Community Disputes Resolution Bill

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Over a short 50 years, Singaporeans and definitely our pioneer generation citizens have seen the dramatic transformation of our housing landscape from kampongs to urban living. Today, some 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats.

Our vertical community was designed with the common areas to promote social interaction. These common areas include void decks and common corridors. Whilst the intent of such spaces was to facilitate social interaction and cohesion among neighbours, it can also be a source of conflicts for others.

Our living spaces and homes are planned with good designs for aesthetics and efficiency. However, these aspects only concern the physical infrastructure. It takes hands to build a house, but only hearts can build a home. We can have the best architects and urban planners to build our communities but it is the people who live in them that give it the spirit – the kampong spirit.

As we live in close quarters to one another, sharing the same walls, ceilings and floors, it is inevitable that we are affected, sometime or another, by our neighbours' actions or their inaction. In the name of "Kampong Spirit", I am glad that in this Bill, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal has the power, under section 30, to compel parties in dispute to first try to resolve their differences amicably through mediation, before the Tribunal commences the formal process of adjudicating the dispute.

I am hopeful that the Tribunal will be generous in exercising its power under section 30, to refer cases for mediation. This compulsive power of the Tribunal gives it an important edge over other forms of community driven mediation for neighbourly disputes.

We have all too often heard of cases where one party in a dispute is more than willing to give mediation a fair chance, but all efforts to go for mediation are hampered by the stubbornness of the opposing party, who resists all attempts to bring the matter for mediation. This is even when grassroots leaders step in to try to encourage mediation or some form of resolution.

We, as a society, must not lose sight of the importance of first embracing socially responsible behaviour, adopt a give and take attitude, mutual consideration and tolerance. Neighbours must first try to negotiate and compromise when they encounter disagreements or conflicts.

Even with the existence of the Tribunal, should a conflict arise, neighbours should first try and resolve them amicably. We need to have community builders like grassroots

Page: 74

organisations, VWOs and residents themselves to promote good neighbourliness.

Mediation should continue to be the first port of call for residents to resolve disputes. We can and should do more to promote formal and informal community mediation. What I see lacking is the accessibility of trained community mediators with the right skills and temperament to handle difficult conflicts between neighbours.

More community leaders and volunteers can be roped in and trained to be mediators and be deployed on the ground to help mitigate conflicts, and prevent them from worsening. Mediation should be the bedrock of community dispute resolution so as to preserve community harmony and cohesion and making efficient use of public resources for conflict resolution. We should guard against the development of a climate of litigation, where people resort to the court to get things done, or to have trigger-happy and vindictive residents abusing the Tribunal to punish a neighbour.

In the spirit of this Bill, neighbours should use the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal as a measure of last resort, when all attempts for resolution fail. I am given to understand that the move for a Tribunal was partly prompted by the lack of success in resolving long outstanding disputes at the Community Mediation Centre. This is due to the high rate of no shows. The current no-show rate is 60% as attendance is not compulsory. As I have previously commented, the power of compulsion given to the Tribunal to ensure parties appear before the CMC for mediation should go a long way towards improving this statistic.

Madam, I would like to seek clarification on section 4 subsection 4 of the Bill, which provides that a neighbour is an individual who lawfully resides in a place of residence but does not include an individual who occupies the same place of residence as the respondent.

Madam, in the course of my Meet-the-People Sessions, I had encountered warring tenants living in the same flat, particularly singles sharing a flat under the Joint Singles Scheme. In many ways, they are effectively neighbours, even though they are living under the same address.

In one such instance, a tenant had to avoid his co-tenant's bullying antics, by spending each night at a 24-hour fast food restaurant before returning back home to his flat in the morning to sleep. A solution is needed to provide relief to the bullied. More can be done to allow such disputes to be mediated and when all else fails, the recalcitrant tenants can be brought before the Tribunal.

Page: 75

Such tenants, too, deserve protection from behaviour which causes unreasonable interference to their enjoyment or use their place of residence that the co-tenant resides in. Madam, may I ask if the Minister can consider including, in the definition of "neighbour", such co-tenants in flats. This would provide a measure of protection and an avenue of dispute resolution for such aggrieved tenants.

I gladly note that much effort has been put into the Bill to ensure equality of arms for parties appearing before the Tribunal. Section 29 mandates that all parties must present their own case, and only in narrow situations are another person possibly allowed to represent a party. Even more importantly, parties are not allowed to be represented by lawyers, unless all parties to the dispute agree and the Tribunal gives permission. In my view, this ensures that even if one party in the dispute has deep pockets or strong financial muscle, it would be difficult for him or her to over-awe the other side, or win the case through more skilful or persuasive presentation of a case by a trained professional.

Similarly, by providing, in section 23, that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence as to what it can take into account, such a step makes it much easier for parties to present their cases in person.

This is especially so if the parties have little or no understanding of the Courts, or are not familiar with how evidence should be presented in Court. Even more importantly, this section implicitly recognises the fact that Court proceedings, regardless of surroundings, are intimidating to the regular man on the street, and having more relaxed rules of procedures go a long way towards making things more comfortable for lay litigants.

I have but one concern about how these safeguards for lay litigants may be circumvented by parties who are bent on having a lawyer represent them, even in a neighbourly dispute. Such parties may exploit the limited jurisdiction given to the Tribunal in section 4, and the wide powers for transfer of cases from the Tribunal to the other Courts, but do not provide for corresponding transfer of cases back to the Tribunal.

Section 20 provides that when a claim or counterclaim is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, a party to the proceedings may have the matter transferred to a normal Court, where all the rules of procedure and legal representation would apply.

Given the restrictions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction, I would not be surprised if parties may be able to transfer the case out of the Tribunal by lodging a counter-claim which the Tribunal cannot deal with.

Page: 76

Two examples come to mind. A defendant may claim that he was injured by unsafe conditions in the plaintiff's house, when the defendant had trespassed into the property, and thereby claim, whether with basis or not, for occupier's liability. Or two, a defendant who is a trespasser, may claim that he was injured by the plaintiff when the latter tried to evict him from the property, and lay a counterclaim for battery. In either case, the Tribunal appears to be unable to deal with the dispute and it has to be transferred to a normal Court.

In these examples I have cited, the defendant may be the one wishing to have a lawyer represent him, and uses such tactics to move the case out of the Tribunal, and into the regular Court system, where the plaintiff may have inequality of arms. This is especially so if the financial strength of the parties are unequal. After the case has been moved to the regular Courts, the defendant may then abandon his counterclaim, and the plaintiff does not appear to have any way to transfer the case back to the Tribunal.

In this regard, I would ask the Minister to consider including provisions for the corresponding transfer of cases from the normal Court system to the Tribunal, if and when the facts warrant it.

I would also ask the Minister to consider inserting, in section 18, the possibility for a case which had been commenced in the normal Court to be transferred to the Tribunal, if the facts or claim fit within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

This would help avoid situations where a party to a neighbourly dispute, who desires to engage a lawyer to represent him, rushes to commence a case in the normal Courts, before his neighbour can initiate a case before the Tribunal.

In summation, Mdm Speaker, that a law to ensure community harmony is only being tabled now is nothing short of amazing and speaks volumes about the community harmony that we have quietly enjoyed as a society over the years. We need to guard this harmony jealously.

While the setting up of a Tribunal and the provisions in this Bill are designed to provide more teeth to settle complex and recalcitrant disputes, with the Tribunal given powers to impose judgement and sanctions, the Tribunal can also order both parties to go for mediation. For a quarrel amongst neighbours to be brought before a state-sanctioned arbiter is not an ideal solution, regardless the outcome, as the relationship between neighbours thereafter may have been irreparably damaged. However, it does create the possibility of a state-sanctioned solution, should all other methods fail.

