Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, like my colleague, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, I thank Members for the robust debate and the unanimous support for the Bill. Let me address the various questions that Members have raised on the overall framework, focusing, in particular, on the mediation aspect of the Bill as well as on the CDRT framework.

Ms Joan Pereira asked about neighbour disputes outside of the CRU pilot. I want to emphasise that it is only the CRU that is being piloted. The framework, as regards mediation as well as the enhancements to the CDRT, is not the subject of the pilot and they apply the moment the Bill is operational.

But to Ms Pereira's question, residents who stay in private estates or in HDB estates outside of the CRU pilot areas, will, therefore, still benefit from the enhancements to the mediation and CDRT framework.

I spoke earlier on the enhanced mediation framework. Parties who reach a mediated settlement may now register the agreement as a CDRT order, if all parties agree. This registered settlement can then be enforced as if it were a CDRT order. If the dispute must be taken to the CDRT, then the affected resident can avail himself or herself of the interim orders that we have now enhanced under the CDRT process.

The evidential requirements for obtaining an interim order under the new section 5A are lower. They should not be too hard to satisfy if the case is egregious. This is so that affected residents in those cases can avail themselves of the relief provided by the interim orders framework.

There are serious consequences for disobeying CDRT orders. For example, if the respondent disobeys an interim order and a CDRT order, then he can be ordered to vacate his home for a period of time. This is linked to the registration of settlement agreements, which I have just mentioned. Since a registered settlement agreement is enforceable like a CDRT order, repeated non-compliance can ultimately lead to an exclusion order as well.

Mr Faisal Manap asked about disamenities arising from commercial units below the HDB flats. There are existing processes to address such issues. But one must also bear in mind the context. If you are living and you choose to live next to a residential unit as most neighbours are, versus if you bought a unit which you know is above a commercial unit, I think the circumstances and therefore, the expectations are quite different. And one needs to look at the different scenarios when you deal with practices and when you deal with norms between neighbours, which is what we are trying to set up in the framework.

Mr Faisal Manap also suggested introducing an order for mandatory counselling sessions. From our experience, mediation is quick and, thus far, has proven effective and our intention is to focus on increasing the uptake on mediation. Mediation, as opposed to counselling, also has the benefit of being specifically focused on the issue at hand, on the parties' particular dispute and try to find consensus and common ground for that particular dispute, as opposed to a broad general counselling provision.

Mr Louis Ng, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Alex Yam raised the issue of second-hand smoke in homes and other community issues, and they asked if the CRU can address these issues. I think some other Members have also accepted what I said earlier about the CRU being a very substantial endeavour and one which is going to be very broad and which is why you have heard me as well as Senior Minister of State Sim Ann say that there needs to be a calibration and we do need to have the pilot to allow us to make that calibration.

But specifically on enforcement for second-hand smoke, my colleague, the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Amy Khor, has previously explained the Government's position on managing second-hand smoke. The framework here we need to think of quite carefully. In those cases, I think Mr Louis Ng will know, there are challenges with effective enforcement. We have had that debate on several occasions.

The other point to bear in mind is that the framework here is designed to deal with the vast majority of disamenities between neighbours. You have heard me say earlier the types of cases that we get and, of those, noise constitutes the vast majority.

In contrast, just a couple of weeks ago, in response to Mr Louis Ng's Parliamentary Question, Mr Louis Ng cited some numbers, but he might have forgotten that a couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) explained to Mr Louis Ng that as a result of the measures that they have taken, the number of complaints that are second-hand smoke-related has come down. I think Mr Louis Ng remembers that, two weeks ago. In 2021, 2022 and 2023, every year-on-year, the numbers came down. In 2023, the last numbers, second-hand smoke comprised 0.6% of the total number of NEA-related complaints.

I am not saying that the problem is not there and I appreciate what Mr Louis Ng has said about the severity of second-hand smoke. But we also need to understand the extent of the problem and what the CDMF is scoped to deal with. In this case, there are specific mechanisms that MSE has deployed with NEA to deal with second-hand smoke and, at least, from these numbers alone, they do look like there is some improvement and they will continue to work on them. The CDMF framework is designed to deal with the vast majority of disamenity cases that it is best equipped to deal with through processes like mediation.

