noise. If I heard correctly, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann has said that the equipment will not record every conversation made by the residents in the household. So, let me urge the Government that it is important to assure residents that the privacy of residents is protected and if there is no such assurance that privacy will be protected, residents are unlikely to allow the noise sensors to be installed.

Finally, Sir, I wish to compliment HDB for its efforts to promote positive social behaviour and neighbourliness. The Good Neighbour Guidebook and the Singapore Friendly Neighbourhood Award are both very good initiatives. In 2021, in Mountbatten, I had MSO officers bringing residents together under the "Love Our 'Hood" programme to look for solutions to common neighbourhood issues and they want to encourage ownership of neighbourhood issues. Sir, I want to compliment HDB or the MSO for this very good initiative.

I urge the relevant authorities to keep promoting the Singapore Kindness Movement so that more and more Singaporeans will accept that it is a norm, it is a right thing to be kind, to be considerate to others and to care for one another. If it is in our culture to be kind and considerate to one another, then there will be fewer disputes and disputes can be resolved far more easily. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

2.17 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, the CDMF was started in 2014 to facilitate effective resolutions and foster a more gracious and harmonious living environment for all Singaporeans. 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 I have some questions and concerns.

First, on the CRU. Mr Speaker, under this Bill, a new CRU is being piloted to address a small minority of severe neighbour noise disputes and hoarding cases. I know that an experimental unit will start work in Tampines. Like Mr Lim Biow Chuan before me, 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 the initial team? When is the department expected to operate at the national level covering all constituencies, just an estimate?

On the score of matters to be covered by the 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? Is it a request by one resident for mediation at the 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' disputes. However, there are many other types of disputes between neighbours. For example, disagreement over the placing of articles outside their homes, behavioural issues, smoking in one flat affecting another unit and so on.

Next, some clarifications on the qualifications of CROs. The proposed section 13C allows the DG to appoint three types of personnel to be 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, are not by way of specified training or qualification but as long as the person holds one of the appointments specified.

May I know what is the training which a public officer or an officer or employee of a Statutory Board needs to undertake to qualify as a CRO? Certainly, there is a whole range of public employees doing a whole range of work from clerical, administrative to operations across different types of agencies. So, 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 and so on.

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, at times, frustrate or delay entry, leading to removal of evidence of nuisance creation. So, how will the authorities address such contending considerations?

Next, on noise sensors. I hope the proposed deployment of noise sensors will greatly assist with the reduction of noise nuisance. Detection of noise and the 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-19, a persistent noise in the still hours of the night, every day, caused consternation among my residents from more than half the flats in a particular stack in a block in my constituency. Residents spoke to their neighbours above and below their flats. However, the source of noise remained inconclusive after many months, with some believing later that the sound had come 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 minimise noise that will cause friction between neighbours. Regarding the deployment of noise sensors by CRU officers, I know 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 complainant's flat or even in common corridors or other common areas. Will the authorities even deploy such sensors in a flat where the alleged source of noise is believed to have 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 there are neighbours who stop making noises after they were spoken to by HDB or the National Environment Agency (NEA). But after a while, the noises will return. Likewise, we often see feedback on high-rise 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 sensors have been taken off? What can be done to deter residents from playing the so-called "cat-and-mouse" game?

Mr Speaker, after the First Reading of the 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 fairer mediation and resolution of the dispute. He suggested that the Government should allow residents the option to have the use of noise sensors even 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 at CMC and thereafter. May I clarify whether such pre-mediation access to noise sensors can be considered?

Next, on 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 on noise issues from tenants, noise arising 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 very early in the morning to go to work. 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, especially 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.

Even apart from the new provisions, I always thought that HDB can also impose obligations on owners renting out their units by way of imposing appropriate covenants at the onset when tenancy is entered into and when owners are seeking permission from HDB to rent out their units. In this way, owners can be better made to understand their responsibilities in respect of their tenants and tenants can also have a better understanding of what is expected of them, especially on the issue of being considerate to their neighbours. In the worst scenario, of course, of non-cooperation, HDB can withdraw their permission for subletting.

I move next to mediation. Mr Speaker, in my speech at the Committee of Supply (COS) debate 2023, I called for mediation to be made compulsory. The rationale for my proposal in my speech at COS last year was that, and I quote, "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 own 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 in this Bill on 24 August 2024 that less than 30% of 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 have 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, therefore, glad that the Government will make mediation mandatory before one proceeds with CDRT proceedings. The Bill will also allow the CRU and the CMC 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 reasons, to the formal requirements imposed.

Mr Speaker, this Bill also allows 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 better and longer-term resolution of their disputes.

Mr Speaker, I have one other clarification. Regarding the proposed section 20, which amends the current provision of the Act allowing the application for transferring of claims from the CDRT to a Court, may I take the opportunity to just 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 normal State Court proceedings? However, if it 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.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, currently disputes between the neighbours require the residents to go to the Community Mediation Centre or to litigate at the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal, but many are reluctant to do so. I hope that the establishment of CRU will greatly improve our process of handling neighbourhood disputes.

I look forward to the swift completion of the pilot programme and campaigns. I further hope that the scope of responsibilities for CRU can be expanded beyond noise and hoarding issues. I also hope that CRU can quickly expand to cover the entire Singapore, including Hougang.

I also support the amendment to mandate attendance at mediation before cases are submitted to CDRT. In handling many neighbourhood disputes in the past, I have encountered how parties avoid attending mediation. I have araised this issue in Parliament before. I believe that mandating attendance at mediation would be a very good opportunity for all parties to resolve issues.

I support this Bill.

( In English ): 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 operation to the rest of Singapore, including Hougang.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and concerns, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

2.31 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I raised a Parliamentary Question in January this year to the Minister for Law on the number of applications for mediation on disputes between neighbors that are submitted to the CMC and the percentage that actually led to actual mediation and successful resolution. In the reply, I note that out of the 1,200 to 1,900 cases received from 2021 to 2023, less than 30% of such cases proceeded to mediation but for the cases that had, more than 80% were amicably resolved after the mediation.

This data shows that mediation is indeed an effective method to resolve neighbourly disputes but the take-up rate, based purely on voluntary volition, has been low. As such, I rise to support the Community Dispute Resolution (Amendment) Bill as it will encourage the usage of community mediation as a tool to resolve disputes at an early stage while empowering relevant public servants to investigate complex and hard-to-resolve cases of noise disputes and hoarding.

Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise clarifications on three aspects: one, the role of the CRU; two, some concerns about mandatory treatment order; and three, using CDRT route as a last resort.

One of the key amendments in the Bill is the introduction of a CRU, which will provide CROs and other dedicated personnel the powers to intervene in certain community disputes and resolve cases. During my Meet-the-People Sessions, I often encounter residents who seek help to intervene on recurrent and perennial noise or other disturbances by their neighbours. What we usually do is, first, to set up a house visit with grassroots volunteers helping to mediate and try to resolve the dispute between both parties amicably. However, in some instances, situations may improve for just a short period and then become recurrent again.

We will usually, then, advise the residents to further approach the CMC to seek assistance by trained mediators. Nonetheless, given the voluntary nature of the process, most residents shared that their neighbours, whom they have disputes with, are mostly unwilling to attend the mediation. This usually further frustrates the residents, especially the complainants, as they feel that they have no further recourse to resolve the conflicts and some remain fearful of backlash from neighbours whom they had raised complaints against.

The new section 13M of the Bill provides for a Mediation Direction that can be issued by a CRO to parties involved in a complaint or dispute. Additionally, failure to comply with this Mediation Direction can be constituted as an offence under the law. I am very supportive of this new initiative as it will ensure that more individuals enter necessary mediation as a course of action in resolving their disputes.

However, I would like to raise two concerns. Firstly, the Bill allows for a complaint to be dismissed if it is deemed "trivial, frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith". While I understand the need to deal with baseless complaints, I am concerned that individuals with legitimate grievances may have their cases prematurely dismissed. Thus, I would like to ask how a fair process of evaluation of such cases will be carried out by the newly formed CRU.

Secondly, I am concerned for the privacy and safety of individuals who may have been targeted for vexatious complaints. While the Bill addresses the dismissal of frivolous complaints, there is little mention of measures to safeguard the privacy and safety of individuals from being repeatedly harassed by baseless, malicious complaints.

In the same way, complainants who act in good faith may face retaliation from unreasonable neighbors whom they raised a legitimate complaint against. I would like to ask if more proactive measures by the CRU could be implemented to protect individuals involved in disputes from harassment or retaliation. This could include offering some form of legal protection to them against the other party when directed mediation process is ongoing.

Secondly, one of the more sensitive aspects of the Bill is the provision of mandatory psychiatric treatment for individuals whose mental health conditions contribute to unreasonable interference to their neighbours in a new section 12A.

Currently, in my constituency, for complex neighbor disputes of undue interference caused by individuals who are suspected to be suffering from psychiatric conditions, we involve the IMH Community Mental Health Team or the Community Intervention Teams from social service agencies to assess individuals, while respecting their privacy and require that they or their family members provide the necessary informed consent for the mental health assessment to be done. However, in our current approach, obtaining consent could be challenging. As such, provisions in section 12A can be useful in bringing resolution to such circumstances.

Nonetheless, I believe that unless individuals become an immediate danger to themselves or others, the confidentiality of their psychiatric condition and their medical treatment rights should be duly protected and respected, even from parties involved in the disputes. Although I understand and support the initiation of the order by the Court on an application by the DG of CRU, I would like to seek clarifications regarding the safeguards for confidentiality and protection to be put in place on residents undergoing a mandatory treatment order.

Lastly, I am encouraged by the statistics from MinLaw regarding the effectiveness of CDRT. As shared by the Ministry, between January 2021 to December 2023, there are only 14 enforcement orders made by the CDRT. This shows the high rate of compliance with CDRT orders. However, as shared by the Ministry, despite the effectiveness of CDRT, similar to the CMC route, many residents might not choose to pursue CDRT enforcement proceedings even if they have valid grounds to do so, due to the perception of cost and tedious process involved in this legal avenue.

In this regard, I would like to ask what has been done to simplify the CDRT enforcement process and make it easier for residents to ensure non-compliance is effectively acted upon.

Mr Speaker, allow me to speak some words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support the Community Disputes Resolution Amendment Bill.

This Bill encourages residents to use community mediation at the early stages of disputes and establishes a CRU, empowering CRO with enforcement and basic mediation experience to intervene and investigate such disputes. I believe this will lead to more effective resolution of community disputes.

During my weekly Meet-the-People Session, I often see residents repeatedly complaining about noise and hoarding issues caused by their neighbours. These problems often lack long-term solutions.

Although CMC has a high mediation success rate of 80%, many residents are unwilling to participate due to the voluntary nature of mediation, making it difficult to thoroughly resolve issues. Therefore, I support the establishment of CRU, which gives them the authority to issue mediation directions, mandating disputing parties to accept mediation.

This will help encourage more residents to participate in mediation and prevent disputes from escalating.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill has the potential to resolve community disputes more efficiently and amicably by ensuring mediation and empowering public servants in the new CRU to address complex cases.