Page: 77

Mdm Speaker, if I may also urge the Minister to consider speeding up more CMCs and up-sizing the training of a pool of community mediators. They must be more accessible to residents, in order to help mediate community disputes before they escalate to the Tribunal as a last resort. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, mediation must involve parties coming forward willingly to participate and eventually strive for a desired outcome or resolution. Over time, as a society, we seem to be having more cases that need mediation and the case mix also appears to be of a more complex nature. Thus, referrals from mediations may increase. However, the no-show rate currently by one or more of the disputing parties is still very high. It is at about 60% today. This means that there are still many unhappy parties with unresolved issues.

Compulsory mediation will be useful for long-drawn recalcitrant cases with fixated mindsets over certain issues which, at times, surprisingly may be very petty in the eyes of others. The longer these cases drag on, the more entrenched they become and the chance of a successful resolution may get more remote. Education, advisories, counselling – all these do not seem to yield the much desired outcome in this area of dispute.

With the passing of this Bill to make attending compulsory community mediation sessions, I have the following queries.

Firstly, will the workload increase and what will be the projected figures for CMC? What is the average waiting time and how many cases can be handled every week, every month? Thirdly, will CMC be able to cope with the expected increase for mediations? Fourth, will CMC be getting more volunteer mediators and, if so, through what channels, bearing in mind that time is needed for training them as well? Fifth, what is the current workload of the mediators on average, and how many volunteer mediators do we have in the pool and how senior and what is the level of experience in conducting mediations independently? Will there be a higher level of training for the mediators to enhance their success rate with the passing of this Bill? After all, the quality, capability and experience of our mediators play a very important role as well.

Similarly, we need to prepare the framework and SOP for the working of the Tribunal and make this very clear as well. How many cases are pending currently at CMC? When the Bill kicks in, what will happen to these cases? Will they be automatically channelled towards compulsory mediation or will they be considered null and void and a fresh application will

Page: 78

have to be made?

Madam, community mediation is unique and different from other forms of mediation and commercial mediations. It has to take into account values, culture, race, religion, face issues, rootedness, emotions and certainly, mindset of living in a multi-racial society. Thus, the handling by a training personnel who has sensitivity and deep understanding of these values and issues will certainly be helpful.

As quite a significant number of disputes between neighbours happen in housing estates, how will CMC be working with agencies like Town Councils and the HDB? We know that the engagement and collaboration with community leaders, grassroots and volunteers group too play an important part. Are there plans for these to be made more formal? And also strengthening the alignment between these various parties can have a positive synergistic effect in many of the cases and disputes I have encountered so far. On that note, can I also ask what will be the role of MCSTs in condominiums if there re disputing parties that living space?

Pertaining to the escalation to the Tribunal, what will be the steps and processes involved? I think the public needs to be clear about this as well. Can the Minister share with us the algorithm for a clearer picture for all to understand?

Madam, this Bill is not about us setting up a list of commandments for being a good neighbhour. It is not meant to be prescriptive in that context but it is about being good citizens, good neighbours as we all strive to attain the true meaning of enjoyment of our residents and a peaceful and happy life.

Also, importantly, there is a Chinese quotation that goes, "It is better for parties in dispute to settle than to hang on." Madam, there is, indeed, truth in that and we hope that we will all be able to share our common spaces, build more bridges and manage our egos. I support the Bill.

Madam, in the course of my work as a Member of Parliament, I come across many disputes between neighbours. It is an area of frustration because there is hardly anything we can do about the dispute. There is no offence committed but yet, if the situation is not managed properly, it will impact the social harmony of the neighbourhood.

Page: 79

Neighbours quarrel for many reasons. Complaints which I receive frequently are about noise where neighbours disrupt the peace because they either play their musical instruments too loudly, they make banging noises or they drag their furniture in the middle of the night. Some neighbours have dogs that bark throughout the day and night; and some neighbours hold parties which go on to the wee hours of the morning.

Next is encroachment of space. When one neighbour is unhappy that the other neighbour has too many plants or a shoe rack placed along the corridor; or the neighbour parks their bicycle indiscriminately, or leave their clothes hanger in a way that blocks the passageway. And in the private estates, this is manifested when neighbours place dustbins or pails to "chope" parking space and they get very upset when someone else parks along the public road which they deem as their own personal parking lot.

The third one is littering. Neighbours complain about dripping of water from upstairs neighbours, throwing of cigarette butts, tissue and even sanitary napkins or other litter to the downstairs unit.

Fourth is smell. Neighbours complain that their other neighbour burns incense throughout the day or burns incense paper in an indiscriminate manner, resulting in ashes being blown towards their home.

Finally, neighbours complain about socially unacceptable behaviour like the use of vulgar language, taunts or urinating in public and so on.

Whenever neighbour disputes occur, we have limited solutions. Usually, we ask the community leaders to mediate; we ask the HDB officers or the Town Council officers to speak nicely to the residents to seek their co-operation. We even ask the Police to pay them a visit to remind them to keep the peace, and finally we invite parties to attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or CMC. However, where one neighbour is adamant in not wanting to resolve the matter, the issue becomes stalled. The rest of the neighbours who are adversely affected are left fuming away and feeling frustrated.

This situation is clearly unacceptable to many people. There must be a solution for disputes of this nature where an unreasonable respondent should be taken to task instead of leaving the rest of the neighbours to fume at the inadequacy of the legal system.

Hence, I welcome the Community Disputes Resolution Bill. I welcome the creation of the tort of interference with enjoyment or use of place of residence as defined in the Bill. I also welcome the setting up of the Tribunal and the empowerment of the State Court to determine whether a Respondent has breached the tort of interference. I recognise that this

Page: 80

new law is not a silver bullet which will solve all the neighbourly disputes. But, at least, it provides some form of relief for the majority of neighbours who suffer because one particular neighbour has behaved in an utterly unreasonable manner.

I do have some queries about the Bill which I hope that the Minister can clarify so that in future when the Courts interpret this Act, they have reference to parliamentary debates to ascertain the intent of Parliament.

As a starting point, whenever disputes arise, what should an aggrieved party do first? The Police do not wish to be involved as there is no criminal offence committed. However, from experience, the presence of the Police is frequently very helpful as citizens respond better when there is Police presence. Is it possible for a Neighbourhood Police Centre or NPC to set up a section staffed by Police Officers who specialise in neighbour dispute?

Next, let me go on to the Bill. Section 9 of the Bill provides for the Court to grant an exclusion order to exclude a contravening party from his place of residence. Whilst I acknowledge that this order may help keep the peace for the neighbourhood, this power gives the Court a very wide discretion. May I ask the Minister, is there a time limit for the exclusion order? Is it meant to be a temporary exclusion order or would it be a permanent order? When can the contravening party be allowed to return to his own home? In the meantime, would the Government provide an alternative accommodation for the contravening party?

Next is section 10. It provides that a breach of an exclusion order by a contravening party is an offence and the offender is liable to a fine or imprisonment. Besides fine or imprisonment, can the Court order specific performance or is there power to evict?

Section 30 of the Bill provides that the Registrar or Tribunal Judge can refer parties to the CMC or to any other person for mediation with or without consent of the person. It is a basic principle that mediation is usually a voluntary process whereby parties are encouraged to seek a amicable solution on their own accord. Hence, if a party is unwilling to attend mediation, would referring that party to the CMC help resolve the matter? Would the Court consider sending contravening parties for mandatory counselling or even for psychiatric help if the Court deems that a contravening party needs such psychiatric treatment?

Section 5 of the Bill provides that a Court can order a respondent to provide an apology. If a party is unwilling to provide an apology or if the apology is not sincere, how would that order resolve the dispute between the neighbours? Perhaps, an apology can be considered a mitigating factor for a Court in determining the amount of damages to be awarded. This is akin to defamation suits where the Court does not order a defaming party to make an

Page: 81

apology. However, an apology would help reduce the sting of the defamation and hence a reduction in the amount of damages to be awarded.

Section 4(2)(e) of the Bill provides that surveillance of the neighbour or his place of residence is not allowed. But, Madam, there are occasions when a neighbour in dispute installs a video camera to capture evidence of any offending acts by his neighbour. There are also occasions where a resident installs a video camera to record acts of harassment by loan sharks. Is it the intent of this law that this installation of the video recording device is not allowed? Perhaps, the Minister can clarify.