I also want to make the point to Mr Louis Ng that there were two cases that Mr Louis Ng referred to earlier. One was a case where he cited the individual or resident suffering a seizure. And the other was a question on the order, in Mr Louis Ng's words, what purpose does this order serve if its enforcement is ineffective? I want Mr Louis Ng to know that we had checked on these cases.

In the seizure case, the CDRT claim was filed in October 2021. Three months later, in January 2022, the claimant withdrew the application on the basis that the claimant had reached a settlement agreement. So, it does show that mediation is also effective in these cases. That is one. Two, therefore, in that case, no CDRT order was issued. So, it is not a question of the CDRT order not being effective.

In relation to the other case where there was also an order to ban smoking – I think Mr Louis Ng referred to that – the claimant in that case did, as Mr Louis Ng said, apply to enforce the order. But at the hearing before the CDRT, the claimant was unable to demonstrate that there was a breach of the order and, therefore, the enforcement application was dismissed in April 2023. So, again, it is not a question of the order being ineffective. But in this case, the claimant was unable to demonstrate that there was a breach of the order. I hope that clarifies on both of those cases.

Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Alex Yam asked about the broader community-building efforts. Mr Derrick Goh, in particular, asked about what strategies there were to increase residents' awareness of self-resolution approaches. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum made some interesting and useful suggestions on how to improve collaborative problem-solving. Sir, we agree with all of these suggestions and we think it is important to do so. In fact, if Members heard my speech earlier, I said it is fundamental in our philosophy, even behind the CDMF, which enhances the levers for us to intervene more and to take steps upstream, that we do not lose sight of the fact that we want the community to continue to be engaged in resolving their own issues in a conciliatory and amicable way as far as possible.

But in response to the Members' questions and suggestions, let me give some idea of some of the ongoing efforts.

In 2021, MSO set up the OneService Kakis Network, or OSK Networks in short. This network of community stakeholders works with MSO to co-create and implement ideas that address municipal issues in their own neighbourhoods and we appreciate that no two neighbourhoods are the same. Sometimes, the needs are different, sometimes the way in which you look at disamenity might well be different, depending on the layout and the structure, size and type of the estate. So, these local networks for local suggestions are useful.

In addition, other initiatives, such as the "Love Our 'Hood Initiative" by MSO, also provide opportunities for residents and community stakeholders to develop community-based solutions to foster neighbourliness.

There are also public education efforts, such as the "Then How?" Campaign by the Singapore Kindness Movement and HDB. These efforts suggest ways for neighbours to approach one another. One of the rate-limiting factors of mediation was the fact that neighbours did not feel that they were equipped to or that they could approach a neighbour or someone with whom they had a minor disagreement. And sometimes, because of that, then, you sort of see ghosts in the shadows and you think the worst of the situation and then the problem escalates. So, these suggestions about how neighbours can approach one another, can have casual conversations and break down some barriers, allow them to ventilate and then, in turn, hear suggestions on how one can be constructive on solving the problem, are all very helpful.

MSO also partners community stakeholders, such as schools, to promote considerate behaviour through ground-up initiatives. For example, Dunman High School students designed standees with messages on keeping noise levels low in Jalan Batu – I think that is in Mr Lim Biow Chuan's constituency – to raise awareness of pro-social norms on quiet hours. Temasek Polytechnic students installed LED-integrated posters in Bishan simulating traffic lights to provide visual cues on basketball court closure timings. So, when you see that it is turning yellow, it means it is time to wind down and, when it is red, it is time to turn off the lights and not cause any more noise disamenity. This was done to encourage basketball court users to leave before closing time, in a somewhat innovative, very casual and very non-threatening way. We will continue to work on this to deepen social capital and encourage interaction among Singaporeans.