By piloting and eventually scaling up the CRU with public servants given the appropriate authorities, ensuring safeguards in mandatory psychiatry treatment order and promoting CDRT as a final resort, while ensuring the enforceability of CDRT orders, will all contribute to residents being able to benefit from more resolved disputes and having a positive experience through the process. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

2.40 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): Sir, the Ministry's efforts to enhance and tighten the Community Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA) are welcomed by many groups and the general public.

The Workers' Party and I support this amendment Bill. I would like to seek explanations and obtain clarifications on some matters related to this amendment Bill.

Firstly, one of the new efforts to be implemented is the use of sensors or monitoring devices to capture sounds and the like, which may be used as evidence in tribunal sessions. This is stated in the new section 13H.

Sir, this is a very good and useful initiative especially for flat owners or homeowners who are elderly and are not savvy in using recording devices or technology especially the latest and cutting-edge devices. However, I would like to ask whether the homeowner will be charged any fee for the use of these devices. I am asking this because there are certain groups who may feel reluctant if fees are imposed for certain reasons. If fees are to be charged, I request that exemptions be considered for those in need.

Sir, the new section 13C is about the establishment of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) as well as the granting of powers to the appointed Community Relations Officer. The establishment of the CRU with specific powers is, indeed, necessary. Earlier, Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann explained about the functions and operations of the CRU. I would like to get a bit more clarification on how CRU operates.

I hope there will be clarification on whether this CRU operates similarly to the police, where the public can contact this unit at any time, late at night or early morning, to get assistance in stopping disturbances from neighbours at that very moment.

Sir, next I would like to seek clarification on two situations that occur frequently among neighbours in HDB housing estates and whether Bill will cover both situations that I will mention.

Firstly, I believe the members of this House and HDB are often approached and contacted about the payment of compensation for cases of leaks that cause damage to kitchen cabinets, appliances and equipment and treatment costs for cases where the flat occupant get injured due to slippery floors caused by ceiling and pipe leaks originating from clogged pipes in the neighbour's home upstairs.

Some of the cases that I highlighted are situations where HDB conducted visits and advised the neighbour not to use the kitchen tap in the kitchen sink, but this advice is not heeded by the homeowner, which caused the leak to worsen and cause more damage to the property of the neighbour below. I understand that HDB will advise affected flat residents to contact their neighbours and seek compensation for damages incurred or medical costs.

Sir, it should be acknowledged that it is not easy for affected flat owners to obtain compensation as this will only happen if their neighbours are willing to do so. From what I understand, in situations where the neighbour does not agree, the party seeking compensation need to file a civil claim. As we know, such matters cannot be brought to the Small Claims Tribunal.

Sir, I would like to seek clarification whether, in such cases, can the affected flat owners use the CMC channel and, if the situation warrants it, file their case at CDRT? I am of the view that such issues involving neighbours are better handled by CDRT on the basis that they involve aspects and elements of neighbourliness and community relations. Furthermore, in comparing the CDRT legal process and civil claims, the civil claims process is more complicated and challenging.

Another situation that I consider to be a neighbourhood issue is disputes involving business owners operating in commercial units located below HDB flats, which are typically found in four-storey blocks of flats.

Sir, in Section 4(4a) and (4b) of the existing Act, "A neighbour of a respondent is an individual who lawfully resides in a place of residence: (a) that is in the same building as the respondent's place of residence; or (b) that is within 100 metres of the respondent's place of residence." Based on this explanation, this Act does not include situations where there is a dispute between a flat owner who is neighbours with the owner or tenant of a commercial unit in the same block within 100 metres of the place where the respondent's residence is located.

I would like to share a situation in my constituency where some flat owners are neighbours with a commercial unit that runs a business manufacturing and selling pastries and cakes. I have been approached by several flat owners who complained that their quality of life is adversely affected by heat, odours and early morning noise coming from a commercial unit located on the ground floor of the same block.

My complaints have been passed on to HDB and NEA several times over the years. Most recently, a few months ago, I was approached by an affected homeowner who made a complaint and asked for help to have something done. The person told me that some of the neighbours who previously complained had moved to other areas because they could no longer endure the physical and mental suffering caused by the heat, odours and noise produced by the commercial unit.

Sir, in this case, although complaints have been channelled to the relevant Government agencies and I believe these agencies have taken all possible measures to find the best solution, from what I understand, based on the sharing by the flat owner who came to see me, the complaints about have not been satisfactorily resolved. This has led to several flat owners moving to other areas to protect their health and their families' health.

I believe the new cases that I shared are also happening in other HDB housing estates. Here, I would like to suggest that future amendments to the CDR Act is further expanded to include commercial units located in HDB blocks, not just residential units alone.

Sir, before concluding this speech, I would like to suggest introducing an order for mandatory counselling sessions. The resolution of disputes between neighbours through the tribunal process may not be a permanent solution if the root cause or main issue is not addressed. Disputed issues often stem from a lack of awareness and understanding about the need for tolerance, mutual respect, consideration and effective communication in discussing contentious issues. By attending counselling sessions, it is hoped that the spirit of unity and neighbourliness can be fostered and strengthened among the parties facing disputes.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

2.49 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the proposed amendments in the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill.

Most of us in this Chamber have received appeals from our residents for help to resolve disputes amongst neighbours. The most common dispute I receive, is that of noise disputes. In the last few years, although not in large numbers, I am seeing an increased number of appeals from residents for assistance to resolve severe or persistent noise disturbances. Some of these cases have dragged on with no resolution, despite attempts to engage neighbours to seek mediation.

These cases are not one-off or occasional incidences, but happen almost daily and usually late at night or in the early hours of the morning. The noise range from sudden loud bangs caused by objects being dropped abruptly, dragging of furniture, slamming of doors, sounds from banging of walls, loud and heavy footsteps. Residents facing such situations have sleep disruptions and suffer from sleep deprivation. Residents come to seek help because they are unable to resolve these issues with their neighbours, either because their neighbours deny causing the noise or do not even respond when attempts are made to engage.

For one of my residents, the noise disturbance happens daily at night and affects his brother and his sleep. The situation has resulted in a worsening of their chronic conditions, including their heart condition. He has tried to engage his neighbour, but the neighbour denies making the noise and after approaching the neighbour, the noise has instead got louder! He and his brother are finding it unbearable to continue living in the flat as they cannot get proper rest each day. They are prepared to sell their flat despite only recently moving in to the unit and having spent quite a large sum to renovate the flat. As they must fulfil their Minimum-Occupation-Period, they do not have the option to sell or move out of the flat and must continue to live in such conditions detrimental to their health.

For another household, the noise disturbance they face is affecting their sleep and impacting their concentration at work. They have tried to engage their neighbour and, again, the noise persists.

A few weeks ago, another resident came to see me at our Meet-the-People Session for help. The issue she is facing is sudden door slamming that happens in the middle of the night. This disrupts her sleep. She shared that this happens several times through the night and has been going on for quite some time. I was shocked, because when I looked at her, her eyes were really black and she had rings around her eyes, clearly the result of lack of sleep.

In all these cases, attempts were made to reach out to their neighbours for an amicable solution. However, their neighbours denied making the noise and HDB's help was also sought to assist, but the source of the noise was not easy to determine, especially as it happens late at night or in the early hours of the morning.

Residents were advised to go to CMC for mediation. If their neighbour does not agree to the community mediation, they have the option, of course, to take the case to CDRT. The problem for many of my residents is that they do not feel comfortable escalating the case to CDRT because they feel that taking the legal route will be too confrontational and will make the situation even more complicated.

I will discuss two areas in my speech today. One, is the ehancements to the mediation process and the processes and powers of CDRT and, two, the framework for neighbour noise dispute resolution for high-rise living.

I welcome the proposed enhancements to the mediation framework to allow CMC or the proposed new CRU to make mediation mandatory. Currently, attending mediation is voluntary. For many of the cases, I have shared, the other party does not respond to mediation or refuses to attend mediation. The problem then drags on.

The proposed amendments also gives the CRU authority to investigate severe noise nuisance cases, including the ability to order noise sensors to be placed in homes and to get objective evidence of noise levels to issue warnings or abatement orders. This strengthening of the mediation process will ensure that neighbours attend mediation, the collection of objective data if needed and require the parties to take appropriate action to resolve the noise situation.

The proposed enhancements will also allow neighbours who have reached a mediation settlement to register the agreement with CDRT. Once registered, the settlement, as the Minister has said, will give more bite to the order and it must be complied with. This will give more weight to the mediation process.

With the proposed strengthening of the mediation process, I am glad that CDRT continues to be the avenue of last resort. This is currently the case, as cases to go to CDRT must have gone through the mediation process first and had fail to be resolved. The proposed amendments also enhances the CDRT processes and gives it more power. This will allow the CDRT to consider relevant evidence that CRU officers have gathered, issue interim orders facilitating faster relief as well as mandatory treatment orders for those believed to be causing disturbances due to mental health conditions.

I do, however, have some clarifications regarding the amendments to CMC, the new CRU and CDRT. Will the proposed enhancements to the mediation process and framework, that is, mandatory mediation and, if mediation settlement is reached, registration of the settlement with CDRT, be effective immediately to all cases attending mediation, if the Bill is approved? Will the enhanced CDRT processes and powers be available for current CDRT cases?

Let me touch on the framework for resolving high-rise neighbour disputes. I hope that the proposed enhancements to the mediation framework and the work of the new CRU will provide learnings and insights on neighbour disputes and resolution, especially noise disputes. In densely-populated Singapore, most of us live in high-rise homes, both public HDB flats and private apartments in condominiums.

With the insights from CRU and the strengthened mediation and CDRT process, I hope that it will give better understanding of how to manage noise in daily living in high-rise homes and the causes of noise disturbances in such living conditions. With a better understanding of the causes of noise disturbances, hopefully, this can better inform those living in high-rise homes and lead to empathy and consideration from all parties. Insights gleaned will also guide HDB and private developers in the design and types of materials to use to minimise noise between units in high-rise apartments. So, I hope the insights will be made available to the relevant parties.

As the proposed CRU will be a pilot that will run for a year starting with Tampines, I would like to seek clarification on whether CRU will also be available to assist with severe cases in other Towns and those living in private apartments facing severe neighbour disputes.

While like the others in the House, who have asked for the expansion of the CRU to be able to handle other severe cases, unlike others, I am actually hoping that we do not have to scale the CRU too much. Because if we do, then it really means that society and neighbourly relations are really breaking down.

The proposed amendments are significant. These include the new CRU with the authority to investigate cases, including the ability to order noise sensors to be placed in homes to get objective evidence of noise levels and to issue warnings or abatement orders. At the same time, the amendments will also enable HDB to compulsorily acquire any HDB dwelling where the owner or authorised person has been convicted of an abatement offence or exclusion offence. So, these are quite severe actions.

So, I do like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what measures will be put in place to safeguard against the abuse and ensure that the powers are exercised appropriately?

Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the proposed amendment, as there is a need to resolve cases of severe neighbour dispute, I must admit that I am, at the same time, somewhat concerned. Are bonds amongst neighbours in our communities so broken that we now need to resort to having the Government step in to resolving neighbourly noise disputes? I do not think so, as I regularly witness many examples of strong and healthy relationships amongst neighbours.