Finally, section 4(1) of the Bill provides that a person must not cause "unreasonable" interference. However, in section 4(2), the following subsection, the word "unreasonable" is missing. Is there a particular reason for the omission of the world "unreasonable"? I hope that the Minister can clarify these concerns. Madam, I support the Bill.

Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East):  Madam, this Bill seeks to establish a Tribunal to hear difficult cases of dispute between neighbours after efforts such as community mediation have been exhausted. The latest SHS or better known as the Sample Household Survey which was conducted by HDB revealed a drop in residents' satisfaction with their flat and their neighbourhood. Respondents cited inconsiderate neighbours as the main reason.

I am sure everyone in this House, including agencies such as HDB, Town Councils and even the Singapore Police Force has their fair share of experience dealing with neighbour's dispute brought up by our respective constituents.

Most people wish to live harmoniously and believe in the Chinese saying, “远亲不如近邻”. Unfortunately, some disputes have soured relationships so badly that neighbours seek ways to get back at each other or escalate their quarrels to the media and Internet.

As much as I do not wish to see neighbours ending up in Court to settle their differences, I hope that this Bill will encourage more people to resolve their disputes at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) and legislation should be the last resort. I have several clarifications on the implementation of the Bill and hope that the Minister can address them.

Clause 4 of this Bill provide a list of scenarios in which interference is caused. I would like to point out three different types of cases that are not mentioned in this clause and ask how the Bill can help to address these situations.

Page: 82

First, rented unit. Owner rented the whole unit out and went overseas for work, say, for a particular number of years. Tenant and neighbours got into some conflicts. The parties will have to face the music. What implications does it have on the owner of the flat?

Next, parties are uncontactable. Residents in a unit have been making a lot of noise in the middle of the night causing disturbances. The Town Council, HDB, Family Service Centre (FSC), Member of Parliament (MP) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) have tried knocking on the door to speak to the resident but were not successful. There is no chance to speak to the resident at all, not to even mention organising a session at the CMC. How can this Bill assist?

Next, mental illness. For residents who suffer from mental illnesses, how does this Bill resolve involving them?

Sensitive issues. I know it is sensitive for the Bill to cover matters which could potentially involve religious practice at home. To ensure religious harmony between neighbours and residents, how can this Bill then mitigate the potential conflicts arising from religious practices?

Lastly, Madam, I noted that this Bill does cover dispute that happens in the unit. There are certain behaviours at home that could affect the comfort and peace of neighbours as we are now living closer to one another. However, people also value their freedom and privacy at home and that they should have the right to enjoy what they like to do in the place they call home. I would like to clarify how can this Bill balance the respect for each individual's privacy in the sanctuary of their personal space and the common interest of other residents living together in the community.

Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this Bill. However, I would like to suggest that the law provides protection to grassroots members as well as Town Council officers who are involved in dispute resolutions.

This Bill must also provide powers to compel a person to attend the mediation sessions or to compel a person to obtain psychiatric treatment in IMH if the person is thought to have mental issues.

Page: 83

Madam, in English, please.

(In English): Another common neighbourly dispute is over leaked roof ceiling in HDB homes. Despite our HDB Goodwill Repair Subsidy, there were several instances when the issue was drawn out because one of the involved parties refused to cooperate. Would the Tribunal preside over such cases to put a stop to irresponsible residents who ignore the problems that they may be causing to their neighbours?

I would also like to raise my concern with regard to the Bill's definitions and processes laid out in the Bill itself. In the Bill, section 4, subsection 2a includes the act causing excessive noise, smell, smoke, light or vibration that may constitute causing interference in the neighbour's use or enjoyment of the place of residence. Given the proximity between households, there may be differences with regard to the degree of what residents find to be "excessive" and what residents may feel is in their personal right in their own household.

In my own constituency, I have cases where upper floor neighbours complain that cigarette smoke from their neighbours downstairs is going into their houses, and it is very, very difficult for us to resolve such a case because the smokers perceive it is within their own right to smoke within their own home. I believe there is a need for greater clarity so that a balance between a resident's own rights and the protection of the neighbour's rights for use and enjoyment of their respective place of residence.

Mdm Speaker, with proper checks and balances, I believe that the Tribunal is more than merely a platform for residents to voice their dissatisfaction and reach a binding solution from the Tribunal. Rather, this Tribunal strives towards ensuring harmony between residents in a fair and just manner – targeted at providing a more assertive resolution for a very small minority of residents who disrespect the common space they share here in Singapore. Madam, I strongly support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I am glad that this Bill has been introduced in Parliament and that a Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal will be set up pursuant to this Bill. Together with several other Parliamentary colleagues, we have been lobbying for the set-up of this Tribunal for the past few years and am glad to see its coming to fruition.

In the set-up of the Tribunal, I urge the Ministry to take cognisance of the following points. Firstly, the Tribunal should be easily accessible by the common man in the street. The forms involved in filing for a complaint or dispute should be relatively easy to complete and

Page: 84

file. The service should accommodate to non-English speaking and dialect speaking parties. In the same vein, the location of the mediation should be easily accessible, particularly in cases involving parties which may or are not highly mobile for a variety of reasons. It is suggested that community clubs or CDCs across the island be also used as possible venues. By the same token, there should be little or no costs involved in lodging and filing the complaint so that it will be easily accessible by all. For example, under the Prevention from Harassment Act, it still costs about $200 to $500 to file a complaint.

Second, compulsory mediation. Before a Tribunal is convened, I submit that mandatory mediation be imposed before cases are escalated to the Tribunal to prevent a floodgate of cases. Likewise, parties to a dispute now cannot avoid mediation, as it is currently voluntary.

The process should be efficient in that the time taken for a normal claim to be heard or mediation arranged and convened should be relatively short. In fact, I am glad with this Bill, parties can be mandated to go for mediation and adjudication by the Tribunal. However, after the Tribunal hearing and adjudication, it is important to ensure ease of enforcement and enforceability of direction, order, decision and judgment. One of the biggest challenges in a civil route of enforcement is that it may cost monies and may be legally challenging and cumbersome for the layman.

Finally, I hope the Bill give more illustrations like the Protection from Harassment Act. Can the Minister give concrete examples and illustrations to the various types of interferences as cited in section 4(2) as it is unclear what amounts to "excessive", what amounts to a real "obstruction" and an "interference"?

Recently, I had a case in my constituency where one neighbour had issues with the placement of an altar. Would the placement and position of the altar considered an interference under section 4(2) if the neighbour complains he feels it is a safety hazard or that he feels his space is being encroached or interfered by the position of the altar? By the same token, would constant dripping water from the laundry of the upstairs unit be also considered a breach of section 4(2)?

Finally, how would this Bill work seamlessly with the Protection from Harassment Act? Can a complainant use the various recourses provided by both pieces of legislation against an act by a neighbour? Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this Bill, particularly, the setting up of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal, so that the neighbours who are involved in disputes will have something to turn to. In setting up the Tribunal, I hope the

Page: 85

Ministry will make the process accessible, efficient, simple and economical.

First, I hope that the process will be simple. In the past, it might be inaccessible; after the Bill is passed, it should be simple and easy. In addition, I hope it will also be economical so that residents will not be deterred by the cost.

The current community mediation is voluntary. After the Bill is passed, we can make mediation mandatory. This will enable those difficult dispute cases to be solved more effectively.

Currently, the agreement reached after the mediation is merely a gentleman's agreement and disputes sometimes can become like a marathon. I hope after the Bill is passed, the process will be relatively short due to more legal protection.

(In English): In summing up, I hope the Ministry will consider my suggestion and comments. I strongly support this Bill and believe it is a step forward in resolving community disputes sensitively, fairly, judiciously, efficiently, effectively and economically.

Mdm Speaker, in a society where most of us live in close proximity to one another, community disputes are bound to happen. Some of these disputes will not be simple and straightforward. For such difficult cases, it may be tempting or even logical to call on the strong arm of the law to bring an end to such difficult cases. There is a limit and a place for the legal framework to come into play and I firmly believe that the legal framework must only kick in as a last resort.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the words of the hon Minister Shanmugan when he posed a question which read, "How should the law deal with such disputes? Should it deal with it at all?"

