COMMUNITY MEDIATION CENTRES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill gives effect to the Government's intention to promote mediation as a means of resolving social and community disputes. The Minister for Law had informed this House on 30th July 1997 that the Government has accepted the recommendations of an Inter-agency Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which, among other things, had proposed the setting up of Community Mediation Centres.

Sir, this Bill provides for the establishment of such Community Mediation Centres, in suitable locations close to where people live and work. These Community Mediation Centres, or CMCs in short, will provide services to the community to help disputing parties resolve social and community disputes in an amicable way. Mediation is a better way to resolve such disputes than going to the Courts. Trained mediators will be appointed to conduct mediation sessions in a non-confrontational setting. This approach will promote greater neighbourliness and help foster a more harmonious and cohesive society.

The practice of mediation, of course, is not entirely new in Singapore. Indeed, the Courts have shown the way by successfully using mediation as a pre-trial procedure from early 1992. Other professional groups have also begun to use the mediation process to solve disputes. What this Bill does is to provide a framework to promote its use. This framework envisages a network of Community Mediation Centres spread over different parts of Singapore to bring mediation to the ground. These will complement the Singapore Academy of Law's Singapore Mediation Centre's and other professional groups' efforts in the commercial arena. We hope to set up the first CMC to be co-located with a regional Small Claims Tribunal somewhere in the eastern part of Singapore by early next year. A new ADR Division in the Ministry of Law will provide overall coordination and promotion of ADR, in particular mediation activities in Singapore. In addition, a Resource Panel of lay experts will be appointed to tap existing non-governmental expertise and experience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now deal with the following questions:

How will CMCs be run? Who can come for mediation at CMCs? How will disputes be resolved? Who will the mediators be?

Sir, clause 3 of the Bill provides for the establishment of CMCs to provide mediation services, while clauses 4 to 9 empower the Minister to appoint one or more Directors and staff to run the centres. Mediators will be appointed by the Minister to conduct the sessions. They will follow certain procedures in performing this task.

Clauses 10 to 14 deal with the conduct of the mediation sessions. Sir, mediation works best when parties are willing for their disputes to be resolved in a civil manner. They will then be assisted to arrive at mutually-acceptable solutions. Thus, clause 12 provides that mediation will be on a voluntary basis. Also, the sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible. The usual rules of evidence applicable in our courts will in general not strictly apply and the parties will not be represented by lawyers. The idea is to get them to talk to each other early in a constructive and informal manner, so that there will be better mutual understanding of each other's concerns. In most cases, successful mediation should result in a settlement. These settlements will not be legally binding, but the parties may, if they so wish, enter into a written agreement with the clear statement that it shall be binding on them. Breach of this express undertaking can provide the basis for a civil action for breach of contract. Thus the choice is up to the parties.

Sir, what are the cases that should go to a CMC? The focus of Community Mediation Centres is on relational disputes, not involving a seizable offence, involving especially neighbours and also including family members and other members of a local community where there is a continuing relationship. It is envisaged that most of these parties will go to CMCs on a voluntary basis. The Neighbourhood Police, Members of Parliament and community leaders can also refer disputes to a Centre for resolution where the parties involved are agreeable. Cases involving small consumer claims and financial or contractual disputes, say, between a contractor and his client, however, should continue to be referred to the Small Claims Tribunals where applicable. And because they are co-located, it would be easy to do so. So also should other specific claims arising from sale of goods or provision of service.

Clause 15 provides for another instance of referral, this time by the courts, where complaints lodged before a Magistrate for issue of a private summons may be referred to a Community Mediation Centre. Under this provision, the Magistrate will have the discretion, in suitable cases, to direct the parties, with their consent, to go to a Centre for mediation. If such a dispute is not successfully mediated, the Magistrate will proceed to hear the case in accordance with the procedures in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sir, clause 23 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make regulations for the training and accreditation of mediators in addition to making regulations for the proper administration of the centres. Sir, as all of us know, a key ingredient to the success of community mediation is the availability of suitable mediators who can then be properly trained. Therefore, mediators will be carefully selected. They will be bound by a Code of Conduct to keep confidences and to safeguard any personal information made available to them in the course of mediation. Other than appointing trained professionals, the Government will also identify suitable community leaders with the necessary temperament, standing and experience to act as mediators. Over time, we will develop a pool of such leaders who will help to promote better inter-personal relationships and stronger community bonding amongst our residents.