While the proposed amendments strive for effective dispute resolution amongst neighbours, with the hope of building a stronger, more gracious and harmonious home for all in the community, it will require all of us to continue to work on strengthening our bonds in the community and friendships amongst neighbours. This will help facilitate issues getting resolved early amongst neighbours and not develop into long standing disputes. There is a role for CMC, CRU and CDRT for the exceptions; and I say exceptions and severe disputes, but we must not let it become the avenue for all neighbour disputes. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.00 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, 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.

Sir, the 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 will be a resource-intensive exercise, requiring standby teams after office hours and active management of difficult cases by the new DG of community relations. The work will not be easy.

As there are many MPs speaking on this Bill, I will be succinct. But 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 DG 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, the 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”. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann touched on this point earlier as well.

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 CRU, the CDRT processes and HDB’s increased powers.

First, on the 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. 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 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. Earlier, Minister Edwin Tong touched on this point. 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? Will this change somehow allow, for example, 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, Sir, 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 section 63(o) of the Housing and 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?

Sir, clarity on the questions I have raised would be necessary. That said, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

3.07 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill which must strike close to the heart of all my fellow elected Members in this House. As part of our constituency work, it is not uncommon to encounter disputes among residents ranging from noise complaints, storage of personal items along HDB corridors, second-hand smoke and surveillance or harassment.

CDRT and neighbour disputes. The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) was set up in October 2015 as part of our Community Dispute Management Framework. Based on the answers to earlier Parliamentary Questions, we know that 380 cases were filed with the CDRT from 2015 to 2019. Therefore, since COVID-19 hit, how many more cases have been filed with the CDRT each year?

Mr Speaker, while I welcome the present amendments to enhance the dispute resolution procedures, part of me cannot help seeing a "missed opportunity" to clarify certain social norms, which could help to avoid such disputes in the first place. Take noise-related issues for example.

One common complaint from residents is the loud and rowdy activities by neighbours at night, whether from a house party or playing the piano, during sleeping hours. But what are sleeping hours? To a university student, that might mean midnight. To those of us in our 40s and 50s, that might mean 10 pm. But to young parents with newborns or toddlers, sleeping hours could start even earlier at 9 pm or even 8 pm.

While I am sure most Singaporeans are considerate and do not go out of the way to disturb others' sleep, such misalignment in expectations can cause understandable frustration. Some countries, like New Zealand, have quiet hours when noise levels must be kept below a certain level. A similar benchmark might help to prevent some of these noise-related squabbles from arising.

At the same time, we should also be conscious of over-prescription and the importance of some give-and-take. For example, where personal items stored along HDB corridors do not cause any fire or other hazards, I believe that the authorities have also not strictly enforced the official "no storage" rule. We cannot let rules override common sense.

One helpful development I have noticed on the ground is the creation of Telegram or WhatsApp chats for a particular HDB BTO estate, or for a particular block. A resident can highlight any issue in real-time, even including excessive noise from common areas like the estate's basketball and badminton courts, which will elicit approving or disapproving responses from other neighbours. My only concern is whether any moderating is required so that no single resident will feel bullied or isolated.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, in English, please. Despite the enhancement of the CDRT’s powers and procedures in this Bill, I am glad to note MCCY’s position that the CDRT should remain an “avenue of last resort” and that we will further encourage the use of community mediation to help neighbours reach an amicable resolution.

One such move is to enable the certain specified persons to direct the disputing parties to the CMC or any other mediation organisation for mediation. I note that the new section 13M states that such specified persons “may” direct, which suggests that there is still a discretion. May I ask why are we not making this mandatory, especially when it appears that we are making mediation a prerequisite before an individual can commence a claim of unreasonable interference?

I have cases ongoing in Toa Payoh East, with long-standing nature of dispute that lasts 10 years and ineffectiveness of previous mediation attempts, unwillingness of both parties to compromise have led to such long instances. More recently, in Toa Payoh, we have quite a number of seniors staying alone, and some have come to me to seek help because of noise disturbances, and despite their efforts to talk to their neighbours, it has gone on for quite a while and it has affected their sleep and health. I think some Members have mentioned this as well. The question is the fact that some of them have come to me to seek help to move house despite staying in Toa Payoh for so long. So, such efforts of mediation, I think, is very important.

This same discretion that CDRT already has today after a claim has been commenced is actually something that I ought to mention.

Minister Shanmugam previously shared in 2019 that the CDRT has made a mandatory mediation order in 25% of the cases. Is this not a very small proportion? In my view, parties should generally be compelled to attempt mediation unless there is a very good reason not to. Further, I have read that less than 30% of the total cases registered at the CMC proceed to mediation. What are the reasons for the more than 70% of cases which fails to proceed?

As I mentioned earlier, the amendments also make it necessary for a party to obtain either a certificate of mediation to show that he or she has attempted mediation, or a certificate of waiver of mediation showing that mediation is unsuitable, before he or she can start a claim for unreasonable interference with the CDRT. Who can issue the certificate to certify that mediation is unsuitable for a particular case?

Mr Speaker, the Bill will also establish a CRU, I think some Members have already mentioned, comprising of CROs and ACROs. I think some Members have already asked when will the year-long pilot in Tampines commence? I will reiterate the same points again, whether other areas can be covered? The question is, whether it can be covered concurrently? I know that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that it would start as soon as second quarter of 2025. I think I will reiterate those points again and I think the Senior Minister of State is probably going to hear this from the next few Members.

For the pilot programme, may I ask the Minister, how many CROs and ACROs will be appointed? Is that calculated by a percentage of the resident population and by local area divisions, and what would be their terms of appointment? In particular, would the appointment be for a fixed duration and would the CROs and ACROs receive additional remuneration or allowance for taking on this new appointment on top of their current job scopes?

While CROs will either be police officers, public officers or statutory body employees, ACROs may be an auxiliary police officer or an individual who has “suitable training” to properly exercise the powers of an ACRO. What would such “suitable training” entail? Who will conduct such training?

Importantly, may I clarify if the Minister contemplates the appointment of grassroots leaders as ACROs at some future time? As the new section 13F provides that CROs and ACROs will be considered “public servants” under the Penal Code, it is necessary to properly educate them on the offences under sections 161 to 165 of the Penal Code so that they do not inadvertently commit an offence by accepting any gift or token of appreciation from grateful residents after helping to resolve any community dispute.

Finally, I welcome, Mr Speaker, the amendments that would allow the CRU to apply to the CDRT for a court order to address hoarding.

In my Toa Payoh East constituency, there are a good number of older HDB blocks that have smaller flat types, narrower corridors and stairwells. From time to time, my grassroots leaders and I have had to visit some residents who have accumulated stuff to fill their entire unit and the adjoining common areas, usually upon feedback provided by other neighbouring residents. I think some instances are similar to Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan's case where they are not sure how they can enter the unit.

Often, we would find that the affected resident cannot help but fall back into his or her hoarding habits, even after we have assisted with clearing up some of the stuff along with the Town Council. Would it also be possible for such a person to be directed to undergo psychiatric treatment? The new section 11A does not seem to provide for that.

With the new section 11A, the CRU can apply for a CDRT order to declutter a residential unit where the resident is unwilling or unable to do so despite a notice or advisory by a CRO, a public officer, an officer or employee of a Statutory Board or a person exercising a public official function.

Would a grassroots advisor or MP be "a person exercising a public official function", who can issue the notice or advisory to remove or dispose of clutter? Is there any form or template that the notice or advisory should be in?

For the resident alleged to be hoarding, what recourse does he or she have when confronted with a CRU application for a CDRT order to declutter his or her unit? For example, the resident may take the view that certain items are not "of low or no value or utility", which is a precondition for a CDRT order under the new section 11A.

Mr Speaker, ultimately, we must all recognise that the enhanced powers in this Bill should really be the last resort when it comes to cultivating and maintaining harmonious neighbourly relations. The first step should always be to proactively build neighbourly ties and encourage consideration for one another, by encouraging residents to step out of their homes to personally befriend others that share the residential estate and space. When disputes occur and they are unavoidable from time to time, especially when staying in an HDB flat and you are too close to one another, dialogue and engagement on all sides should be facilitated. And I am most grateful for the People's Association staff and volunteers for facilitating that all these years, in Toa Payoh East and in other constituencies, even without the enhanced community dispute resolution powers in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill and I look forward to the CRU being implemented across-the-board.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

3.17 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, which addresses longstanding issues arising from neighbourly disputes.

Intransigent neighbours who engage in abusive behaviour, littering, hoarding, vandalism and noise pollution have long been a serious issue at the municipal level. Even if such cases are relatively few in numbers, they have a profound impact on victims. Affected neighbours may feel an overwhelming and deep sense of helplessness at their neighbours who are engaging in ungracious behaviour.

Since 2015, we have established the CDRTs to create a specialised process to resolve community disputes. CDRTs are used as a measure of last resort to resolve community disputes. However, some will choose to ignore or flout CDRT orders. The enhancements made in this Bill can help to address some of these concerns, as it seeks to tighten the Act and provide more effective tools for dispute resolution.

One of the most significant and attention-grabbing provisions in this Bill are in Part 3, which grants HDB new powers to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner, or a specified authorised occupier, has, amongst other requirements, been convicted of an abatement offence or exclusion offence under the Community Disputes Resolution Act .

This new provision is drastic but necessary to enforce compliance. It underscores the importance that we place on good neighbourliness and harmonious community relations in a densely populated society.

While we support this provision as an absolute last resort, we would seek clarifications from the Government to ensure that there will be appropriate checks and balances in the enforcement of this provision. Based on HDB, CMC and CDRT's analysis of past cases, how many cases of compulsory flat acquisition can we expect in a given year?

Under clause 36 of the Bill, compulsory acquisition is only allowed if the owner or occupier has been convicted of at least two abatement offences or exclusion offences, or had at least one other abatement offence or exclusion offence which was either compounded or taken into consideration for sentencing. But what if both offences were met in relation to the same incident? If the flat is compulsorily acquired in such a scenario, the offender may not have been given sufficient latitude to fully appreciate the gravity of their offence under the law. I seek more clarifications from the Minister on how this provision will be judiciously enforced, especially in cases where the root of the issue may lie in a lack of understanding of the law due to educational or mental health challenges.

Next, the Progress Singapore Party would like to seek assurances from HDB on the formula for compensation. In a Parliamentary reply in October 2022, Minister Desmond Lee told the House that "HDB's compensation policy for flats that are compulsorily acquired takes into account various factors, including the severity of the infringement and the circumstances of the case, as well as the administrative and holding costs in acquiring the flat. The policy also ensures that flat owners who infringe the rules will not enjoy undue financial gains." Would compensation for flats compulsorily acquired under clause 36 of the Bill be similarly determined?

I would also like to highlight the provisions in the new section 13K, which empowers the CDRT to dismiss complaints deemed vexatious or made in bad faith. I would appreciate if the Minister could provide examples of such cases or include more detailed descriptions of these terms in subsidiary legislation. Will there be appropriate legal training for CDRT officers to make such determinations? Furthermore, when such complaints are dismissed, does the complainant have any recourse? If not, what safeguards are in place against possible abuse by CDRT officers?