He then added, "The trouble is the traditional legal framework may not always be the most appropriate or adequate. The legal process can be long drawn out. It's adversarial in nature and it's not easy to get amicable solutions. The proceedings may themselves not be the most cost-effective to deal with day-to-day disputes between neighbours."

"If you want to think of an effective framework, it has to go beyond what is traditionally available in the law. I think one important component of our current framework is, of course, community mediation, where volunteers are trained as mediators. They try and bring parties

Page: 86

together to reach a common understanding."

I could not agree more. In fact, the Minister then proposed a three-stage process for dealing with such disputes. It would be important to note that even he, as our Law Minister, is of the opinion that the sanctions would only be imposed as a final resort.

MCCY has consistently emphasised in all its media statements leading up to this debate that, "The legal recourse established by this Bill is intended as a last resort for resolving difficult disputes between neighbours after all other efforts have failed."

From the various statements, one can safely deduce that MCCY clearly intends for the Tribunal to be the last resort. However, to my surprise, I do not see any provision in the Bill which prevents anyone from filing a claim against his neighbour as a first recourse.

Mdm Speaker, I am aware of section 30 of the Bill which empowers the Court to refer a claim commenced in a Tribunal to a CMC with or without the consent of the parties. But section 30 only kicks in after a claim has commenced in a Tribunal.

On the other hand, section 20 of an earlier version of the Bill contains such a statutory prerequisite. In gist, section 20 of the draft Bill dictates that a claim must not be lodged unless the disputing parties have attended mediation at least once; or the respondent was given at least two invitations to attend mediation with the claimant but the respondent refused or failed to attend the mediation on both occasions.

The aim of such a statutory pre-requisite is clearly is to disqualify claims which have not exhausted the preferred remedy of mediation. However, that provision was deleted in the Bill we now debate before the House.

Mdm Speaker, this raises two questions. Firstly, why was section 20 of the draft Bill removed from the final version? Secondly, in the absence of such a provision, how can we ensure that the legal recourse to the Tribunal would be the last resort after all the efforts have failed?

It is important to ensure that the Tribunal is only used as a last resort so as to uphold good neighbourliness, or as it is known in our vernacular tongue, "gotong royong". Insofar as it is possible to do so, disputes between neighbours should be settled through mediation. This would not only result in a mutually accepted win-win solution for both parties, but it would also help preserve relationships between neighbours.

Page: 87

This is to be contrasted from a case before the Tribunal where the solution is not one that is mutually accepted but one that is meted out by the Judge which usually leads to a situation where one party gains and the other concedes. Therefore, in the interests of upholding the kampong spirit, I submit a dispute must only go before the Tribunal where other methods of dispute resolutions have been exhausted.

I have misgivings that when the Bill becomes law, aggrieved parties will dispense with the trouble of seeking alternative remedies like exploring mediation and go straight to the Tribunal.

Mdm Speaker, I am of the opinion that we should enact new laws only if we are convinced that we have maximised all efforts to enhance community mediation as the preferred remedy for community disputes.

In analysing the question of whether CMC had exhausted all avenues to enhance mediation as the primary recourse for community disputes, I am heartened to note that in 2013, to enhance its attractiveness, CMC reviewed its processes to shorten the waiting period for a mediation session from 28 calendar days to seven working days. Are there no further ways to make community mediation more attractive and more effective?

From 2009 to 2013, CMC's caseload has declined even as the population of Singapore increased. In 2009, there were 742 mediated cases; in 2013, to 525 mediated cases. From 2009 to 2015, the CMC saw a 30% decline in its caseload. This is not an encouraging sign. In comparison, the 2009 population was 4.987 million and the 2013 population was 5.399 million.

What more can be done to encourage people to bring their disputes to CMC? Currently, CMC operates from two locations: premises at the State Courts and MinLaw premises at The Treasury. Both locations are in the CBD. I do not think either location is appealing or convenient to the general public. Could CMC consider having venues that are located at more accessible places, such as void decks, which have a higher population density?

Mdm Speaker, I also note from the 2014 Annual Report that for 2013, 45% of its 525 cases were referrals for compulsory mediation from the Magistrates' Courts. Thus, a large proportion of the CMC's caseload is derived from the Courts.

Are there ways to promote the rate of voluntary mediation? Can the MCCY, with its grassroots connections, not do more to enhance the CMC's attractiveness, usability and appeal to the general public?

Page: 88

I am also intrigued by the MCCY's statement that "the CMC receives a total of about 1,500 applications each year. However, attendance is not mandated and the no-show rate is about 60%." Strangely, in none of the CMC Annual Reports have I seen any citation of no-show rate statistics or of any concern being expressed by CMC of the no-show rates. If the CMC has been concerned with the no-show rate, why did the CMC not raise this concern in any of its Annual Reports? More importantly, what efforts has CMC made to address the no-show rate? Does CMC make any effort to encourage reluctant or unresponsive respondents to attend mediations?

At this juncture, I would like to go back to the words of our Minister for Law, who, as I have mentioned earlier, provided a three-step approach to the problem of community disputes.

Firstly, strengthening the mediation process, where we get people to mediate their disputes and then get them to abide by the understanding that has been reached.

Second approach is to try and develop norms of conduct between neighbours, which need to be specific enough to be meaningful, but also take into account the complexities of urban life and that includes proximity.

Third, encourage the residents to abide by these norms, and introduce effective and properly calibrated sanctions if the norms are breached.

According to Mr Shanmugam, besides strengthening the mediation process, the second approach is to try and develop norms of conduct between neighbours. I would like to know whether any agency is working on the development of such norms of conduct and, if so, how far along has such norms of conduct been developed and what are the plans to publicise the set of norms to the general public.

It is rather disappointing that barely three years after the Minister for Law's suggestions were presented in this House, we are reverting to expedience by means of the sanctions provided for in this Bill. I am saddened to see this policy u-turn.

In closing, I reiterate my argument that we should not enact these new laws unless we are convinced that we have maximised all efforts to promote mediation as the preferred remedy for community disputes.

Mdm Speaker, we must retain the importance of mediation by improving the process and ensuring that it is exhausted before proceeding to the tribunal. Legal prosecution must strictly be reserved as the last resort as it may not necessarily resolve the root of the problem

Page: 89

and may even escalate problems between neighbours, who, more often than not, will continue to live with each other.

If we have the capability to build awe-inspiring structures like Project Jewel and Terminal 5, there is absolutely no doubt that we can build a good foundation for our neighbours by strengthening bonds and norms between neighbours. We have built a beautiful Singapore and now we can also forge stronger bonds between Singaporeans from the ground up. We can, we must, and we will.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill leaves much to be desired in the way we deal with disputes between neighbours. I welcome the introduction of this Bill as nothing less than an avenue for the final resort in dealing with community disputes.

Mdm Speaker, I had, in 2011 and 2013, pushed for a practical and effective framework for resolving neighbour and community disputes. So, I am, therefore, happy to support this Bill.

All Members of this House have encountered disputes within the community – the details are different, but the underlying cause is usually the same: an encroachment of space; a misunderstanding, distrust and an inability to live and let live.

We all prefer that such disputes be resolved informally and amicably, so, we ask our grassroots leaders and community leaders to mediate and help work things out. Even with the passing of the Bill, that must still be our first response. Some of these problems can be resolved if parties simply got together and discussed the matter. So, I agree with Mrs Chiam that that is the way we should do and I think we are still doing it and, every day, we are dealing with problems in that manner.

However, where our best efforts do not work – and there will be cases where disputes cannot be resolved amicably – we need a structure and system to deal with such matters fairly, consistently and efficiently, and that should remain the norm.

The question is: what do we have now? What we have now is clearly inadequate. I think everyone in this House recognises it. Mediation through the Community Mediation Centre is voluntary, and that is a problem. It does not work when parties refuse to cooperate. In 60% of mediation cases, one or more parties simply do not turn up. And because it is voluntary, we cannot compel them to turn up. Even if they do turn up, agreements reached are non-binding and unenforceable. So, the whole voluntary process of it, which is a good thing, also

Page: 90

undermines the efficiency and efficacy of it.