Sir, we are embarking on a new venture to improve community relations through the resolution of conflicts by non-adversarial means. We will therefore take a phased, step-by-step approach. If necessary, adjustments will be made to our procedures as we gain more experience and knowledge. For example, if considered useful, we may in the future devolve more authority to suitable community leaders, who are Justices of the Peace, to help keep the peace and promote community harmony. This will all make for a better society.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Bill on the setting up of the CMC. As a Member of Parliament, I think most of us have at various times brought up disputes or issues which, I think, are best settled not by the court, but by a mediator. I think this Bill seeks to do just that. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister to ponder and answer.

On clause 11(1), there is no definition of what is "family, social or community". In my view, the family should include ex-spouses, parents and siblings, because such disputes are usually very common. It should also include persons who are regarded as members of the family by the parties in dispute, for example, persons who are living together as husband and wife but are not legally married to one another and, of course, their respective children or next-of-kin. Also, on social and community cases, the line of distinction may be very thin, but it is still necessary to provide a definition. Apart from neighbours or residents living in the same neighbourhood, while eligible to be classified under one or the other category, how would the dispute between, say, a school teacher and a parent be classified?

Clause 12(1) states that mediation is voluntary. It is not clear whether mediation services will be provided free of charge since participation or attendance is voluntary. If it is for a fee, then I think some sort of scale will have to be worked out. I submit that they should not be for free because they will then be taken for granted and the Government is under no obligation to provide such a service. Cost of litigation is always a deterrent factor and for this sort of mediation, I think it should be so as well to discourage frivolous pursuit of disputes.

Clause 13(2), Sir, is on the binding nature of the settlement agreement. The Minister has mentioned that after the settlement, the parties can pursue civil litigation if one party does not agree with the agreement. But, Sir, I think this may be too expensive and a costly procedure, especially in the case of mediation, one party may be seen to be giving more to the other party in the process just to get the dispute out of the way. Can this settlement not be registered with the Subordinate Courts or the Small Claims Tribunals where there are monetary issues involved, so that enforcement action can then be taken?

Sir, finally, with the setting up of the CMC, it seems to be a logical device for ADRs, such as arbitration, for these CMCs to be used for settlement. In other words, there are several cases of civil contracts whereby not large amounts are involved, instead of the arbitration court being used, perhaps in future the CMCs may be used for such ADRs.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. It is an attempt to encourage settlement of disputes without the parties resorting to litigation that is both expensive and time-consuming. Singaporeans will have another accessible way of resolving their disputes with each other, at reasonable cost, we hope. This is most welcome, and I only have a few comments to make.

The Bill attempts to set up a structure for community mediation in Singapore. As I understand it, this is distinct from commercial mediation and other court-based mediation such as that practised in the Subordinate Courts. Commercial mediation is being set up in the Singapore Academy of Law. This leaves community mediation to be tackled by the Community Mediation Centres. Such a division of labour among the various agencies will probably confuse potential users of the system and steps will have to be taken to define the scope of each type of mediation clearly.

When is a dispute one that should be settled at the Community Mediation Centre? The Bill does not provide guidance on this, other than the phrase used in clause 11 which is, and I quote, "a case concerning a family, social or community dispute". This is perhaps an understandably wide phrase, but it can give rise to problems, which means that the rules to be enacted to give effect to these centres have to be drafted with care.

For example, family disputes involving the distribution of matrimonial property may not be appropriately dealt with in such a forum. Legal rules relating to the distribution of, say, matrimonial property are complex and difficult to apply. In the event of a wrongful settlement, questions can arise as to whether the spouse can appeal or whether the settlement agreement can be vitiated on the basis that it is actually against the law or that it is doubtful whether the settlement is legal at all.

Such examples can be multiplied - a dispute between parent and teenager, between consumer and trader, between landowners as to their common fence, between flat dwellers as to the repairing of leakages, and so on. It seems to me that the centres can be easily bogged down, either by taking too many cases or by taking cases that they cannot handle. At the moment, the Bill provides little guidance for this.