Finally, Mr Speaker, the new section 18A requiring parties to go to the CMC before the CDRT is, in our view, a good one. It encourages a more conciliatory approach before invoking the powers of the Tribunal. It is also important for the CDRT to put in place systems to avoid or minimise situations where CROs handling these cases happen to live in the same block or nearby blocks and may know the parties involved. This could potentially create situations of perceived bias, especially given the limited ability to appeal many classes of orders.

In closing, while this Bill is tough, it provides necessary measures to tackle issues that have disrupted the lives of many residents. It gives voice and power to those who have suffered at the hands of recalcitrant neighbours. However, the use of severe measures must always be tempered with fairness and sensitivity to the unique circumstances of each case.

As such, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify some of the points that I have raised and provide the necessary assurances that these new powers will be exercised judiciously and with due respect to all parties involved.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.24 pm until 3.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill: Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

3.45 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill. In a densely populated and diverse society like Singapore, harmonious living is crucial.

The proposed amendments should make conflict resolutions faster and more robust, ideally reducing the need for formal legal actions.

While I support the Bill, I would like to raise some points for further clarification and offer a few suggestions.

This Bill significantly expands the powers of CROs, empowering them to issue abatement orders and, in certain cases, to enter residences to help address serious disturbances. While these powers aim to help CROs address disputes swiftly, I would like to seek further clarity on the aspects of this new role.

First, regarding selection criteria: clause 13C of the Bill specifies that CROs must be public officers, police officers, or statutory body employees. If CROs are drawn from existing enforcement roles, how will this complement their current responsibilities? Could this potentially increase their workload, and if so, what measures will the Government take to ensure that service levels remain consistent with these added duties?

Second, as CROs will be handling complex disputes that may not always involve clear regulatory breaches, could the Ministry clarify the specific training they will receive? Given the sensitive nature of cases involving vulnerable groups, cultural practices, or longstanding neighborhood disagreements, will CROs be trained in de-escalation techniques, cultural sensitivity and empathetic communication? Additionally, could their training include community engagement methods to help them foster peaceful resolutions and address conflicts with the understanding needed to promote harmony within our communities?

Next, I seek clarification on the limits of the discretionary powers granted to CROs. What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of these powers, and how will consistency be maintained, especially in minor cases that could escalate if not handled properly? Clear oversight mechanisms would help address concerns raised, ensuring that CROs operate within a well-defined framework.

On the topic of mandatory mediation, I support the Bill’s emphasis on mediation as a means to preserve relationships and reduce hostility. Given the Minister's clarification that the Bill makes it an offence not to attend mediation, are there measures to ensure that respondents not only attend but engage meaningfully in the mediation process? If respondents do not engage meaningfully, claimants may be left without any effective resolution and may result in more friction instead.

Madam, I also seek clarification on the definition of "unreasonable interference" in this Bill. While the amendments provide additional detail, with clause 4(2) specifying types of interference covered, I would like to confirm whether acts or omissions outside these categories are still actionable, or if the scope has been intentionally narrowed. If the intent was indeed to narrow the scope, could the Ministry elaborate on the reasoning behind this change? Understanding this would help clarify the Bill's approach to handling different types of disputes.

It is good that the Bill defines specific types of "unreasonable interference", as this provides clearer guidance for handling disputes. However, to ensure consistency, objective standards may still be necessary. Without them, the definition could remain open to subjective interpretation, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes. For example, in cases of noise disturbances, would the Ministry consider introducing sound thresholds or time-based guidelines? Establishing such standards could help reduce misunderstandings and foster peaceful coexistence.

Singapore’s religious diversity is a great strength, but it requires careful handling of disputes involving religious practices. While this Bill provides mechanisms to address these issues, there may be room to further strengthen provisions for inter-religious conflicts.

Singapore’s existing platforms, such as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) and the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO), play a valuable role in fostering interfaith harmony and understanding. To strengthen these efforts further, could the Ministry consider formalising a mediation framework that leverages these groups specifically for disputes with religious undertones?

By providing structured support in the mediation process, we could ensure that culturally sensitive disputes are managed with greater consistency and formal recognition, thereby fostering mutual respect and understanding across our communities.

Finally, the Bill holds landlords accountable if their tenants cause unreasonable disturbances. While I support this provision, I would like clarification on what constitutes "compliance" in managing such disputes.

Specifically, to what extent are landlords expected to intervene, and what protection is available for those who make genuine efforts but cannot resolve the issue? A clear framework outlining reasonable steps for landlords would provide both clarity and fairness, ensuring they are not penalised for situations beyond their control.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the amendments in this Bill represents a significant step forward in helping to foster communities that are not only harmonious but also compassionate and respectful of our diverse cultural landscape. With that, I give my full support to the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

3.52 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, the CDRA was passed to ensure that no person should cause unreasonable interference with his neighbours’ enjoyment or use of their residence.

It is unfortunate that we need to introduce an amendment Bill to empower Government agencies with additional regulatory tools to resolve community disputes. While these are necessary to bring relief to some long- suffering residents, it is a reflection and indictment of our community. We must intensify our public education programmes and outreach to remind all residents to be more considerate towards their neighbours as we live in a high-density environment.

I support the proposed changes to direct residents to make use of community mediation as early as possible to resolve their disputes. Presently, about 70% of registered cases cannot be resolved because one or more parties refuse to take part. With legislation compelling all parties to attend mediation when directed by the authorised agencies, we can expect better communication and clearer understanding of one another’s issues and perspectives, increasing the chances of cooperation and compromise to resolve disputes.

However, there is still an important role for our teams of dedicated grassroots leaders and volunteers to mediate in community disputes. In addition to fixing physical problems, such as hoarding and noise pollution, these teams also work closely with the IRCC to help resolve disputes which may threaten religious and racial harmony.

For cases of noise disruptions, even with the assistance of noise sensors, resolving such cases may remain challenging for the CRU to be set up. What is acceptable and reasonable to one may not be acceptable to others. Tolerance levels with respect to the volume of the noise, frequency and timings vary with different people. Residents may have different rest hours due to shift work.

Hence, I would like to ask the Ministry how it will make assessments and recommendations where the criteria is subjective, and convince all parties that it is being fair and even-handed?

Madam, our grassroots volunteers have also tried and managed to locate the source of the noise that – found out – are few levels above and has travelled to the complainant unit while the complainant has been wrongly insisting the noise came from the unit immediately above. It is also interesting to note that the units in between have no issue with the noise travelling.

My final point is regarding the number of cases involving mental health illnesses. With our rapidly ageing population, we will have more cases of mental illness related to ageing, such as dementia, in addition to cases in our general population. Are our agencies ready to cope with the increased demand on their resources? How will we retain the volunteer mediators and prevent them from burning out on the jobs?

As for those ordered to seek treatment for their mental health issues, how can we ensure that they will remain compliant and sustain their treatments and medications? Do neighbours have effective and expedient recourse if they refuse to be compliant? Actions against them may also hurt the rest of the family. What support is there to assist such family members in dealing with difficult and uncooperative mental health patients?

Madam, it is important for our community and Government agencies to keep a balance approach in resolving neighbourly disputes. We need to encourage better cooperation and build more tolerance, while being more considerate and sensitive to the needs of others. On this note, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.

3.57 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon Ministers for taking their time to outline the rubric and framework of the proposed amendments with a strong preference for mediation rather than leaning too strongly on legislation.

In discussing legislation to resolve community disputes, it does stir some unease in me but the reassurance from the Ministers is something I appreciate.

On one hand, a structured legal framework for community dispute resolution is helpful. It ensures protection of individuals – in terms of their rights to a comfortable personal living space and to safety in their place of dwelling. It lends equitability in access to justice, and also halts any potential escalation and protraction of neighbourly conflicts.

However, on the other hand, we must be vigilant against being overly reliant on legislation as a tool of resolving community disputes and we continue to encourage social responsibility and good neighbourly behaviours. As mentioned by the hon Minister earlier is not a silver bullet. At its extreme, the hardened legislation potentially and paradoxically risks polarisation and adversarial relationships in our communities and our neighbourhoods.

Inadvertently, if not handled or framed well, it could leave us with lesser room for flexibility, to give and take, to have informal dialogue as well as to partake in negotiation or mediation processes at the level of community.

Even as the Ministry proposes this Bill, it bears reminding that we must always consider that an underpinning premise of this Act is to ensure a reasonable and timely resolution of community disputes before they get worse, that this Bill is but one small part of our greater collective effort in fostering social cohesion and that we are resolute in wanting to protect what is reasonable, what is fair and just neighbourly conduct for our communities.

I have queries and comments which I hope the Ministry would be able to clarify.

Firstly, on the new section 11 on Order to Address Hoarding. Could the Minister clarify the progress and challenges of the inter-agency Hoarding Task Force and Hoarding Management Core Group thus far, and what lessons have been gleaned in the past? I gather there have been challenges in addressing the issue of hoarding in our estates, to the extent that such behaviours could present as physically dangerous to others, pose a fire hazard and confer public health or hygiene concerns.

In enacting this proposed amendment to the Act, understanding the challenges on the ground will reassure the House that there is indeed sufficient need to grant powers to the assigned community relations officer to enter a place of residence, with or without consent, for the removal of hazardous hoarded items.

This new section, in my view, presents as a shift towards greater intervention from the authorities against the backdrop of the individual's right to choose how they wish to upkeep and maintain their own home. Where it has been assessed that there are sufficient grounds to intervene, I am in support of this particular amendment.

Secondly, on the new section 12A on the introduction of the MTO. I wish to register my concern over the introduction of this section. To my knowledge, and I stand advised, this is the first time we are introducing the construct of an MTO as part of an escalation pathway to community disputes, specifically and directly as part of the Act.

The MTO has only previously been used under the auspices of sentencing after a crime has been committed, from which it was assessed that there was a strong contributory link between the criminal conduct and a person's mental illness. Hence, as part of the crime sentencing framework, the person is mandated to seek treatment under the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC.

Could the Minister share with us why the Ministry has opted for the inclusion of an MTO in this Act specifically, and how its application will be distinctive, or otherwise, from the MTO ordered under the CPC?

If it is the case that the mentally disordered person is so unwell and clearly so requiring mental health treatment as well, can the intent of granting access to treatment for this person be circumscribed under the existing provisions of the Mental Healthcare and Treatment Act, for example?

If it is the case that a person is so recalcitrant to the extent of egregious public nuisance or non-adherence to Court orders, even under the influence of mental illness, would that not then constitute as an offence that could be sentenced under community orders or MTO anyway, under the current CPC framework?

And if it is the case that the CRO is already authorised, with or without consent, to remove items of public risk and concern, as proposed under the new section 11, is this not sufficient to address and then resolve the community dispute, rather than adding on a further amendment and order for the person to be sentenced to mandatory treatment?

I can understand and appreciate that the MTO is intended to close the loop and take a further preventive approach on the issue, in that a person who exhibits hoarding behaviours or other behaviours of neighbourly concerns on account of mental illness, needs to be treated and it will be better for him or her. I do not disagree on this premise.