Therefore, this Bill needs to achieve a delicate balance of enforcing the law and still maintaining peace and harmony. And that is going to be very difficult. Let us make no bones about that. Speaking from a legal perspective, there are going to be enormous challenges in its interpretation and application. There will always be clear cases, but there is also going to be a vast pool of very, very grey cases. The Bill, for example, uses phrases like, I quote, "unreasonable interference" and "excessive noise, smell, light or vibration". So, will I be stopped from cooking a dish which carries a smell my neighbour disagrees with? I do not know. The Bill makes the following a tort: "... surveillance of the neighbour or of the neighbour's place of residence, where the surveillance is done at or in the vicinity of that place of residence". Does it mean that I cannot look at my neighbour's house from my own window? And how long and how many times must I do that looking before that "looking" becomes "surveillance"?

But that is and is always going to be the problem and that is the issue. This Bill is an improvement because it gives an avenue to bring such complaints and enables the Court, independent Court, to decide such matters. More importantly – I think this should not be underplayed – the onus is now on the complainant to invest time and effort to prosecute his complaint and not simply call the Police or some other public agency or expect someone else to solve the problem. In that respect, I think this Bill will be quite unpopular when it is ultimately implemented because many people expect other people to solve their problems for them.

Having said that, I hope that with the implementation of this Bill, the attitude of our grassroots leaders and the public agencies will not be to simply say "Go to the new Tribunal". Let us try and solve the problems first and, hopefully, only in the intractable cases will resort to Tribunal be needed.

That said, I wish to highlight some issues.

First, a point of clarification. Section 4(4) states that a person may bring an action if he "lawfully resides" in a place of residence. I think that is too broad. The common law tort of private nuisance requires the claimant to have a proprietary interest in the land. So, either he is an owner or a lawful tenant and so on. The action should only be brought, therefore, by the owner or tenant and/or at least someone with a vested interest in maintaining harmony in that community. Short-term stayers, or those with no stake in the neighbourhood, may have different priorities. So, could the Minister clarify who will be deemed as being "lawfully residing".

Page: 91

Second, the definition of "neighbour" in section 4(4) I think is unnecessary. According to section 4(4), an individual must either stay in the same building as the respondent or within 100 metres of the respondent to be considered a neighbour. While most cases will satisfy this definition, some will not. The test should be whether the person is genuinely and reasonably affected by the conduct and should not be artificially determined by distances. The further away he lives, the less likely he can reasonably claim to be affected.

Third, I have some questions regarding the landlord's bond. A landlord may be ordered to enter into a bond on behalf of a contravening tenant to ensure a special direction is complied with, that is, section 6(3). According to section 11, such a landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy and can re-possess the property a minimum of 14 days after giving notice. Could the Minister give an estimate of how much the bond is likely to be? Also, will the landlord's bond be forfeited if the tenant contravenes the special order after the notice to terminate has been given but before the re-possession, that is, within that minimum 14-day period? After the landlord issues a termination notice, the tenant breaches the conduct or breaches that particular order, will the landlord's bond be forfeited? That is really the question. Given that the landlord's primary form of control over the tenant is the threat of termination, it seems unfair for his bond to be forfeited even after he has exercised the option to terminate.

Mdm Speaker, I stand to speak in support of the Community Disputes Resolution Bill.

A dispute between neighbours is one of the most difficult situations on the ground to resolve. Each neighbour in any dispute is usually adamant that the other party is at fault. Grassroots leaders are frequently accused of taking sides by the parties when they try to mediate and the dispute is invariably unresolved. A dispute makes residents very unhappy and problems usually drag on for weeks and months with increasing acrimony. Real physical fights may even happen whilst anxiety and depression are occasional consequences for some. This Bill is, thus, timely and welcomed, indeed.

This Bill is very relevant because our people live closely to each other in densely populated housing estates with high-rise living. It is also relevant because of the diverse cultures, traditions and habits of our society requiring people to be very thoughtful and tolerant at all times. The arrival of new immigrants who may not be familiar with the Singapore norm can frequently complicate the neighbourhood in this respect.

Page: 92

Madam, may I seek the following clarifications on some aspects of this Bill?

What will constitute the fair level of interference with enjoyment and use of place of residence? Is this going to be based on subjective perception? This will then depend on the sensitivity and tolerance of a person or his attitude towards noise, smell, vibration and so on. It is also a possibility in a case of fussy neighbours who may just want to find faults with other neighbours. Will there be some specified definitions on the level of interference and some criteria to be put in place?

Can there be a specific measure of excessive noise? How about the use of devices for registering the noise levels in decibels and specifying the acceptable noise levels? This is being done in construction sites to keep level of noise of construction down. Such decibel meters can be placed in the home of a complainant by the Police to ascertain the merits for prosecution.

There is a possibility that certain people who are anxious or suffer from anxiety may be more sensitive to certain noises, smells, vibrations and so on. Those with depression also frequently suffer from insomnia and are, therefore, very often sensitive to any noise at night. Is there a channel for medical assessment to ascertain the medical conditions of complainants available? This is especially useful when an accused is very sure that there is no cause for the complaints.

All said, the majority of Singaporeans live in harmony and are usually tolerant of some minor disturbances as part and parcel of daily living. However, can there be better public education on the "dos and don'ts" of high-rise living and the common etiquette? Can there also be promotion of neighbourliness on the ground and encouraging "Kampong Unity" to be adopted by neighbours living in the same precinct?

May I also ask which Ministry will be taking on the task of following up and pursuing complaints? Is there a one-stop centre for "community disputes" where the complaint can be received and resolved or mediated and followed-up on?

Madam, presently, the Community Mediation Centre or CMC serves as an avenue for affected parties to come together, in the hope that amicable resolution can be attained. Due to its voluntary nature, the success of the CMC resolving community disputes is mixed and we have to grudgingly acknowledge that we may need more than voluntary mediation to bring about a resolution.

Madam, while I support the Bill, I would like to seek the three following clarifications from the Minister. Additionally, I would like to offer a suggestion in enhancing the current Bill as it stands.

As it presently stands, section 4 subsection 2C of the Bill writes, I quote: "Obstructing the neighbour's place of residence by placing anything or object or by any other at or in the vicinity of the neighbour's place of residence" constitutes an act by a respondent which may cause interference with his or her neighbour's enjoyment or the use of the neighbour's place of residence.

I would like Minister to advise the House on how best to define and interpret the vicinity of the neighbour's place of residence. In situations where the corner flat unit is perpendicular to the neighbouring unit, it is important to have a working definition and expectation of the vicinity of the neighbour's place of residence.

I shall provide a simple illustration, derived from my experiences on the ground. For instance, Mr Y is the owner of the corner unit. Mdm X owns the unit situated perpendicular to the Mr Y's unit. Mdm X's argues that the potted plant placed along the common corridor along the parapet wall infringes her space, blocks her window view and also blocks the natural light coming into her living room. Mdm X argues that Mr Y should remove his plants as the area where the plants are placed is within her unit's share of the common area. Mr Y argues, however, that the space available to him to situate his plants is limited and he is no way infringing on the space of his neighbour. Under such situations, the working definition and the expectation of the vicinity of the neighbour's place of residence may be helpful in preventing the escalation of the disputes.

Madam, my second clarification. Under section 4 subsection 4, it is stated and I quote: "A neighbour of a respondent is an individual who lawfully resides in a place of residence." Would the Minister agree with me, that when referring to an individual who lawfully resides in a place of residence, we are referring to individuals whose identification cards reflects the

Page: 97

residential address of the said place of residence? If that is the proper way to understand it, how would this Bill tackle disputes where the respondent is a member of the household residing in the said residence on an interim basis? There have been cases where community disputes arise between an interim tenant and the owner of the neighbouring unit. Under this Bill, would the registered owner be liable for disputes between his interim tenant and his neighbour.