Mr Mark Lee asked about tapping on religious platforms and organisations for disputes with religious undertones. Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Derrick Goh also asked about supporting grassroots leaders' efforts to address conflicts upstream at an earlier stage. Again, we agree. This is very much in coherence with the philosophy that we see, the CDMF.

We have been, in fact, working very closely with grassroots leaders (GRLs) and agencies, such as HDB, to strengthen the existing community-based framework.

I have said earlier that mediation is an important community-based solution that underpins the CDMF. So, what are the steps that we have taken on this? Let me share with Members a few.

As of October 2024, the People's Association (PA) has trained over 500 GRLs in basic mediation skills. We foresee that this will be useful. You do not always have to go to CMC. Sometimes, the mediator can be, as I said earlier, someone residing within the community, who is senior, an elder stateman or a community or religious leader. The plan is to have more of them trained, at least in basic mediation skills. Should there be disputes between neighbours, they can then step in.

If these early resolution efforts fail, then authorised HDB officers will then consider the Mediation Direction, in the manner that I had outlined earlier. I want to just emphasise that if you receive a Mediation Direction, there is nothing wrong with that. Please respect it and come. Come, hear out your neighbour, hear out the other party. There might be a different point of view. And as I said, from January of next year, we will remove the payment of the $5 fee so that it is entirely free.

On neighbour disputes that involve religious matters, the IRCCs, now known as Harmony Circles, provide assistance to frontline agencies as well. We have worked hard over the years to build up that social capital and trust amongst our different communities; our Harmony Circles have also been refreshed and energised with members that have a broader network to reach out to a broader segment of the community.

As part of our efforts to strengthen the CDMF, MCCY has identified selected Harmony Circle members to attend basic mediation training together with PA's grassroots leaders as well. This will, in turn, strengthen their ability to provide ground support when needed for religion-related disputes. These, sometimes, if you do not quickly fix it or address it, can have the potential to become highly inflammatory, very emotive and it is not wise to have them escalate.

Members also raised several questions on promoting the use of community mediation.

Ms Ng Ling Ling, in particular, asked about our efforts to encourage greater participation in CMC mediation and how the Government will evaluate its effectiveness. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Alex Yam spoke about enhancing accessibility. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for data on cases where settlement agreements were breached while Mr Derrick Goh asked how the CMC will maintain the high quality of its community mediation services.

Sir, CMC has been working hard to enhance the accessibility of its services. In fact, it has been doing so since we conceived of the idea behind CDMF, knowing that one day, such as today, and one day when we operationalise it, we will really need to step up the mediation resources.

Currently, there are 16 satellite mediation venues right across Singapore at selected Community Clubs, ServiceSG centres as well as at Neighbourhood Police Posts. Virtual mediation, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, is also available and in the right cases, has been very useful because you do not really have to leave the comfort of your own homes but, at the same time, you can take part in a proper mediation session chaired by a trained mediator. We will continue to do more where we can.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked why not have evening sessions as well. Well, in the past, the CMC did offer mediation on weekday evenings. But the take-up rate was low and we had to deploy more staff to deal with that. So, we decided not to have those and, instead, focus our energies on offering mediation during office hours on weekdays and on Saturday mornings.

On promotion of mediation, CMC has been highlighting the benefits of mediation through multiple channels.

From the speeches I have heard from Members, you would do well as ambassadors for us as well as you go out there and meet your own networks and in your own community, please tell them what a mediation is about. It is non-binding, you do not have to agree if you cannot find a set of terms that you agree with. You do not have to agree. But at the same time, it is an opportunity to canvass your ideas constructively with the counterparty and explore different ways of finding a solution.

We have also been promoting mediation through digital and bus stop advertisements and light-hearted social media platforms and videos. The CMC's brochures are also translated into the vernacular languages to ensure a broader and a wider reach.

On caseload, this is expected to increase once directed mediation is operationalised. CMC, as I said, has been preparing for this. It has appointed 30 experienced duty mediators to manage directed mediation cases. These duty mediators have also undergone training and they will continue to grow its pool of volunteer mediators through recruitment and appointment. We hope that, with directed mediation, more parties will come forward for mediation.