However – and I say this with much respect to the elected Parliamentarians here, the variety of challenges that their residents face and the various complaints that they regularly receive on the ground, in the context of a community dispute and before any crime is committed – I wonder if the inclusion of an MTO through this Bill stretches the argument past the need for public and social justice, and encroaches into what could be well within a person's autonomy to decide on treatment for him or herself.

There are indeed many people, Mdm Deputy Speaker, who have mental or physical illnesses, who choose not to be treated for their ailments for a variety of reasons. As a medical practitioner, it is something that I neither condone nor encourage, but I think we should be circumspect of the limits of intervention in the case of community disputes.

If the central concern of dispute, which as articulated in the Act, is an "unreasonable interference" in relation to a neighbour of an individual, if it has been addressed and mitigated sufficiently, it should still remain within the autonomy of the individual whether to seek treatment for his or her condition. We can encourage, we can help the person see reason for treatment, and we can facilitate such a possibility, but to make it legally mandatory and enforceable is something rather different in my view.

If a person, notwithstanding his or her mental disorder, adopts a position that still resolves the "unreasonable interference" but does not wish to seek treatment, should that not be respected and be considered acceptable, even as we consider the challenging situations in the context of the proposed amendments? I do look forward to the responses from the Ministry.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

4.05 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the Ministry staff, grassroots leaders, volunteers and residents who contribute much effort and time to provide feedback and suggestions to enhance this piece of legislation. Requests for disputes resolution has been in greater demand, especially for noise disturbances and encroachment in common areas. I have some questions for the Ministers.

One of the key enhancements to the CDRT is to empower it to issue a MTO to a person believed to be suffering from a mental health condition leading to acts of nuisance. This person will need to undergo a mandatory assessment and/or treatment.

This seems to be done only as a last resort, available at one of the stages within the processes of the CDRT. I am concerned that it may be costly and burdensome for a resident or household to pursue such proceedings at the CDRT.

For cases where the underlying issue could be mental health-related, access to mental health support at the mediation stage may lead to a more expedient and effective resolution. Hence, I would like to ask if the mediator can be empowered to make recommendations or referrals to mental health resources, if parties agree to explore mental health support at the mediation stage? If so, can the Government then consider providing such mental health resources at no cost for the initial consultation?

Next, for cases occurring in HDB estates, HDB has the option to consider the compulsory acquisition of flats in the event of severe recalcitrant cases, where all other measures have failed. However, this recourse is not available in private estates. What are the measures that can address similar problems faced by private estate dwellers, particularly for severe or egregious cases where the outcomes of mediation or CDRT are difficult to be enforced?

On the costs framework and consequences for non-attendance at mediation, ideally, neighbours should come together to discuss how to resolve their disputes, whether it is noise, second-hand smoke, littering, hoarding or cluttering. However, this is not possible for some cases, due to uncooperative residents or some underlying issues, including mental health problems. For those in financial difficulties, monetary penalties in terms of a costs framework may be unaffordable for them.

On the other hand, a complainant wishing to resolve the matter may not be able to afford pursuing it to the CDRT stage. For such situations, could measures be put in place to support greater intervention by agencies or empower grassroots leaders to help push for mediation to take place? Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): For those in financial difficulties, monetary penalties in terms of a cost framework may be unaffordable for them. On the other hand, a complainant wishing to resolve the matter may not be able to afford pursuing it to the CDRT stage. For such situations, could measures be put in place to support greater intervention by agencies or empower grassroots leaders to help push for mediation to take place.

(In English) : In conclusion, I support this Bill, as the effective resolution of community disputes will require all parties to play their part, and this will hopefully lead to a more gracious and considerate society in Singapore. The Bill also lends weight to the mediation process by introducing mandatory mediation. This will give much needed teeth to the CDMF.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

4.10 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Community Dispute Resolution (Amendment) Bill. The Bill aims to enhance our framework for addressing severe neighbourly disputes, particularly those involving noise and hoarding.

Madam, while most residents in Singapore enjoy either neutral or positive relationships with their neighbours, a small but significant number of cases can cause significant distress to affected parties. Data from the CMC indicates that neighbour disputes have been on the rise since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Numbers showed that from January to September 2020, HDB received 11,400 cases of feedback relating to noise, an increase of about 3,600 cases for the same period in 2019.

Under the proposed amendments, the proposed CRU will be empowered to take targeted, calibrated action in certain cases. Besides warnings and orders, the CRU will have the ability to mandate mediation and deploy noise sensors within dwellings to collect objective data.

Importantly, less than 30% of the current neighbourhood dispute cases proceed to mediation, indicating that an increased focus on resolution is needed, and consultation has shown broad support for these measures among advocacy groups and community leaders. By enhancing powers to address the most disruptive disputes, this Bill will reaffirm a resident's right to quiet enjoyment of their home and demonstrate our commitment to community harmony.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as with any legislation granting new powers, we must look carefully at the implications. Before I address three areas of potential concerns, I would like, however, to thank the Ministry for providing updated information about the Bill. The information provided was useful and comprehensive and it is clear that significant thought has gone into the content of these updates.

I will now outline my concerns. First, privacy. The deployment of noise sensors within private dwellings raises questions about the balance between dispute resolution and the privacy rights of residents. I seek clarifications on what safeguards will be in place to ensure collected data is used strictly for the intended purpose.

Next, threshold for intervention. The Bill grants the CRU powers to act in "severe" cases, however, what constitutes "severe" must be clearly defined to prevent potential misuse of these new powers. I ask the Minister to provide more detail on how this threshold will be set and consistently applied.

Next, proportionality. While targeted, the proposed powers are significant. It is crucial that their use remains proportionate to the dispute in question. I seek assurances on what checks will be in place to ensure that the CRU responds in a manner that does not unfairly penalise those it seeks to sanction.

Madam, I will now discuss several issues of specific interest regarding the Bill. While I welcome the Bill's intent to better address severe neighbourly disputes, I have concerns about potential duplications in the process.

The introduction of a new CRU, alongside the existing CMC, raises questions about how complaints will be navigated and the justification for maintaining two separate entities. For the average resident seeking redress for a disruptive neighbour, the process of where to lodge a complaint, how cases will be assessed and allocated between the CRU and CMC, and the relationship between these bodies is not clearly articulated. This lack of transparency risks causing confusion and potentially delaying much-needed resolution for those affected by excessive noise or hoarding.

I seek clarification on how these different approaches will be coordinated. To ensure the changes in this Bill are truly effective in supporting those affected, it is important to streamline the process and clearly communicate to the public how they can most easily access the help they need.

Madam, while I welcome the intent to allow registration of mediated settlements as CDRT order, we must recognise the need for neighbourly relations built on trust and voluntary compliance. I am concerned that requiring neighbours to actively register an outcome, places an additional burden on them and risks uneven compliance.

Would the Ministry consider automatic registration to ensure all agreements carry legal weight? Without it, we risk inconsistent outcomes if only registered agreements are enforceable.

To truly support those affected, agreements reached through mediation must carry the full force of law. Automatic registration provides greater protections and a clearer deterrent against non-compliance.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, hoarding is a serious issue with potential implications for public safety and security. I welcome its inclusion in the Bill. However, I seek clarification on the proposed approach to address hoarding cases, particularly those involving individuals with mental health challenges.

Beyond the removal of items, what actions can be taken against the hoarder or their landlord? Are supports in place to help individuals with mental health issues that contribute to hoarding behaviours? Would clause 13 apply in these situations and could respondents with mental health challenges be ordered to comply with resolution directives?

To effectively address hoarding, we must balance enforcement with compassion and consideration for underlying mental health factors.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to order an individual to undergo mandatory treatment order is a significant step and needs to be handled in a sensitive manner.

While I understand the intent behind section 12A, I have concerns about mandatory psychiatric treatment being ordered for individuals involved in neighbour disputes. How will the need for such treatment be determined and by whom? What measures will be in place to protect confidentiality and prevent potential discrimination? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that affected parties are provided with independent legal advice and with information on their right to appeal or dispute any orders?

It is crucial that any approach to mandatory treatment is balanced with the rights and wellbeing of the individual involved. We must ensure that the focus remains on resolution and rehabilitation, rather than stigmatisation. I seek clarification from the Ministry on how these considerations will be addressed in the implementation of this provision.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the new sections 13I and 13J indicates the power of CROs, their responsibilities when it comes to investigation and enforcement. Given the unique challenges of managing neighbour disputes, I suggest that the Ministry consider providing training in restorative justice methods and principles to all CRU officers. Restorative justice focuses on collaborative problem-solving and repairing harm, which can be highly effective in resolving disputes and improving community relations.

In the UK, housing associations are increasingly using restorative practices to address neighbour disputes, such as noise nuisance, verbal abuse and harassments. This includes direct mediation and conflict resolution between the offender, victims, their families and the community. By involving all parties, restorative justice can help rebuild relationships and establish shared community norms.

The Bill will also empower the Tribunal to issue mandatory treatment orders, recognising that some extreme behaviours that cause nuisance to others may be the result of a mental health condition. Ensuring officers are adequately equipped to manage these complex issues in a nuanced and compassionate manner is crucial.

With that consideration, what other preparation will officers receive to address the challenges they will encounter, such as supporting individuals with mental health conditions or navigating cases involving hoarding? Ensuring a multifaceted approach that balances justice with compassion is key. I would like to seek clarification from the Ministry to provide more details on the training programme and how it will prepare officers to address the multifaceted nature of neighbour disputes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, while enforcement is necessary, prevention through community policing can be a powerful tool to build empathy and harmony. May I suggest the Ministry consider expanding community policing initiatives to detect and address potential nuisance issues before they escalate. For example, could there be dedicated teams of officers working with specific communities? Could pilot programmes be evaluated to test the outcome of such an approach? Importantly, would restorative justice principles be integrated into community policing efforts to focus on collaborative problem-solving and repairing harm? By shifting focus from solely punitive enforcement to proactive community policing and restorative justice, we can build stronger and more harmonious communities.

While I agree that property owners must take responsibility, we must consider the potential consequences of mandatory eviction, particularly for residents who could, subsequently, face homelessness or insecure housing.

To mitigate this risk, I suggest the Ministry consider standardising tenancy agreements to include clear clauses about noise and nuisance standards. Additionally, many owners, especially seniors or those with low literacy levels, may not be aware of their obligations or how to comply with required standards. Can the Ministry explain how they will provide support and guidance to property owners, especially vulnerable populations, to navigate these requirements? Finally, would the Ministry also explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure that no person is left homeless or with insecure accommodation as a result of compulsory acquisition?

Madam, while the Bill focuses on resolution and enforcement, we must not overlook the need to support victims of neighbour disputes. The stress and anxiety caused by disputes between neighbours can have, sometimes, severe impacts on mental health, with potential long-term consequences if not adequately addressed. Victims may experience feelings of isolation, fear and helplessness, which can affect not just their wellbeing, but their ability to cope with the situation.

To illustrate this point, I note a case reported in October 2023 by CNA, where a noise dispute between neighbours escalated to a violent confrontation involving a wooden pole and a kitchen knife after three years of tension. Such cases underscore the potential for neighbour disputes to have serious consequences if not adequately addressed. Accordingly, I seek clarifications on how the Tribunal and those working within the sector will provide support for victims of neighbour disputes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to conclude, Singapore is renowned for its strong social fabric, a testament to the harmony and resilience of our people. Yet, even in a society as cohesive as ours, disputes between neighbours can arise, highlighting that we can always do better.