Madam, my third clarification is related to the second one. In instances when the respondent is a mentally challenged individual, would he be considered as liable in the event of a prolonged dispute? I encountered a particular situation where Mdm A has been tolerating excessive noise pollutions and vibrations caused by the neighbour's son, who happens to be a mentally challenged adult. Attempts at mediation were not successful and the matter continues to persist, causing much inconvenience and stress to Mdm A. In instances such as these, how can this Bill best serve its purpose?

Madam, last but not least, I would like to propose mandatory counselling for parties to be included as an order of the Court. While, legislation may be able to serve as a deterrent, it may fall short of moulding human behaviour in a sustainable manner. Therefore, compulsory counselling would be more effective in facilitating introspection and bring about greater awareness of his behaviour and how he can better approach conflicts and advert a dispute right from the beginning. That would not only be cost effective for both parties, but also cut down the resources to legal avenues in the long term.

Madam, I welcome any move to strengthen the mechanism and the processes in which we go about resolving disputes in our communities. Seen from this viewpoint, the Community Disputes Resolution Bill is a timely piece of legislation. This being said, I hope that as our society matures, legislation should only serve as a last resort when many other amicable approaches have been deemed to be less than satisfactory. At the same time, we should also exercise prudence and with the message of this Bill, refrain from going away with the thinking that legislation can resolve fundamental differences between two differing positions of parties.

Mdm Speaker, having pursued this matter with a number of other Members of this House, for the last few years, I certainly welcome the Community Disputes Resolution Bill. Under the old regime, there was little bite to the Community Mediation Centres Act. Trained mediators do excellent work but as long as one party in the dispute walks away from a session, there is little further opportunity for resolution. So, the Tribunal to be set up under section 14 of the Act provides a last resort provision under section 30 that will serve to bring all parties of the dispute to the table so that they can have a calm and objective discussion.

The provisions under sections 6, 7 and 10 to impose punitive measures for contravening the orders of the Tribunal are welcomed, too. I come across several examples where signed agreements of the parties before the CMC hold no weight after, as this enforcement is entirely voluntary. It is a little bit like getting a cat to agree not to eat a mouse. The agreement is based purely on trust. Yes, many of the agreements do hold but some fall apart and cause another round of protracted conflict.

There is much to be said about the involvement of the community volunteers in mediating disputes, and I am immensely proud of my team as well as many other volunteers in different constituencies in Singapore for doing all they can to help to keep the peace in the neighbourhood. I also understand and feel their frustration when complex cases find them drawn into the conflict as well. Some volunteers have been accused of being not objective in dealing with certain issues despite their best efforts.

I, therefore, hope that more can be done to support the volunteers on the ground. Community mediation should be the first course of action, rather than direct referrals just to the Tribunal. So, I do hope that more can be given to assist them in dispute resolutions under this new framework.

My second concern lies with what would be deemed as "reasonable noise" or what would be considered as impinging on the enjoyment or use of place of residence. This has been mentioned by a number of Members.

Let me give one case to illustrate – a family living below another. The family above has young children, two of them, who are of the active sort. The family below has an elderly mother who is ill and on a ventilator. The children run around the house during the day

Page: 101

playing games and, occasionally, they pushed the furniture; all part of growing up, perhaps. But it affects the rest, including the elderly mother below, and so a dispute arose from that.

On the surface, it could be reasonable to expect that both parties have a valid claim. The children are just being children, but the elderly mother also needs her peace and quiet rest. Mediators have stepped in to resolve the issue but it is still at an impasse. So, the last thing we really want for the Tribunal is to set up precedence in too many minute areas that would make for uncomfortable living for everybody and, therefore, I ask if there could be proper illustrative ways to set the boundaries before any such cases can be brought before the Tribunal.

My final concern lies with a peculiar form of neighbourly dispute that does not seem to be addressed directly by this framework. This is when cases involve one or more parties where mental incapacity is brought into the equation. Let me quote two of the five cases I have encountered.

In the first, a lower floor neighbour has endured dragging furniture, cigarette butts, human excrement, bags of urine, packets of leftover food being thrown down into their balcony over a number of years! The family is traumatised but almost helpless because the person involved has a history of mental illness. His own family has tried their best, resorted to almost boarding up their entire house but still to no avail. It has been referred to the CMC but it is also something that CMC has been unable to settle.

In another case, two neighbouring families have lived next to each other for many years. No major issues till the mentally unsound son of one family attacked the neighbour. The Institute of Mental Health or IMH stepped in for a short while but the dispute spread because the offender's family now became openly hostile to the aggrieved family after the son was released from IMH.

So, I would like to ask what provisions will the new framework have to handle cases such as these. How would the Tribunal address cases that turn up parties with underlying medical issues?

Overall, I welcome this Act as it is a vast improvement over the current CMC provisions. Credit must go to the many mediators and community volunteers who have tried their best under the old system to solve issues. Madam, I support this Bill.

Page: 102

Mdm Speaker, I thank Members for speaking up and supporting the Community Disputes Resolution Bill. I think virtually all the Members who spoke supported the Bill, although I know that Mrs Lina Chiam expressed some reservations which I will address later.

Inherently, I would say at the outset that this is a very difficult and complex issue as many Members also highlighted. We are working very hard to get the balance right. We have no interest in legislating social behaviour, but we also know that the status quo is not feasible, is not desirable today; there is a lacuna. All of us have encountered residents who have been victims of recalcitrant neighbours with anti-social behaviours and some of them have been suffering for years with no recourse.

Because they complain, agencies try to resolve the matter. It sometimes stops for awhile but it continues again. They go for mediation, sometimes the person does not show up, sometimes they do, but again, it does not get resolved properly. So, this is what we are trying to address with this Bill, how can we offer some help for such victims?

That is why I am rather disappointed at the way Mrs Lina Chiam characterised what we are doing as a u-turn or tried to distort the intent of the Bill. We are not trying to take the easy way out through legislation. The easiest thing for us to do is to do nothing and just be

Page: 104

status quo. But would this truly be of help to the victims who are suffering and the residents who are asking for help? I do not think that is the right answer.

That is why over the past two years, MCCY has been working very hard, very closely with the different agencies, including MinLaw, on a new framework, including this Bill as well as the Tribunals. Mrs Lina Chiam mentioned a few times what Minister Shanmugam had said in Parliament, in this House, on the principles in which community disputes can be resolved. I am not the Minister for Law, neither am I a lawyer, but I would like to assure Members that this Bill was indeed worked on, not just by MCCY officers alone, but together with MinLaw and many agencies involved in this very complex issue.

We have made it very clear, as Members would have heard me say just now in my first speech, that this recourse, this legal recourse that we have set up in the Bill is indeed a last resort. I specifically made that very clear. I will continue to repeat that in this speech: that it is a last resort. So, that policy intent will guide the way in which the Tribunals operate.

Madam, let me now go on to address some of the specific issues which Members have raised regarding the Bill as well as the Tribunals.

There is one set of issues which several Members asked about, which is about the operational mechanics of how this new framework will be implemented on the ground. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked questions related to this, for example, collaborations between grassroots leaders, CMC, Government agencies, the role of the Neighbourhood Police Centre or NPC, whether there will be a one-stop centre.

I would say that for all these operational issues, it is not going to be so straightforward to have a one-size-fits-all solution. We are certainly going to strengthen the co-ordination between the CMC and the frontline agencies and the grassroots organisations. But, this is inherently a complex matter and there are a myriad of possible issues that may give rise to private disputes between neighbours.

Where there are clear regulatory breaches, then it is best to approach the relevant agency. For example, if the issue is over the obstruction of the common corridor and there is a clear breach of the rules, then it is best to approach the Town Council directly. If the dispute is over high impact noises affecting the entire block, then the residents can approach the Police to enhance ground response to such noise disturbance. The Police, as mentioned earlier by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, will be introducing the Community Wardens programme later this year.

Page: 105

What this Bill seeks to do is to address the issue of difficult private disputes between neighbours, long-standing intractable disputes between neighbours. In such cases, their first recourse, again, is not to seek resolution through the Tribunal. Their first recourse should be for the individuals concerned to take responsibility of the issues, to speak to each other and to strive to resolve the issue amicably.