Yet, another aspect has to do with the relationship between these centres and other dispute resolution mechanisms, such as the Small Claims Tribunals. I understand that in the United States, the centres are known as "Neighbourhood Justice Centres" where more facilities are provided. It is almost like a one-stop centre for dispute resolution. The centres should, according to a report, "make available a variety of methods of processing disputes, including arbitration, mediation, referral to small claims courts as well as referral to courts of general jurisdiction." It may be that, in due course, the centres set up through this Bill should perform wider and more defined roles of dispute resolution.

Finally, it is clear that many critical issues concerning the running of these centres and the training of mediators are to be dealt with only in the rules, as the Bill confers discretion on the Minister to enact these. The enforceability of such settlements, the powers and duties of mediators, the nature of disputes that such centres can deal with, these are issues which have to be provided for in the rules. It would of course have been better for these matters to be spelt out in the parent legislation. But the legislation merely provides a framework for these centres. I do hope that the rules will take care of such details to come.

But as the general principles in the Bill are sound, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only two matters to raise on this Bill. One is, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, the need to select mediators with care. He said that, apart from professional people, they could also be appointed from grassroots leaders. So far as I know, grassroots leaders are appointed largely by the People's Association or selected by them and who are very partial to the Government or the Party. We do have in this country, and I hope it is still being continued, a system of appointing Justices of the Peace. I do not know how many Justices of the Peace we have at the moment in Singapore. Is it not possible to involve Justices of the Peace in solving these disputes that arise?

There is a danger, as has been mentioned, I think, that information which is highly private may be leaked out and may be made use of by persons who may have other motives in mind. Therefore, I think it is absolutely necessary that whoever is asked to mediate should be persons of the highest integrity and should be bound by some strict rules of conduct and safeguards. So I want to know whether it is not possible to just use the Justices of the Peace that we have in Singapore.

The other matter that I wish to raise is clause 14, ie, representation by agent. I can well understand the need to keep lawyers out of this mediation. But why is there a refusal to let a party be represented by an agent? Some persons may, but through no fault of themselves, be unable to express their problems and what is it that they are seeking. And if they are prepared to find somebody who will be able to speak for them and on whom they can trust, why is it not possible for them to be represented by the agent selected by them?

The common law principle is that any person can do, what he can do by himself, through an agent unless some statute prohibits the doing of anything through an agent. Sir, I would ask the Ministry to consider whether clause 14 may perhaps work to the disadvantage of persons who may not be able to present their problems or the solutions as they seek as effectively as through an agent in whom they place their trust.

Mr Shriniwas Rai (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this Bill. At the outset, I must disclose my interest. I am a practising lawyer and I also sit as a panel member of the Strata Titles Board and the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal, Sir.

Sir, the Bill before the House is timely. We have successfully experimented with the system in the Subordinate Courts. The Family Court has adopted mediation to settle disputes. In the High Court, parties are encouraged to settle disputes at Mediation Centres set up by the Singapore Academy of Law.

Sir, small disputes involving neighbours and family members should not end up in court where, under the existing system of justice, it is adversarial. In the course of the trial and cross-examination, feelings of the parties get affected and the loser is likely to nurse grievances despite justice being done to him. Sir, court trial is costly, time consuming and distressing.

Some 150 years ago, an advice was given on litigation that is relevant even today. Unfortunately, the advice was not followed. Let me quote:

"Discourage litigation. Persuade client to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them that how the nominal winner is often the loser in fees, expenses and waste of time." The advice was given by Abraham Lincoln, Sir. Sadly, the American lawyers continued to depend heavily on litigation to settle disputes. The American society is well known for its litigation and the judicial system almost came to a strain. A movement in 1970s started in America, which is called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), to resolve disputes. It gained ground in America, Australia and we in Singapore have experimented in our court, especially in the Subordinate Courts. It has worked smoothly and satisfactorily.

Sir, mediation is not new to Asian society. In villages, disputes are settled by a Council of Elders who act as mediators.

Sir, may I relate a recent case which shows the effective working of mediation. Just a year ago, in the Subordinate Court, a tenancy dispute that would have taken a few days and a few thousand dollars in legal fees ended after the parties saw a Mediation Judge in Chambers. The Judge played a proactive role and took pains to point out the legal position to the parties and to the solicitors.