As we work to address these issues through legislation, let us not forget the ultimate goal: to build a Singapore that is not just lawful, but compassionate, kind and just for all, a country where neighbours can resolve differences with empathy and understanding, where those impacted by disputes are supported with the help they need and where we prioritise not just punishment, but rehabilitation and harmony. This Bill is a step towards that vision. Clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

4.22 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill and its focus on enhanced mediation directives address longstanding challenges in our dispute resolution mechanisms. Today, I will focus on four key areas within the Bill, including enforcement of mandatory mediation attendance, expanding the authority of CRU, ensuring accountability in settlements and addressing tenant-related noise nuisances.

First, strengthening mediation attendance requirements. One critical challenge is the current voluntary attendance at the CMC, which allows residents to opt out of mediation. This often results in one party refusing to engage, preventing timely dispute resolution and undermining the effectiveness of our community mediation efforts.

Granting agencies, like CRU and CMC, the power to mandate mediation attendance is an important step forward. However, we must also go further to ensure compliance with clear, enforceable measures beyond the existing $1,500 fine. If a party refuses to attend mediation and also avoids paying the fine, we need additional consequences, such as escalating penalties or legal actions. This will reinforce the seriousness of mediation directives and uphold their integrity. I urge the Government to strengthen these enforcement mechanisms.

Second, expanding the scope of CRU. The Bill proposes regulatory powers for CRU to handle issues, like noise and hoarding. This is promising and we should consider expanding CRU's scope to address other prevalent issues in our communities. For instance, privacy concerns arise when residents report neighbours installing CCTVs directed toward their units. Currently, authorities lack the power to investigate or mandate removal of these cameras within private properties. Additionally, residents have raised complaints about neighbours throwing harmful substances or smoking in common areas.

Will CRU eventually have the authority to manage these issues or could relevant bodies like HDB or NEA be empowered to investigate and take corrective actions? Addressing these frequent complaints would ensure CRU is adequately equipped to foster a safe and harmonious environment.

Third, ensuring accountability in CMC settlements. The amendment permits parties to register their settlement agreements at CMC, giving them the same force as a CDRT order. This provides swifter legal recourse if a settlement is breached, which is a positive development. Some mediation agreements involve residents and Government agencies. In such instances, clarity is needed on the accountabilities by all parties.

Would Government agencies represented also be legally bound to act as per mediation agreement? If so, officials representing Government agencies must be empowered to execute agreements made during mediation and held accountable to uphold them. This will reinforce trust in the mediation process and ensure all parties fulfill their commitments, avoiding breakdowns that affect residents' confidence in community resolutions.

Fourth, addressing tenant-related noise nuisances. The Bill rightly includes provisions for engaging landlords earlier when tenant-related noise disturbances occur. This is a necessary step to prevent escalation of such issues. However, the proposed compliance bond for landlords may not be sufficient if the bond amount is too low in comparison to rental income. A minimal bond could weaken the incentive for landlords to take prompt action on tenant disturbances.

To enhance its deterrent effect, may I propose for consideration, calibrating the bond amount to reflect rental fees or revoking the landlord's rental privileges for a set period of time if the issues persist. Additionally, requiring landlords and tenants to complete a brief programme on noise and neighbourly behaviour before the tenants move in would promote awareness and prevent future complaints.

In closing, Mdm Deputy Speaker, while the amendments to the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill are a step in the right direction, there is room for improvement. By enhancing mediation attendance enforceability, broadening CRU's regulatory scope, ensuring Government agency accountability and establishing effective deterrents for tenant-related nuisances, we can build a more robust framework for community harmony. I look forward to continued discussions and refinements that will help us create a peaceful and supportive community for all residents. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for this Bill and I fully support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

4.28 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to strengthen the ability of the community to resolve neighbour disputes and enable the Government to intervene in certain egregious cases.

In high-density urban environments, conflicts between neighbours over issues, such as noise, privacy and shared spaces, are inevitable. While these disputes are not uncommon, some can quickly escalate and disrupt the peace of the community if left unresolved.

However, not all disputes need to be settled in the courtroom, which can be costly and time-consuming. Any adjudicatory outcome will also result in a winner and a loser. This is not the best way to resolve a dispute between neighbours who will likely have to continue living alongside each other after court proceedings are over.

An effective tool for resolving such disputes amicably is through community mediation, which has a high success rate, with 80% of voluntary mediation cases resulting in mutual compromise. Despite this, currently, only 30% of disputes proceed to mediation, often because one party is unwilling to participate. The Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, therefore, addresses this gap by empowering agencies, such as CMC, to encourage early mediation before conflicts worsen with the help of trained mediators. Disputing neighbours will also be required to attempt mediation before filing a claim with CDRT, something which I have called for since 2021.

For a minority of cases that are particularly severe and cannot otherwise be resolved, the CDRT will act as a last-resort avenue for complainants after mediation and failed interventions. This Bill will enhance the CDRT with new powers to facilitate quicker and more effective resolution of cases, including issuing interim orders on an expedited basis, such as to remove an obstruction from the common corridor or to stop making excessive noise. Costs can be awarded to compensate individuals for the time and expenses expended for the CDRT proceedings. Landlords will also be encouraged to take a more active role when their tenants cause nuisance, as the CDRT can order tenants to cease the nuisance and require landlords to ensure compliance through a bond.

Crucially, these enhancements should strengthen, not replace, the ability of the community to resolve its own disputes. I am therefore heartened that MCCY, MinLaw and MND have consulted the public extensively through engagement sessions over the past two years on proposed enhancements in the spirit of transparency, open discussion and consensus, and received strong support for a CRU pilot to be set up to investigate and intervene in particularly severe cases of neighbour disputes. The CRU, staffed by CROs experienced in law enforcement and supported by auxiliary police officers, will increase accessibility to mediation and arbitration services. CROs will exercise regulatory powers appropriately and proportionately to investigate, deter and stop noise and hoarding nuisances to resolve differences early and fairly.

Not all community disputes are straightforward. Some conflicts are rooted in differing perspectives or culturally complex nuances that require careful consideration and understanding. This Bill acknowledges the challenge of allowing diverse perspectives to co-exist without undermining the peace and harmony of the broader community by providing a framework to address these complexities.

To this end, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify three points with the Minister for Culture, Community, and Youth on the proposed Bill.

First, under this Bill, if the person contributing to acts of nuisance is suspected to have a mental health issue contributing to the problem, CROs may apply to the CDRT for an order requiring the individual to undergo formal psychiatric assessment or treatment. What are the guidelines for the duration of treatment required and what if said individual cannot afford the assessment or treatment required?

Second, to prevent individuals who face prejudice or bias being unfairly labelled as nuisances, will CROs receive culturally informed training or training on how to approach persons with mental health conditions with sensitivity? For example, studies have linked hoarding behaviour to experiences with material deprivation and mental disorders, and therefore might be more common among lower-income individuals. Such behaviour may thus be driven by complex psychological, social and economic factors rather than simply a desire to be difficult or irresponsible.

Third, as the saying goes, "Prevention is better than cure." Besides public education initiatives, neighbours should be encouraged to get to know each other and communicate more frequently as a preventative measure. Investing in initiatives and infrastructure like neighbourhood events, public seating areas and community gardens can go a long way to encourage neighbours to develop empathy and consideration for one another – what we also sometimes call the "kampung spirit". What immediate plans does the Ministry have in this respect?

In conclusion, as our city grows and evolves, so must our approach to community dispute resolution. This Bill represents a forward-thinking approach that supports communities in developing the tools necessary to resolve conflicts amicably while giving mediation more teeth and standing. For the minority of cases that cannot be resolved via community self-help, the enhanced CDMF will also provide a wider range of options to facilitate effective conflict resolution. These measures will strengthen community bonds by building resilience, harmony and mutual respect. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.

4.35 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, harmony within our community is fundamental to Singapore's vibrant and tight-knit social fabric. Given our population density and recent trends of more residents working or studying from home, increased neighbourly friction seems inevitable. Indeed, public feedback on noise climbed during the pandemic and remains unabated – the first half of 2024 saw an average of more than 2,100 monthly cases, more than five times that of 2019; and it is high.

Given this, an updated and strengthened CDMF is essential. Having consistently advocated for enhancements to the CDMF over the last four Budget and Committee of Supply debates, I welcome these updated and strengthened measures that provides for faster and more effective relief for residents. For intended outcomes to be better achieved, I seek clarifications on several areas of this Bill, especially in the area of execution, as good policy requires good execution for the benefits of this Bill to be effective on the ground.

I note the new measures in this Bill appears to be based on past learnings that CMC mediation has been effective, where about 80% of voluntary mediation cases at CMC have been successful. But only a small proportion of about 30% of registered cases proceed to mediation due to a majority of residents refusing to do so.

Given the expected rise in caseload, may I first seek Minister's clarification on plans to increase the CMC's capacity, so that we can improve both accessibility and quality of services at the CMC and satellite centres? In other words, apart from ensuring reasonable wait-time, such as mediation services can scale, the high success rate of 80%, could it be maintained or even improved?

Additionally, can Minister share in greater detail the criteria for issuing a Mediation Direction that recognises the need for timely intervention, yet allowing sufficient autonomy for parties to resolve disputes organically and acknowledging the unique circumstances and thresholds for each case? Striking this delicate balance will help preserve neighbourly relations and also avoid overloading CMC.

Where mediation proceeds, so as to improve the weight of outcomes, reduce wastage of resources, as well as to reduce administrative load on parties and agencies; can authorities consider for mediation settlement agreements to be automatically lodged as CDRT orders, instead of by consent, as Minister had suggested earlier, for enhanced enforceability at onset?

Can Minister also clarify the mechanisms in place to prevent the abuse of taxpayer-funded CMC services? If parties who offend or are unable to exercise basic tolerance, can they be made to defray more mediation costs on top of the existing $5 administrative fee?

I share Minister's position that CMCs should not be relied on as the first port of call and in fact rely on the community as the first and primary place to resolve neighbourly disputes. So, in encouraging a resolution by parties themselves, will Minister employ further strategies to increase residents' onus and awareness of self-resolution approaches?

And in recognising that grassroot leaders are often one of the first places to engage in such disputes, can Minister also elaborate on plans to further equip our community, as well as grassroot leaders for them to help ease conflicts at the early stage with proper support and advice?

Next, on the introduction of the CRU pilot to address severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases, as proposed in clause 14 of the Bill, I note the plans to do a one-year pilot in a town. For this pilot, the CRU has been well calibrated with powers that includes safeguards to proactively tackle complex and recalcitrant cases.

That said, there is a need to enhance the effectiveness of CRU and other agencies to address the root causes of persistent anti-social behaviour. From my experience in the community, underlying reasons could range from mental health issues to religious or superstitious beliefs, or longstanding habits and other socio-economic vulnerabilities. For example, there has been a case of a persistent bird feeder at the new Build-To-Order (BTO) flats at Nee Soon Link, which has resulted in much complaints across the neighbourhood, which has also been covered by the media.