If the issue cannot be resolved, then the disputants should seek help from a neutral third party – a community leader, a grassroots leader or even a friendly neighbour to help facilitate such resolution. Such intervention or informal mediation can go a long way to prevent a simple conflict from escalating further.

So, our first step and first priority really is to strengthen this network of informal mediation. And many Members spoke about this – how we need to strengthen this network of informal mediation. We will, indeed, be doing more to step up training for our community leaders because they require special skills to manage such delicate situations and, sometimes, even cultural differences which can be sensitive.

We will be giving our community leaders and volunteers more support to be trained as informal mediators. In fact, we have already started this work and some 600 grassroots leaders have already been trained in mediation by the Community Mediation Centre or CMC as well as the National Community Leadership Institute or NACLI. This resource of mediators in the community, on top of the CMC mediators, can now be mobilised to help bring disputing neighbours together and to, hopefully, facilitate win-win outcomes.

Mr Zainal Sapari asked if there is protection against abuse for community leaders who step forward to mediate quarrels between neighbours. For such grassroots leaders who are engaging in this work, it is really part and parcel of their community work, so they are already covered under the People's Association's general insurance scheme when they perform such community work. That is at the informal level of mediation which we will strengthen and which we will improve.

At the next level, should informal mediation be unsuccessful, then we want to refer the case to the CMC for further intervention. Residents can bring their case directly to the CMC by calling the hotline or registering via the CMC website. Here again, we too are going to strengthen the capacity within the CMC.

Indeed, we have already done so because, in anticipation of greater demand for mediation, the CMC has already stepped up training over the past year to increase its pool of community mediators. It now has 162 community mediators on its panel, all of whom are trained to handle disputes between neighbours. Of these, 65 are Master Mediators. They

Page: 106

have at least nine to 16 years of experience each in handling community disputes and they have the capacity to mediate up to 5,500 cases annually. So, they have sufficient capacity and they are prepared for an increase in caseload arising from this, because we do expect and are prepared for more cases being directed to the CMC for mandatory mediation.

For a start, the CMC will dedicate a pool of 25 Master Mediators for cases referred by the Tribunals. It will be monitoring the number of cases and it will increase its mediation capacity as required. So, informal mediation will be improved; formal mediation via the CMC will also be improved.

Thirdly, this concept of mandatory meditation which the new Bill provides for. Clause 30 of the Bill provides the Tribunals with the power to order mediation. The Bill emphasises mediation and the resolution of disputes in a manner that perceives neighbourly relations. The Tribunals – as mentioned earlier and I continue to emphasise – will ensure that parties make some effort to mediate their case. It will determine whether it is necessary to order the parties to mediate before it even adjudicates on the dispute. So, now it has the power to mandate mediation.

I know Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether this was something worth doing, because he said that a basic principle of mediation is the willingness of parties to mediate, and he said that if it is mandated, maybe they are not doing it willingly. On the other hand, there are Members like Mr David Ong and Patrick Tay who said, "Please mandate more." I think David Ong said, "Mandate generously." So, again, it is about finding the right balance.

On balance, we think that mandatory mediation has its benefits. For example, a person may refuse to voluntarily attend mediation initiated by a neighbour, perhaps because it might be seen as a loss of face; perhaps, it may be seen as an admission of guilt – for a whole host of reasons. However, if it was the Court's requirement for both neighbours to attend mediation, he or she may be more prepared to do so and to work things out.

So, mandatory mediation provides both parties an opportunity to hear each other's views. It might help them understand their neighbours' perspective and, hence, be more accommodating. We certainly hope that the majority of cases will be resolved through such mediation, whether voluntarily through the CMC or mandated by the Tribunals, and the relationships between neighbours can be mended and there will be no need for them to appear before the Tribunals.

I should also clarify that we do not envisage the CMC or Government agencies referring cases to the Tribunals directly. As I mentioned, since we are dealing with private disputes, there must be individual ownership of the issues, so the person feeling aggrieved must want

Page: 107

to resolve the case enough to file a claim in the Tribunals. So, the victim has to apply to the Tribunals personally. But when he or she does so, they must show proof that they had made attempts and efforts at mediation; they must provide evidence of the anti-social conduct to prove his or her case. Details on these procedures will be worked out subsequently after the Bill is passed. We are mindful of Members' comments and suggestions that these will be streamlined and made simple and also accessible to the public.

Let me now address specific questions pertaining to the Tribunals. Mr Zainal Sapari asked what is the difference between a regular civil Court and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals. As I have explained earlier, parties will not be represented by lawyers in the Tribunals so that cost will be kept low, compared to normal civil proceedings. However, if both disputants agree and it is approved by the Registrar of the Tribunals, lawyers can represent the parties. So, the provision is available for them to have lawyers if both parties agree and the Registrar or the Tribunals agrees. The Tribunals will have simple, streamlined procedures. Hearings will be judge-led. The Judge will have the flexibility to conduct the proceedings as he thinks best.

In a regular civil Court, proceedings are adversarial and parties are responsible for highlighting evidence and arguments to the Judge. In the Tribunals, the Judge will play a more active role in the proceedings, by questioning the witnesses directly or asking parties to produce certain evidence. The Tribunals will have the flexibility to hear witnesses and review documents as they deem appropriate. They will not be bound by the rules of evidence. These simplified and streamlined procedures, we believe, will allow the costs of proceedings in the Tribunals to be lower compared to normal civil Courts.

Mr Patrick Tay asked if the Bill can be used together with the Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA. The two are different because the Tribunals can only hear disputes relating to the new statutory tort under this Bill whereas POHA is for victims of harassment and unlawful stalking, which is different from the Community Disputes Resolution Bill we have before us, which is to adjudicate intractable private disputes between neighbours.

I acknowledge that there may be instances where a person faces both a neighbour dispute and harassment. If so, he may wish to consider pursuing remedies under both sets of legislation separately. Of course, the person can seek legal advice if he wishes to do so and the Court may decide how the case should be adjudicated.

Let me go to the specifics about the different scenarios and the cases. Several Members talked about the cases that they have encountered in their own constituencies and they range from food smell, noise, due to parties, littering, surveillance of video recordings, placement of an altar, dripping water from laundry. The list goes on and the scenarios are

Page: 108

endless. It is very hard for me to go through each and every case because, really, what we have with these statutory tort, is meant to cover a wide range of possible issues that may give rise to private disputes between neighbours.

The examples listed in clause 4 of the Bill are illustrative; they are not exhaustive. Mr Lim talked about video recording because a person sets up a video outside his home to deter loan sharks – is that considered an intrusion or interference into enjoyment of property? Mr Faisal Manap asked about a case of a corner unit. I think these are all specific scenarios which the Courts will have to decide based on the principle of what is deemed to be unreasonable and excessive.

This will have to be determined by the Tribunals, based on the facts of each case, using a commonsensical approach and in the light of everyday experience. They will do so bearing in mind the ordinary instances of daily living that can be expected to be tolerated by reasonable persons. They will take into context our unique multiracial and multicultural context in considering what is reasonable and excessive. It is not possible, nor would it be wise, for very precise definitions to be hardwired into the Bill at this stage. We should give the Courts the flexibility to decide. We set out the broad principle and the Courts will decide based on the facts of each case.

There was a question on the definition of a "neighbour". I think Mr Hri Kumar asked about this; several others as well. This is defined in the Bill as an individual who resides either in the same building, or within 100 metres of the other party's home. Why 100 metres? It is included to make clear that the focus of this Bill is on disputes between neighbours. As shared by Members, disputes can involve residents living a few units away, as well as above and below in a block setting. We have looked at past cases and, based on the experience of these cases, we believe that 100 metres will be adequate to cover all those living in nearby units or adjacent blocks whose acts cause unreasonable interference to neighbours. If the nuisance were to originate from further than 100 metres, it would most likely be something more significant than a private dispute between neighbours, and other remedies will have to be sought.