Let me now contrast this with a case which happened some 25 years ago where two neighbours went to the Magistrate Court in South Bridge Road over a minor dispute. It was a private summons case. The matter went on for a few days. The learned Magistrate dismissed the case. Both parties paid the lawyers handsomely. Both men had large families. Both were ordinary wage earners. They spent their hard earned savings on this unproductive exercise. Even now, the families are not on talking terms. So are the children, some of whom are graduates. It is yet to be seen how the grandchildren will see to this family feud.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a practising lawyer, I see merit in the Bill before this House. Mediation has the advantage that it is accessible and the hearing could be held in the evening in the housing estates. It is expeditious. It saves costs. It is pacifying. It is healing. It is informal, less intimidating and, most of all, it is user friendly.

Sir, there are some areas which perhaps could have been better drafted but I think it would be premature to criticise the Bill as a whole and the thing to do is to leave it to the working for a year or so and to review to see what amendments could be made. But there are some provisions in the Bill which need reconstruction.

Sir, under clause 5, the Director may delegate his power. I am unhappy with this provision. May we have other designated officers, like Deputy and Assistant Directors, to assist him? Also, Sir, success of the law would depend on the choice of Directors and mediators.

Sir, the Government has maintained a very high standard in appointments to tribunals. I hope it would be done in this case.

I now move to clause 15. I suggest that the power of the mediator be increased. Perhaps, a legally trained mediator would be useful in cases under clause 15 so that he could bring finality to the matter instead of referring the matter to the Subordinate Courts again. I know this requires changes in our criminal law and Criminal Procedure Code. I think in the interest of the community, welfare and justice, we should look into this and if it is not possible to do so now, I hope it could be done later.

I am concerned with the rules of evidence, Sir. Clause 10(3) of the Bill reads:

"The rules of evidence do not apply to mediation session." This is rather puzzling, Sir. Can a mediator disregard the evidence? To do so would be unjust and unfair. Even the Maintenance of Parents Act is more satisfactory. Section 14(9) of the Act reads:

"The Tribunal shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence and shall determine the conduct of its proceedings." I hope that the rules of evidence would be the same as that of the Small Claims Tribunal under section 25(1) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act which reads:

"A Tribunal shall not be bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit." Unfortunately, these provisions do not exist in the intending legislation.

Sir, on a more fundamental issue, the question that we as a people must ask is what type of society we are going to bring about. Are we going to encourage litigations in society where parties go to court on issues which in other countries are settled by mediation. In short, the system of justice shows the values of the people. We are an Asian society. Our social values differ from the western nations. We pride in community well-being rather than in individual rights. As such, mediation would be relevant to resolve disputes.

In the adversarial set-up, there is only one winner. Under the proposed system, all parties would be happier as mediation has a conciliatory effect on the parties and hopefully they may live happily after that.

In certain cases, there may be some arm twisting in order to get social justice but that is something we need not fear. Success of the system will depend on the choice of the Director who will play a pivotal role in the working of the system.

The people who are chosen as mediators must be community leaders who command the respect of the community. Perhaps we should enlarge the system of Justices of Peace. Two other hon. Members before me have emphasised, and I think I need to further emphasise, that we should try to increase the pool of JPs. We should include some lawyers as mediators. In some disputes, especially in areas of criminal law, lawyers may be better placed to mediate. We should try to make use of people who have vast experience in community well-being. At times, mediators would have to decide very sensitive issues and in these cases, we should have more than one mediator.

With this, I support the Bill, Sir.

Dr Vasoo: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, this is a very positive Bill in the sense that it will provide a basis to solve community problems, particularly inter-personal problems between residents. In the longer term the Bill, as the Minister of State has pointed out, will also promote community relations. I think there are a lot of problems in the community and between people that can be resolved through mediation. So such a Bill is timely and a lot of inter-personal issues could be resolved through the mediation centre.

Sir, what I am concerned about is that this centre would deal with issues based on voluntary commitment and voluntary initiatives of the parties in dispute. This is good for a start. But there are growing numbers of people who cause problems to others and whose problems can only be resolved if the mediation centre has sufficient teeth. And the numbers will be growing, Sir. I think the mediation centres should, in the long term, be given sufficient teeth to deal with these problems effectively.

Then there are disputes which are agreed upon. The parties to the disputes finally get a decision or arrive at a mutual agreement. But there are difficulties of enforcement of these decisions or mutual agreements. When this happens and the centre is unable to enforce it, then people would lose confidence in the work of the centre. What I am saying is that it is very important for the mediation centres, at some point, to have sufficient teeth to deal with protracted problems. Sometimes human problems are really protracted and some people refuse to address the issues concerned, and they could cause disharmony to the community. And such people will have to be dealt with, and dealt with effectively.