In this regard, can the Minister elaborate on how CROs will be adequately equipped to assist in such severe cases, like in the case of the bird feeder, where the authorities and our community appear to be at a loss of what to do next?

Can engagements by the CROs be supplemented, for example, with the expertise of psychologists for earlier and more accurate diagnosis of such behavioural root causes so that appropriate actions can be taken to swiftly prevent repeat offending?

For residents who may require more holistic support beyond psychological issues, such as social, financial or housing aid; can the Minister share if and how CRU will collaborate with other agencies and even religious organisations to avail more comprehensive help, and to monitor their follow-through? This should ideally extend beyond the CDRT's mandatory treatment orders and HDB's limited set of actions that may have limited effectiveness in tackling the issues.

Specific to the pilot, can the Minister clarify the pilot's success metrics, as well as avenues for residents to provide feedback on the CRU's interventions? And if there are earlier signs of success, can scaling of CRU to other townships be accelerated even before the one-year timeframe? And if so, can more communities and residents benefit from this initiative? If there is indeed a second team to be trialled, can the pilot cover selected high severity cases island-wide, rather than a single township, to broaden the pilot's learnings?

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill represents a significant advancement to facilitate quicker and more effective dispute resolution in the community. It is in good implementation, where measures including CDRT orders are made to be holistic in addressing the root causes; and with continuous monitoring of their effectiveness – that our community will experience the benefits of this Bill.

In the end, these enhancements should strengthen, and not replace the ability of communities to come together to resolve differences as good neighbours. In my opinion, the true success of this Bill lies not much as in the expanded powers of our agencies; but collectively and fundamentally, in the "kampung" spirit of mutual respect and empathy that has come to define Singapore over the years. In this way, we can forge harmony amidst diversity. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Harmony within our community is fundamental to Singapore's vibrant and tightknit social fabric. Given our population density and recent trends of more residents working or studying from home, increased neighbourly friction seems inevitable.

Indeed, during the pandemic, public feedback on noise climbed and remains unabated. On average, from the pandemic till now, cases every year is more than five times that of 2019. Having consistently advocated for enhancements to the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF) over the last four budgets and Committee of Supply debates, I welcome these new measures that provide faster and more effective relief for residents.

An updated CDMF is essential in resolving conflicts peacefully by addressing the root causes of disputes. I am glad that the Government has intervened to clearly propose enhanced measures to the existing laws for resolving community disputes. Ultimately, these laws are not panacea and our communities should also fulfil their own obligations and responsibilities.

We should open our hearts, foster mutual understanding and come together as good neighbours to resolve dispute. It is through greater mutual respect and empathy, building harmony and diversity that we maintain the spirit of unity.

( In English ): Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

4.46 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, while this Bill covers various types of unneighbourly behaviour that leads to this Bill, I would like to focus my speech on noise offences.

The deleterious consequences of noise pollution on physical and mental health is not trivial. It has been noted that prolonged exposure to disturbing and incessant noise can lead to adverse health outcomes like abnormal perception of loudness and noise, ringing in the ears, and even distorted hearing.

Equally worrying, exposure to prolonged noise is also related to a host of psycho-emotional conditions like irritability, frustration, anxiety and stress, and could also lead to sleep disturbance like insomnia.

I empathise with residents who have been suffering from noise nuisance from their neighbours and the surroundings. In my constituency of Ang Mo Kio-Hougang, of all the different noise-nuisance cases I have had to deal with, a particular case dubbed the "Hougang Terror" stands out.

This is a case that has been surfaced to the highest levels of Government agencies. I see Senior Minister of State Sim Ann nodding at me. It has also been featured on social media as well. I am particularly, personally familiar with the case having been on the ground to try and mediate this, without much success.

Essentially, what started out as a dispute between two neighbours resulted in one neighbour incessantly beating a stick furiously against the wall of his neighbour for hours on end – and by "hours" I mean "hours on end" which then led to noise pollution and affected the entire, the entire block, the entire carpark, even the blocks surrounding it.

So, quite clearly, we have, from the current legal standpoint, exhausted available means to resolve the situation in our neighbourhood. I am therefore glad to know that the Government is now considering an amendment to the Community Disputes Resolution Act so that we have more legal muscle to help our residents who have been suffering from such measures and my other colleagues before me. I hope that the pilot is a productive one and we are able to implement this scheme in other townships as soon as possible.

In a statement released by MCCY and MND, it was highlighted that the CRU that will be set up would be given powers to issue direction for neighours to attend mediation and install sensors to collect data on noise. These actions, however, will be taken only after the neigbours have failed to resolve disputes amongst themselves.

I am all for community involvement and for people coming together to try and solve issues as amicably as possible without the need for agencies to get involved, without the need for legislation. However, I do hope that the Ministries can provide more information on what is deemed to be "failure to resolve the disputes among themselves". How would the Ministries determine if the complainant has made sufficient efforts to resolve the dispute with the alleged offender? And what would be examples of evidence that the complainant must submit to CRU to prove his or her case that they have tried but failed to resolve the dispute?

While I understand that certain objective criteria must be set so that the investigative and directive powers of the CRU will not be abused, I hope that the bar will not be set too high such that the CRU is inaccessible for most of the complainants.

My second point is regarding how we would manage alleged offenders. I do understand that there are several ways in which alleged offenders could be managed under the proposed new framework. They could be compelled to attend mediation; they could be ordered to attend mandatory treatment if it is believed that they are causing disturbance due to mental health conditions; and in the most extreme situation, flats of the alleged offenders could be acquired as a last resort if they are recalcitrant and/or the nuisance created is very severe.

It was recently reported in the media that an alleged offender who had caused six out of eight units on her level in Punggol to move out, had then relocated to Bukit Merah and is now continuing with her terrorising antics in that new estate.

Would the relevant authorities consider preventing alleged offenders in well-known cases from relocating to a different housing estate until the matter can be resolved or the authorities are sure that they will not cause further nuisance to their new neighbors after moving in.

I believe this is important as it ensures that we do not "transfer" a problem from one estate to another, which then brings a new set of issues into what was once, perhaps, a rather peaceful neighbourhood or rather peaceful environment.

So, in this regard, I hope the relevant authorities can shed some light on how these alleged offenders can be managed if they have purchased a resale flat elsewhere or, perhaps, are in the queue for a BTO flat.

Would the authorities also consider requiring all flat owners to sign a letter of undertaking as part of their HDB Flat Eligibility letter application, undertaking that they would refrain from creating noise nuisance or other forms of nuisance for that matter at the point of flat purchase and inform them clearly about the consequences of breaching these undertakings?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, neighbour disputes are never easy to solve. Some feuds can go on for several years, sometimes involving many family members from both sides. In some extreme situations, as my example from Hougang I cited earlier, multiple other households get drawn into the feud as collateral damage, and this leads to a largely unpleasant living environment for everyone involved.

While I am a firm believer in using more amicable ways to de-escalate any potential community conflict, I am also heartened that the Gvernment is taking this issue seriously and this new legislation will allow us to take recalcitrant offenders to task for the overall benefit of the entire community.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.

4.52 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the fact that we are debating the CDMF in Parliament shows that there have been disputes over the years that have become difficult to resolve due to varying reasons. This is not the first time that we are talking about dispute resolution within this House. The CDMF and its enhancements do hopefully represent a significant step forward in strengthening our community-based resolution and promote good neighbourliness overall.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

As it stands, the community already plays a significant role in mediating disputes on the ground. As many Members have mentioned, often, it is grassroots volunteers, Town Council property officers, HDB ground staff, community mediators such as those from CMC are on the frontlines. In my constituency, I am fortunate to also have volunteers from the International Institute of Mediators (Singapore) to call upon. Significantly, the proposed CDMF enhancements strengthen but not replace our community’s role in resolving many of these disputes.

I always recall one of the earliest examples of a neighbour dispute that I was asked to mediate in with my team. This was when I first was elected. I was told of two neighbours who were bickering for almost a decade. I found out that both were retirees and passionate orchid growers, each with their own little garden along the corridor outside their flats. But on that same corridor was a very unique feature because in the middle of the wall with a pencil a line that demarcated the unofficial border between these two territories.

And often there were borders skirmishes, sometimes unwittingly caused by our poor conservancy workers who must move the stands and pots so that they could clear out the scupper drains and then when they relocate the pots, some of these unfortunate pots became illegal immigrants on the wrong side of the border. And in this long-standing dispute and on rare occasions, one of the stands would stray into opposing territory and the pot would be consigned to the refugee camp at the bin chute. Soon, this resulted in shouting matches and guerilla warfare was launched as well. Each of the neighbours would come to say that their pots were flooded with rubbish or with too much water and the orchids start to die. It took a while, but with some persistence from the UN – in this case the united network of community partners and mediators and building on their common love for flora, they did in the end resolve their conflict and became good friends.

This is one success. But there are many other long-standing and long-suffering examples that many of us have had difficulty in addressing despite all the tools in the box.

So, the CRU represents a thoughtful addition to our toolkit. Its scope addresses only the severe cases that cannot be resolved within the community. I do believe that Government intervention should always be a last resort, allowing the community to resolve issues as much as possible. The CRU’s role is to assist in cases that require more than community-based solutions and stepping in when all other efforts have been exhausted. This is a measured approach, ensuring we do not resort to heavy-handed approaches but reserve intervention to exceptional cases. In addition, for cases where mediation and community-based solutions are insufficient, the CDRT remains an avenue of last resort.

Other Members have also mentioned that legal processes should not be the first option for resolving disputes, as they often create adversarial situations with winners and losers. We must also avoid the potential weaponisation of the legal and tribunal process as a punitive tool against each other. Instead, our priority should be bringing people together to understand each other’s perspectives. However, where necessary, the CDRT process must remain quick, effective and focused on fair outcomes.

In light of these enhancements, Mr Speaker, I seek further clarification on a number of points.

The CMC has worked over the years to improve accessibility to mediation services. I do hope the Minister would be able to elaborate and update on specific improvements over the years that have made it more accessible and more successful.

On the CRU, why is the CRU not established as a 24/7 response unit? Because many disputes occur out of hours. In some cases, immediate intervention could be crucial. We have seen in some recent unfortunate cases where grievous hurt and in other cases, lives have been lost because of long-standing disputes that have turned violent.

The CRU, of course, is starting with a pilot. What are the considerations for this phased approach? What is mark and matrix of success and when can we expect to consider a nationwide roll-out to benefit all constituencies immediately?

The pilot also currently focuses more on noise and hoarding issues. Are there plans to include other issues, such as second-hand smoke, which has been a concern in many neighbourhoods and exacerbated during COVID-19?

The deployment of noise sensors has also raised privacy concerns. What safeguards are provided and put in place to ensure that they do not inadvertently record conversations or compromise residents’ privacy?

Could the Minister clarify who would compose the CROs and the ACROs and the selection criteria that ensure they are fit for investigation and enforcement duties? How will residents be able to identify them?

In addition, how will CROs handle interactions with persons that would have mental health conditions or special needs?

Given the CRU’s significant powers, what safeguards are in place to prevent overreach and ensure that these powers are used appropriately?

Under what circumstances as well in extremis when things get out of hand, will the HDB step in to consider compulsory residence acquisition?

