Proceedings under Section 4 of Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for Cases of Smoking Near Balconies or Windows in Homes

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law (a) whether proceedings can be brought under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for cases of smoking near balconies or windows in homes when the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his property; and (b) if so, what kind of evidence will need to be presented in order to show such interference.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my Ministry has previously provided the Member with statistics relating to claims brought in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) for unreasonable interference caused by excessive smoke, which includes second-hand smoke. The Member will therefore be aware that claims can be brought under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) for cases of smoking near balconies or windows in homes when the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour's enjoyment of his or her property.

Section 4(1) of the CDRA states that a resident must not, by an act or omission, cause unreasonable interference with another neighbour's enjoyment or use of place of residence. Section 4(2)(a) states that the interference may include an act of causing excessive smell and smoke.

As a Court of Law, the CDRT requires a claimant to present sufficient evidence to show that the respondent caused excessive smoke and smell to such an extent that it causes unreasonable interference. That is the threshold and the test. Bare allegations are insufficient.

Any evidence that points towards the source of interference, the type of interference, or its intensity and surrounding circumstances, would therefore be relevant. Some examples include letters or contemporaneous messages which are exchanged between the neighbours which may point to or suggest the source of the second-hand smoke, written records that set out the specific dates and times of the acts in question and also show an established pattern of smoking, and if possible, photographs or video-recordings which capture the particular resident in the act of smoking.

In addition, the Member would also be familiar with the approach of the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF), which is to encourage neighbours involved in disputes to always first attempt direct, friendly discussions between neighbours, or mediation, and only file a claim with the CDRT as a measure of last resort. This approach emphasises communication and the building of relationships, in particular, between neighbours and recognises that a legalistic, litigious approach is not usually the best or most efficient way to resolve disputes in the community and it is certainly not the first port of call. This approach gives parties a better chance at reaching mutually acceptable solutions in a fast and amicable manner, without escalating the dispute through the process of evidence-gathering or trading allegations, as the case might be.

As separately conveyed to this House, an inter-agency committee led by MCCY is reviewing the CDMF and is studying a range of proposals. These include promoting neighbourliness as a way to reduce the likelihood of disputes arising in the first instance and also increasing the awareness and accessibility on the use of community mediation as the primary way to resolve disputes between neighbours.

Thank you, Sir and I thank the Minister for the reply. In the last two months, over 2,400 people in Singapore have approached me for help with regard to them being affected by second-hand smoke in their homes. I think the massive number is not worrying, what is worrying is that only about 2% actually approached the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or CDRT for help.

Could I ask Minister, what are we doing in terms of creating more awareness of CMC or CDRT option? Two, how can we make the whole process easier or more accessible to members of the public?

I think, the Member has in part, answered the question himself. CMC is something that is available, the threshold is low, and the cost, if I am not mistaken from memory, is $5 per claim. Sometimes, there are difficulties, of course, getting both sides to come to mediation. That is of course, understandable. And that is why the CDMF review committee is looking at measures, which I have explained in the prior written answer to this House. We are considering a range of options, including in some cases, mandating the mediation. So, that takes care of those cases where consensual mediation might not be possible.

In addition, if the matter escalates and, despite repeated attempts, there is no possibility of a consensual or a friendly or amicable resolution, then the Member is able to advise the resident to come to the CDRT. In that situation, obviously, the limitation is in part that there must be substantial evidence, at least substantial to the extend that you cross the relevant threshold in a manner which I have explained just now, because CDRT is an adjudicatory tribunal and it has to go on the basis of what is the appropriate remedy to impose, given the nature of the evidence.

And of course, the Act also sets out the circumstances which the tribunal will look at when considering the appropriateness of the remedy, bearing in mind that this is smoking within the confines of an individual's own home. Obviously, you have got to find a balance between what you do in your own home and the impact that you might have on another individual trying to have a quiet enjoyment of his or her own home.

So, these are the options available with the consequential challenges that might apply. But these options will be looked at and enlarged as we review the CDMF to look at more substantial and also more practical solutions to solve these problems.