I hope that the Minister of State will be able to look into ways to strengthen these provisions further by perhaps, as my learned friend Mr Rai, the NMP, has said, adopting some of the rules and regulations provided for under the Maintenance of Parents Act. If we adopted these rules and regulations, then I am sure the work of the mediation centre will be effective and efficient.

Sir, what is also important is to take note that we need to have respectable community leaders, who have integrity and honesty and who are well-known to the community, to serve on these community mediation centres. We need not just have JPs to deal with the problem. If we look around, I am sure there are enough community leaders who have sufficient standing and public interest in mind to serve in these mediation centres.

Sir, on that note, I would like to support the Bill.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to follow up on the NCMP's comment on the Bill. As I recall, he said that grassroots leaders should not be mediators. He said that grassroots leaders are appointed by the People's Association and they would not be impartial in conducting mediation. I do not see the relevance here because a dispute is between two individuals. Let us say in a civil dispute, it is between A and B. The Government does not come into the picture in the settlement of the dispute. He suggested that it would be better to use Justices of Peace. In the same way, the Justice of Peace is also appointed by the Government. So I think his suggestion is inconsistent.

I would think that grassroots leaders, like community leaders, can play a part in settling civil disputes for the community. If you look at our history, in the old days, 40-50 years ago, clan associations and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce played a major part in settling communal disputes among the people. And I would suggest to the Minister of State that maybe the established clan associations, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce or any other major social organisation can be used as one of the proposed mediation centres.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first of all, let me thank all the speakers for speaking up in support of the Bill. It is very heartening to note that the speakers are appreciative of the import of the Bill. Many speakers have said this is the first time we are doing it, to bring mediation to the ground, and indeed, as I have said in my speech, we will take a phased step-by-step approach. Members have made good suggestions which will be considered. The process will go on. In drafting the rules, we will take into consideration some of the points raised. But the fact is that because it is the first time that we are doing it, it is important that everybody lends support to the Bill, which is the case today.

I want to make a few general points before dealing specifically with Members' queries. The first point is the type of disputes which the Centre will help settle. The paradigm situation is really that of the neighbours. I think those of us who work the ground and even those who are involved, for example, in town council work, and reading from the media, will know that there are disputes involving neighbours, which with the best of intentions still cannot result in a settlement. In fact, sometimes grassroots leaders are involved but because there is an absence of a structure, there is a lot of wastage of effort and time. So if we can settle the bulk of these disputes for a start, that will be a very good start.

Of course, Members have brought up other situations. For example, Prof. Chin has mentioned the case of family disputes involving property, and also Mr Chng Hee Kok has brought up the point about ex-spouses. We have defined the ambit of the Bill in a broad way so that it is inclusive. Because, after all, the parties want a forum which is friendly, which is available, to just talk and air their views. And as has been mentioned, for example, by Mr Shriniwas Rai, it is important to get the parties together to air their views early, so that set positions do not take place. I think we should allow them.

But having said this, there are some disputes which lend themselves better to resolution in other fora. I think the point raised by Prof. Chin is about a more complicated family matter involving distribution of property. The thing to do is to inform these parties and let them know that there are more appropriate fora where they may wish to go to, whether it is the Singapore Mediation Centre or the Small Claims Tribunal, as I have said in my speech. Or indeed in some disputes where other fora have already taken cognizance of the case like family violence and personal protection orders, it would be more appropriate for the parties to be referred to them. So I think we will take this approach and we will see how it works out on the ground and certainly after two or three years, we will review it. That is the first point.

The second point is that of voluntariness. I think Dr Vasoo and a few others are more gung-ho in their approach and would like for a start for us to take a more assertive stance. Like I said, because this is the first time we are doing it, we want to be all-encompassing and get as many people to come on board as possible. We know that the essence of successful mediation is that the parties really want their disputes to be settled. But, ideally, if both parties come to the Centre together, that will be very good. In some cases, it may not happen this way. In some cases, one party may come to the Centre and say, "I've got a dispute." Then it is up to the Director to ask the other disputing party to come down. We cannot force them. But we will let them know, "Look, we know of this dispute. Why don't you come and talk and settle it?" Or in situations of referrals, for example, by MPs. Many of us hear of these cases when they come to see us. Or even by NPPs or an instance where even the Magistrate's Court can refer. The approach currently is that there should be an element of voluntariness.