My last question is on broader community broader community building. Could the Minister also elaborate on what are the targets for community-building efforts to promote a harmonious neighbourhood and what role do agencies play in reinforcing these roles, together with community leaders?

Mr Speaker, these enhancements to the CDMF underline our commitment to a balanced, community-centred approach to dispute resolution. By supporting a framework that encourages residents to engage with each other positively, we strengthen the ties that hold our society together. I look forward to the Minister's responses and seeing these enhancements' positive impact on our communities. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.01 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, as MPs, we often address community disputes brought forth by our residents. These range from noise complaints and cooking odours to concerns over shoe racks blocking common corridors. While these issues may seem minor, they can escalate into significant conflicts between neighbours. This Bill is a step in the right direction to address such issues, but I would like to raise some clarifications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns the potential burden this Bill places on landlords, particularly in section 10A. In Yio Chu Kang, many seniors rely on renting out their HDB flats to supplement their income.

While maintaining peace is critical, is it fair to hold landlords accountable for their tenants' behaviour? Do landlords have the level of control that this Bill assumes?

Typically, landlords have some influence over tenants through rental agreements, which sometimes include restrictions on certain activities. This implies that landlords may have a role in promoting harmony among residents. However, when landlords, especially those living abroad or slow to respond, struggle with tenant issues, it can lead to prolonged problems for neighbouring residents. Should landlords face penalties for circumstances beyond their control and what happens if a landlord is unable or unwilling to engage?

Additionally, rental agreements usually focus on rent and maintenance, not managing neighbourly disputes. This would create legal ambiguity, especially if landlords lack clear authority over tenant behaviour.

We must also consider tenants' responses. If tenants face repercussions, they may shift blame onto their landlords, especially absentee ones, potentially prolonging disputes and leaving the complainant in limbo.

Before imposing additional responsibilities, I urge the Minister to provide clear guidelines to help landlords understand their obligations. Let us define what is fair and establish mechanisms that are effective for all parties.

This Bill rightly seeks to empower landlords with clearer guidelines and responsibilities. However, these expectations must be balanced and realistic. I urge the Ministry to ensure that landlord obligations are practical and if necessary, to provide resources that facilitate compliance, rather than unintentionally fostering disputes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point pertains to hoarding, highlighted in section 11A. We understand that hoarding poses public health risks, but it is also a deeply personal issue.

What happens after someone's belongings are cleared out? Hoarding behaviour often recurs, making temporary solutions inadequate. Without mental health support, such as counselling and follow-ups, this issue is likely to resurface.

We must strike a balance between protecting public health and showing empathy towards those struggling with hoarding. Could the Ministry consider integrating mental health support into hoarding interventions, perhaps through partnerships with social services? This could provide a more holistic and lasting solution for affected residents and their neighbours.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill may not fully address disputes occurring in private properties like condominiums. How do the provisions apply in these contexts? Can CROs or ACROs enter private homes to resolve issues? Will Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) be involved? Will officers need MCST permission to enter and remove hoarded items? Moreover, what are the limits of officers' powers in condominium disputes? Can they enforce compliance, or must they rely on MCST cooperation?

It is important to clarify how this Bill applies to private properties, as condominiums represent a significant portion of Singapore's housing landscape. Could the Ministry look into clearer guidelines for disputes in private properties, ensuring officers have the necessary authority while respecting MCST boundaries?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns the powers granted to CROs under sections 13C, 13D and 13L. While their authority to issue orders and enter homes may be necessary, we must safeguard against potential overreach. What checks are in place to prevent misuse of these powers?

Community disputes are rarely straightforward. Mental health issues, personal struggles and vulnerabilities often complicate matters. Are these officers trained to handle such situations? Are they equipped to de-escalate conflicts and identify when professional help is needed? Clear, consistent guidelines are needed to ensure fair, informed decision-making. Will the Ministry consider a framework for CROs that includes rigorous training and guidelines to prevent escalation and maintain community trust?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise the importance of mediation, particularly under section 13M, which refers to CRO referrals for mediation. I have always been a strong advocate for mediation. Mediation fosters lasting peace in a way that legal battles cannot achieve. However, mediation must be accessible.

Formal mediation can feel burdensome for many residents, who juggle jobs, family responsibilities and health issues. Could we enhance accessibility by conducting more sessions in community spaces or offering sessions during evenings and weekends?

Moreover, mediation should not prolong disputes. Clear guidelines must be established to prevent stalling tactics and once an agreement is reached, swift enforcement is essential to maintain its effectiveness. Could the Ministry provide data on how many mediation sessions in the CMC have resulted in agreements that were later breached? Is there a tracking mechanism for such cases?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, community disputes are complex and rarely black-and-white. Without the right support, interventions can inadvertently cause harm. This Bill represents some progress. In Yio Chu Kang, we have a local mediation team composed of volunteer grassroots leaders. This initiative is useful, as having neighbours involved in mediation offers a familiar face and helps track progress. Residents eagerly anticipate the launch of the CRU pilot, which adds support to earlier interventions may fall short. I hope to see this pilot scale beyond Tampines to other areas, including Yio Chu Kang, to benefit more residents with unresolved disputes.

Our communities welcome the initiatives in this Bill. However, as always, the devil is in the details. I urge the Minister to consider my proposals in my speech.

First, provide guidance to landlords on preparing tenancy agreements and related documents to comply with this Bill, offer mental health support for hoarding cases to prevent recurrence, clarify the roles of MCSTs and officers' authority in private properties, ensure adequate training and safeguards for CROs and lastly, make mediation more accessible and guarantee swift enforcement.

Ultimately, while this Bill provides valuable tools, it must empower individuals. Conflict resolution requires neighbours willing to engage in dialogue, approach disputes with understanding and seek common ground. Let this Bill not only police conflicts but also nurture collaboration. Let it strengthen our communities' social fabric and foster lasting peace. This reflects the essence of the Forward Singapore movement to cultivate a kind and cohesive society. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.09 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will enhance the powers of agencies to intervene in and facilitate the effective resolution of neighbour disputes. I have four points of clarification to make.

My first point is on the roles and powers of CRO and ACROs. Under the new sections 13C and 13D, an individual who is not a Police officer, public officer or an employee of a Statutory Board may be appointed an Auxiliary CRO. The requirement is that this individual must have suitable training to properly exercise the powers of an ACRO. Can Minister share how the powers of a CRO and an ACRO are different? What is considered suitable training for an ACRO and who will provide the training?

The DG may issue a CRO and an ACRO with equipment necessary for them to discharge their duties. Can Minister give examples of equipment that might be provided to a CRO or an ACRO?

My second point is on the protection of monitoring data. Data that is collected for the purpose of community disputes can be highly intrusive. That is the reason the Government has given in response to my suggestion, that we use cameras to catch people who are smoking at their windows or balconies.

The new section 13X provides that any monitoring data collected must only be used for performing duties under the Act. The CRU which carries out the functions of the Act is a multi-agency initiative by MinLaw, MCCY and MND. This means that there are at least three Ministries which may use the monitoring data collected.

Can Minister share exactly which Ministries and agencies will have access to the monitoring data obtained by an officer or recorded in any detection and monitoring equipment installed? What is the period of storage of such data? How will this data be expunged and which agency shall ensure the expungement? How will the agency ensure that the data is expunged across the board by all Ministries and agencies?

My third point is on tribunal orders to address hoarding. Under the new sections 11A and 13L, a tribunal and the DG have powers to make orders or authorise officers to exercise powers with or without the consent of the owner or occupier. These powers include disposing things contributing to hoarding, entering into a place of residence to investigate unreasonable interference and seizing items used to cause unreasonable interference.

Can Minister explain what it means that an order or power may be carried out with or without the consent of the owner? Is an officer supposed to first attempt to seek consent before taking steps without their consent? Can Minister provide examples of what would constitute unreasonable interference and clarify if hoarding that does not reach the level of being unsafe or unhygienic may, nonetheless, constitute unreasonable interference? In situations where the removal or disposal of items are ordered, can Minister clarify who will bear the costs for such removal or disposal?

My fourth and final point is on second-hand smoke in homes. I will raise this again in hope that we will review our policies to save lives. The CRU focuses on neighbourly disputes on noise and hoarding. These are important issues which affect someone's quality of life. I am glad we are taking steps to address them.

I hope we will put in equal effort to tackle second-hand smoke, which kills. According to the World Health Organization and the Ministry of Health, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. We are talking about conditions like coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Those inhaling second-hand smoke are actually exposed to more chemicals than the smokers themselves. Sidestream smoke is four times more toxic than the smoke that a smoker inhales from the cigarette. For the vulnerable, including the elderly and young children, even a little is already too much. I am sure many colleagues will have the same experience of getting feedback from concerned residents about second-hand smoke in their homes.

A 2022 survey I conducted highlighted the widespread nature of this problem. Out of 2,510 families surveyed, 1,183 reported experiencing second-hand smoke in their homes one to three times daily. When their neighbours smoke at balconies and at windows, second-hand smoke enters their homes and they feel helpless about the health risks facing their families.

Ms Ang shared with me her family's struggles. Her young son suffers from sinus problems and asthma. Ms Ang's attempts to approach their neighbour to resolve the problem were futile. Her family endures a routine of closing all doors and windows to avoid the smoke whenever the smoker starts smoking. This daily adjustment comes at the cost of ventilation, fresh air and peace, even in their own home.

Then, there is Ms Leu, who attempted to speak amicably with both sets of neighbours, one above and one below, who smoked regularly. Ms Leu's polite attempt and appeals were met with indifference, with one neighbour telling her to "close up all [her] windows" if she is allergic to smoke.

Second-hand smoke poses very real health risks that can be fatal. Those who have sought recourse through the CDRT often run into dead ends too.

Ms Zhong and her elderly mother live above a neighbour who smokes persistently. They obtained a CDRT order banning smoking in the neighbour's flat. Despite the order, the smoking persisted. The second-hand smoke continued to infiltrate Ms Zhong's home, severely affecting her mother's health and heart condition and their overall quality of life. Ms Zhong has documented the smoker's impact, reached out to other affected residents and sought enforcement of the order. Yet, she remains without a solution.

What purpose does a legal order serve if enforcement is ineffective and citizens are left without protection?

Recently, the media reported on the story of a woman whose seizures were triggered by her neighbours' smoking. Her husband wrote to me. She fell unconscious and had to be brought to the hospital in an ambulance. In this unfortunate case, it surfaced that the family had obtained a Court order for the neighbour to cease the smoking, but to no avail again. In fact, the family had to resort to obtaining a doctor's note stating that the woman's intracranial haemorrhage, which left her with seizures and paralysis, is aggravated by cigarette smoke. Her husband told the media, "My wife is left with only her left brain functioning. If another blood vessel bursts in her right brain, she will be pronounced dead."

No one should have to live in such constant fear. There are solutions to these problems. We faced the same issues of enforcement for noise disputes, which this Bill addresses through its amendments. I hope we will take second-hand smoke just as seriously.

Can Minister share what solutions the Government is studying to address second-hand smoke in homes and whether CRU can also focus on neighbourly disputes on second-hand smoke? If not now, then, whether there is a timeline to include this? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.