I would add that many cases that come to CMC are settled and we will continue to track the settlement rate. Although I did say earlier that once you have compulsory or mandatory mediation, you might expect to see a drop in those rates.

To Mr Yip Hon Weng's question on the number of cases where settlement agreements are, thereafter, breached, we do not track this data. We do not have access to this data because parties do not usually report every breach of a settlement agreement with CMC.

In the spirit of community self-help, we leave it to the parties to decide what next steps ought to be if and when a settlement agreement is breached. Preferably, parties should try to come back to the table, agree on a revised set of terms that works for both. Sometimes, it is a breach because circumstances have changed so it may well be useful to renegotiate or maybe even have a subsequent mediation before the mediator.

Relatedly, Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the mechanics to prevent abuse of CMC services. The CMC has safeguards in place. For instance, an applicant cannot apply for mediation against the same respondent, within a certain period of time.

Mr Derrick Goh also mentioned the CMC's $5 administrative fee, as I said, with effect from 1 January, we will remove this and we hope that this will further promote the use of voluntary mediation to resolve disputes earlier.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked why over 70% of registered cases do not proceed to mediation. In many cases, parties declined or failed to respond to the mediation invitation and without speculating, it is for a whole variety of different reasons. In other instances, parties just did not show up at the mediation sessions, despite repeated reminders. But once we have directed mediations, we expect that to change.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about the use of noise sensors to collect evidence pre-mediation. Ms Sim Ann had responded to it, but I want to just add that, really, the intent of mediation is to facilitate a consensual open amicable discussion and not so much focused on what precise evidence one has and you can imagine, if you get into a mediation and one party turns up with noise data, you would expect that the other party would also want to have a series of other evidential provisions that will help to substantiate his or her case as well and before you know it, from a mediation process, you end up getting into an adjudicatory process, which is what we want to avoid. We want it to be designed upstream, to be purely mediation and if you cannot work that through, then there are provisions downstream, which provide for the adjudicatory process to take place

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about CMC's efforts to retain its volunteer mediators and to prevent burnout. I thank Mr Gan and other Members for having a care about the load that will inevitably fall on CMC. CMC has, over the years, refined a robust framework to ensure that its volunteer mediators are looked after, well-managed and taken care of.

For example, cases are carefully assessed for complexity and assigned to mediators with the commensurate requisite skill and knowledge and experience. There is a comprehensive training and mentorship programme that CMC has in place. CMC also regularly engages its volunteer mediators to seek feedback on whether they are well-supported, what else can we do, do they see areas in which they need more training in and which we will then organise and so on, to provide for a more resilient and more knowledgeable and, as far as we can, more up-to-date group of mediators.

More importantly, the community of CMC volunteer mediators has over the years built up a strong esprit de corps. Many of our volunteer mediators have been with us for decades. In fact, we just had an occasion few weeks ago to appreciate them and we saw many handled large numbers of cases over many, many years and there is a very strong sense of community amongst the mediators.

They know they play an important role in not just mediating a difference, but they see it as a higher calling to promote and preserve community cohesion and that is a very important and useful way to frame the work that they do. They also take it upon themselves, the more senior ones, to train and mentor younger mediators. I can see that there is a real sense of pride in being a CMC volunteer mediator.

Sir, there were several questions on how the directed mediation framework will pan out on the ground: Mr Derrick Goh asked how frontline officers will determine if a case is suitable for mediation; Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked why authorised persons "may" direct parties for mediation, why there is still a discretion.

Let me explain this. Whilst mediation is suitable and effective for many, I would say, most of the disputes, there will, nevertheless, be situations where mediation may not be suitable. CMC has worked closely with the frontline teams to guide their assessment and, in some cases, make the right call on the right types of cases. Sometimes, a dispute may not be suitable for mediation because one side lacks the mental capacity or they may have tried mediation many times and failed or the other party is simply unresponsive or unreasonable.