And even on how to enforce the settlement. In fact, the Committee that I headed, we thought about this long and hard, whether to make it stricter in enforcement. There again, we took the general approach. Because this is the first time we are doing it, we would like it to succeed. We would like as many parties to come on board as possible. Therefore, we have taken the approach where the parties can come together and air their views. I think airing their views in a constructive mediated manner is already a good step. At the end of the day, their agreement would be put down in writing. That will be the case for all mediations, so that at least the parties will know, after all the discussion, that their compromise position will be set down in writing. And whether or not they want it to be legally bound, it is up to them. If they want to, there will be an express statement. At least they will, in those situations, know that there is a legal hold over what they have agreed to. So let us again take a phased approach. I will take into consideration the points raised by Members and review them subsequently.

The third general point made by Members is on the standing of mediators. I think that is critical. In fact, that is very often whether or not a mediation will succeed. And like I have said in my speech, we will be very careful in selecting mediators. Basically, people of good standing, both professionals and community leaders, because the standing of the mediator, in fact, is pivotal to parties first coming for mediation, and being prepared to air their grievances and, secondly, being prepared to accept the advice and keep to what they have agreed to.

Justices of Peace will be considered. Mr Jeyaretnam asked why not restrict to only Justices of Peace. My response will be: why exclude other grassroots leaders who are suitably qualified? If there are JPs who are qualified, we will consider them. But there are grassroots leaders who are also well qualified. So we must also consider them. And indeed Dr Ker makes a very valid point, because these are non- political disputes. I do not think we should fear that if grassroots leaders are appointed, they will be pro-Government. I think that is really not the issue in so far as this Bill is concerned.

There are a few other points which are made by Members. Mr Chng asked about fees. Here again, because we want to get people to come, we have decided not to impose fees at the outset, but certainly if and when the Mediation Centres take off, we will consider them. He asked: why not do more than mediation? In terms of the Community Mediation Centres, as the name of the centres implies, it will focus on mediation. But under the Bill, the Law Ministry will set up an ADR Committee, for that is the wider picture. Now we are focusing on mediation. But we will not stop there. In terms of a centre or a body looking into how to foster the further growth of ADR processes, including arbitration, for example, in Singapore, there is scope for this. So the Law Ministry's ADR Committee will also look at the other processes, but let us take one step at a time and focus on mediation for the time being.

Prof. Chin Tet Yung also talks about co-location. He talks about justice centres overseas which are one-stop centres. This is partly why we have located the Small Claims Tribunal Regional Centre with the Community Mediation Centre because this really involves the people on the ground - your residents who have got either small claims or social disputes wanting settlement. The convenience is that if a dispute is better settled in the other forum, it can be referred straightaway. So that is a start.

Mr Shriniwas Rai is not happy about the delegation of powers by the Director. That is an administrative measure to enable the centre to run efficiently. But let me assure him that, first, we will choose the Director very carefully and secondly, critical functions, for example, deciding whether or not a dispute should be accepted, will not be delegated.

He talks about the rules of evidence. I think the point is taken. But we must look at the thrust of the provision, which is really to have a system which is informal, friendly, not bogged down by too many technicalities. But certainly the rules of natural justice must be complied with. In terms of his reference to the other two Acts, the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal Act and the Small Claims Tribunals Act, the broad approach of the CMC will be along the same lines.

Mr Jeyaretnam also talks about allowing agents to represent the parties freely. I am sure he can see from the Bill that currently it is up to the Director. If the Director finds it useful and if he feels that it will facilitate mediation, he can actually allow for a third party to also come into the mediation. All of us know that in mediation it is better only for the involved parties to be there. Very often, third parties complicate the matter and make it much more difficult to mediate. Therefore, I think the present position is better. It is not a block-all approach, but let us leave it to the Director to decide, basically, on what grounds - whether or not the presence of a third party will facilitate mediation.

Sir, I think I have answered all the points. Once again, I want to thank Members here for speaking. All of us are hopeful that community mediation will go a long way in making Singapore more cohesive and more harmonious.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.