There was also a question by Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Faishal Manap on the definition of "lawfully residing". What does it mean to be "lawfully residing" in a place of residence? We have put this in place to rule out all those who are not legally residing in the residential unit, such as squatters. They would not be able to apply to the Court under this Bill.

But we have kept the definition deliberately broad and not just limited to those with proprietary interest in the residential unit. This is because there may be family members who do not have direct stakes in the unit, but are legitimate residents there, and that will include also include also family members who may not have the address updated in the NRIC for

Page: 109

whatever reasons. Such family members will then, under this broad definition, be able to bring an action in their own name, rather than have to rely on the lawful owner to do so on their behalf.

Mr David Ong asked if co-tenants could be included in the definition of a "neighbour". These are individuals living in the same place of residence, but they occupy different rooms. For purposes of the Bill, they are not considered "neighbours" because we feel that such disputes are better treated as domestic disputes. Again, it is about getting the balance right. We want to address difficult disputes between neighbours but we do not want to over-reach and intervene into disputes happening within the same residential unit which are more likely to be domestic in nature.

Furthermore, if there are co-tenants who have disagreements with one another, they can always approach their landlord for a resolution. And for aggrieved tenants who share a flat under the HDB's Joint Singles Scheme, I believe they should raise the matter with HDB, which will then have its own mechanisms to deal with such cases.

I also want to address concerns raised by several Members about the risk of abuse and the prevention of abuse. I want to emphasise that in designing the framework, we are very mindful of the risks of abuse. As Dr Lily Neo put it, there may be "fussy neighbours who just want to find fault with other neighbours".

To prevent frivolous claims and abuse of the Tribunals to embarrass or inconvenience neighbours, when the application is made, the Registrar will assess such claims and dismiss them where appropriate. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, they would already have checked to make sure that the parties have made the effort to go through mediation. If they have not, they should do so before coming to the Tribunals. In addition, if the case heard at the Tribunals is subsequently found to be frivolous or vexatious, the Tribunals can award costs to the respondent. The Rules of Court, which will be worked out after the Bill is passed, will specify the circumstances under which costs can be awarded to the respondent, for such cases. These will deter persons from being overly sensitive or perhaps even vindictive and take out frivolous issues to the Tribunals.

I agree with Mr Alex Yam that the Tribunals should not "set precedents in too many minute areas" of daily living. And, again, I emphasise one more time – I think it is worth reiterating this – that the intent of this Bill is not to curb behaviours. It is to provide a last resort for truly anti-social behaviours that are a nuisance to those living nearby. So, it is about striking the right balance and how we can provide sufficient remedies for such victims who we feel for and we want to help. And even with a new statutory tort, I must emphasise that

Page: 110

the Tribunals will only make an order if it is just and equitable to do so.

Mr David Ong raised a concern that a party could game the system by filing a counter-claim in the Tribunals so that the whole proceedings can then be transferred to the regular Courts, where the person can hire a lawyer and enjoy an advantage over the original applicant. I agree we should not allow this to happen. The Bill provides that no proceedings related to the private dispute may be started in another Court after the same claim has started in the Tribunals. If a party makes a counter-claim in the Tribunals, the proceedings not covered under this new statutory tort can be transferred. So, the non-relevant portions can be transferred and the Courts will have the powers necessary to prevent any gaming of the system.

Mr Ong also asked about the transfer of cases that had begun in the regular Court and then to transfer to the Tribunals. If a case is better heard in the Tribunals rather than the regular Courts, then the Courts could indicate this to the parties concerned so that they can then decide to terminate the proceedings in the regular Court and then to commence afresh in the Tribunals.

Next, let me talk about enforcement. Many Members spoke about this and I agree with them that the enforcement mechanisms have to be effective. That is why the Bill provides for calibrated enforcement mechanisms ranging from ordering an apology by the respondent to the award of damages and, at the extreme case, to the issuing of an exclusion order.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether it would be useful for the Tribunals to order an apology as it might be just done pro forma. It may not be a sincere apology. Well, this is a matter of judgment. But we do see that community disputes, being relational in nature, can sometimes be resolved by addressing underlying emotional hurts. An apology might be appropriate in such situations to repair neighbourly relations, and an order of apology may well be sufficient in cases involving minor anti-social behaviours without the need for further orders.

Mr Hri Kumar asked for an estimate of the bond amount and whether the landlord's bond would be forfeited if the tenant contravened the Special Direction after the landlord had given notice to terminate the lease. Again, it is something that the Tribunals have to decide based on the facts of the case. But I would imagine, based on the principles that we have set out, that if the landlord had initiated the step to terminate the lease and the Tribunals conclude that the landlord has done everything possible to ensure the tenant's compliance with the Special Direction, then the bond should be safe.

Page: 111

The Member also asked about the recourse an individual has if he has been awarded damages and the contravening party refuses to pay despite being able to. Where an order for damages has been awarded, the successful party can enforce the award in the usual manner, which is by applying to Court for a writ of seizure and sale, if necessary.

There were also some questions about the exclusion order, and I would like to emphasise that this is really a measure of last resort. First, the whole Bill and the legal recourse under this Bill are already a last resort. But within that, the exclusion order is really a measure of last resort to protect long-suffering victims from intransigent respondents. It is only available after the Court order has been breached at least twice – breach of Order, firstly, followed by a breach of Special Direction to comply with the Order. It is similar to the Personal Protection Order (PPO) which prevents the perpetrator from going near the victim.

So, we envisage that the exclusion order will only be made in the most egregious of cases. The Court will consider whether it is "just and equitable" before it makes the order, and the duration of such an order. It will also consider the impact of the order on the respondent, those who live with him, and any other person who may be affected by the order.

Finally, let me talk about issues of managing those who are mentally ill. Several Members like Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Alex Yam, Ms Tin Pei Lin and Dr Lily Neo spoke about this, and we are very mindful that this is an area of concern. The Members asked what actions can apply to those who are suspected to be mentally ill or may have some other medical conditions. We have existing laws and procedures regarding mentally ill persons and these will continue to apply. If the person is a danger to others, the Police can apprehend the person and take him to a doctor who can send the person to a psychiatric institution for treatment.

However, if a respondent who is suspected of mental illness breaches the community dispute order and the victim applies for a Special Direction, the Court making the Special Direction can also order, say his family member, to enter into a bond with conditions that the respondent goes for assessment and/or treatment. If the respondent commits the offence of breaching the Special Direction, then the criminal Court convicting the respondent can also call for a psychiatric assessment to determine whether it would be appropriate to make a Mandatory Treatment Order under section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

So, these are the recourse, but I would say that besides the legal mechanisms and recourse, there is a lot work that is taking place right now to tighten our frontline partnership between Government agencies, grassroots leaders, community leaders and voluntary welfare organisations to deal with mental health issues. I hope that these efforts will over time contribute to better community-based care for a mentally ill respondent who is not

Page: 112

violent and, in so doing, reduce the nuisance imposed on his neighbours.

Mdm Speaker, to sum up, let me emphasise that the legal recourse provided in this Bill is really intended as a last resort to resolve difficult private disputes with neighbours. It is just one part of a larger community dispute resolution framework which we have put in place. And within this framework, we will continue to do our utmost to promote good neighbourliness and we will continue with efforts to strengthen the "kampong spirit". There are many agencies that are involved in these efforts. MCCY is doing it together with partners like the HDB, the People's Association and the Singapore Kindness Movement. We will work to cultivate good neighbourliness as well as better social norms.

If third-party intervention is needed, then let us rely on mediation as a first step to resolve the dispute, and this can be done informally by community leaders and, as I have explained, we are stepping up our capabilities there to have more trained mediators in the community to do this informally. If that is not successful, we elevate it to the CMC for formal mediation. And, again, if that is not successful, then the final recourse is provided in this Bill as a last resort when all other attempts to resolve the dispute have failed.

Mdm Speaker, I believe I have addressed the concerns and points raised by Members and I beg to move, and seek the Members' support of the Bill.

*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. – [Mr Lawrence Wong].*

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

Page: 113