So, in some these cases, we have decided to provide for a certification where they can bypass to mediation so that effectively it saves time and expense and, in the right cases, you proceed straight to the subsequent process.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's question about the roles of CMC and CRU. CMC continues to provide mediation services whilst CRU is set up, essentially, with a range of investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in the manner that the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had outlined and myself as well in my earlier speech.

CRU may, even, at that stage direct parties to attend mediation at CMC, but CRU themselves do not carry out the mediation. But we provided for CRU even at that stage to refer cases to mediation, because we feel that unless you have really intransigent cases where the issues are deep-rooted and really dug in, otherwise mediation should still be something that we think about constantly in the whole spectrum of resources to offer to the parties.

Mr Saktiandi also asked about the waivers. The requirement of pre-filing mediation for CDRT claims may be waived, if the frontline officers assess that it is not suitable for the reasons that I have outlined earlier. Mr Mark Lee, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Alex Yam asked what the consequences are if a party does not comply with the Mediation Direction or if he or she is uncooperative.

Well, let me start by saying that first of all, the Mediation Direction is not onerous. It only requires you to turn up for a mediation with your neighbour who is often someone you see on a day-to-day basis anyway and if you do not want to see him face-to-face, as I said, you can go online and do it on a virtual platform.

More importantly, I would encourage those who are asked to attend mediation to not just go, but go with an open mind. Try and see it from your neighbour's perspective, understand the issue. If you do not have a mediated solution, you really have to go for an adjudicatory position and, today, you might succeed in your claim. You might be able to put your shoes a bit closer to your neighbour's homes and so on; or play your music a bit louder or a bit later and so on. But the shoe might be on the other foot at some point in time and it is not healthy for two neighbours who live in close proximity to have to live by what a third-party adjudicates or directs for you to do. So, it is really best for this to be done on a consensual, amicable basis.

Notwithstanding all of that, if there are valid reasons for not attending, either you fell ill or for some reason – there is a good enough reason – CMC will arrange for another session. The stance of the CMC is to try, not so much catch out people who failed to come for mediation and then say that you are in breach, but to try to be on the front foot, to accommodate parties as much as possible so that they can attend the mediation and find a long-lasting solution.

Having said all that, if you do not show up deliberately or if you leave the mediation session halfway through without permission, then a direction can be issued and that is an offence. Consequences can range from an advisory to a warning or to more serious enforcement actions, such as a composition.

Various Members have raised questions on mental health. The Senior Minister of State Sim Ann outlined our approach to mental health earlier. Let me just briefly recap and answer some additional questions.

As far as possible, we will facilitate assessment and treatment in a consensual environment. We understand the sensitivities that Dr Syed Harun talked about and that is a very important consideration. We want to do it as far as we can with the cooperation of the individuals; and as far as we can, also with the strong support of the family and their caregivers. But addressing the root cause of the problem will not only mitigate the disturbance to the community, but I believe, also overall improve the quality of life for that individual and his family and also allow the community to find a more long-lasting solution.

For example, we encountered a case where a family of two brothers played loud music, shouted and dragged furniture around, over the course of 30 years – this is a real case – into the wee hours of the morning. The neighbours really did not want to escalate this case, did not want to take action, did not want to go to the CDRT and chose to tolerate the noise for as long as they could because they suspected that the brothers had a mental health condition. But this also meant that the community and those around them continued to suffer this disamenity.

In such a case, CRU may bring in community mental health teams to try to secure the brothers' cooperation to be referred to for mental health assessment and support as early as possible. But as a measure of last resort, if all else fails and this continues and disamenity and the interference continue, CRU may, then, initiate an application to CDRT and, thereafter, in the appropriate case, apply for an MTO.

A few questions touched on increasing access to our mental health services ecosystem. This was discussed in a different forum previously and Members can refer to those debates. I want to emphasise that this is not really so much a Bill to deal with the mental health aspect of the case but, rather, to look at mental health as being one cause of community interference and how we address not so much the mental health issue but the community interference question.

Ms Joan Pereira asked if CMC mediators can refer parties for mental health support in appropriate cases. The answer is yes. CMC mediators are trained to detect basic mental health issues, and do refer parties for mental health support if they consent.

Coming to the MTOs, I believe I have covered this in some detail in my opening speech. But I heard Dr Syed Harun's speech, and I think it bears emphasising our thinking and our approach to MTOs in this case. In particular, Dr Syed Harun asked why we are introducing MTOs outside of the criminal regime, the criminal context.

Currently, the breach of a CDRT special direction or exclusion order, is already an offence. Upon conviction, as Dr Syed Harun noted, it is possible for the criminal Court, at that stage, to make an MTO and require the offender at that stage to undergo psychiatric treatment. In other words, after there has been a breach, and after an offence has been found.

Empowering the CDRT to make an MTO in civil proceedings with the constraints that I had set out earlier, allows the root cause of the issue to be tackled early on and upstream, if the hoarding behaviours, for example, stems from an underlying psychiatric condition. If the root cause of the issue is not tackled early on, the person might eventually face more serious criminal charges for breaching the special direction. We do not think this is desirable, especially if upfront, we are, at least, based on the framework that we have set out, able to discern. And I think, most Members would agree, that in serious hoarding cases, you would most likely be able to discern that mental health conditions are at least one contributory factor to the interference.

So, we believe that if we can treat the root cause early on, upfront, without bringing the person through the criminal process, and in the process, possibly stigmatising him and the family even more, then as far as we can, we should. I would add that the enactment of an MTO framework outside of the criminal framework that Dr Syed Harun spoke about is not new. Similar frameworks exist today under the Protection from Harassment Act and under the Women's Charter.

Dr Syed Harun also asked if the MTO framework will continue to apply if a person with a psychiatric condition is no longer causing unreasonable interference to his neighbour. The MTO framework under the new section 12A applies only if a person has caused unreasonable interference to his neighbour. It does not apply to a person who is not causing this interference. So, the short answer is no. So, even if there might be a mental disorder, but there is no nexus to an unreasonable interference being caused, then the provisions do not apply.

Mr Patrick Tay asked about the duration of treatment that can be ordered under the MTO. The specific duration of an MTO for any given case will, of course, depend on the context and the circumstances of the case, but it cannot exceed 36 months. As part of his report to the CDRT, the appointed psychiatrist will recommend the duration based on his professional judgement.

Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Alex Yam asked about individuals who are unable to afford CDRT-ordered assessment or treatment. I would say this to Members, psychiatric assessments ordered by the CDRT are conducted at no cost to the individual. I would also add that no Singaporean will be denied access to appropriate treatment due to his inability to pay. When the appointed psychiatrist does his assessment, he will also consider that individual's financial ability to pay for the treatment and this will be assessed against the available financial support measures, such as inpatient subsidies, MediShield Life, private health insurance and MediFund.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we can ensure compliance with mental health treatment ordered by the CDRT. The starting point is that the MTO will be regarded as a Court Order under the CDRT and must be complied with. On the ground, healthcare workers will of course do their best to support the individual in complying with these orders.

In general, they will follow up with close case management monitoring and this is mainly through telephone calls or home visits to ensure that the patients attend their outpatient reviews and comply with the treatment regime including medication, and if need be, patients will be referred to other agencies and community outreach teams for further social support.

Mr Mark Lee asked if the scope of what constitutes "unreasonable interference" in section 4(2) of the CDRA has been narrowed. Let me explain it this way. Although clause 3(f) of the Bill appears to introduce a new definition of "unreasonable interference", the Bill does not actually change the existing definition of "unreasonable interference" in section 4.

The new definition inserted under clause 3(f) is a legislative drafting technique that merely makes it clear that the current definition in section 4 applies whenever the term unreasonable interference is used in the Act, especially in the new Part 2A.

To be clear, the CDRT will have jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving the full range of acts and omissions that may cause unreasonable interference with a neighbour's enjoyment or use of place of residence.

As for the CRU, for the reasons that I have set out earlier, and which Senior Minister of State Sim Ann has expanded on, CRU will focus its resources on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases.

So, when it comes to mediation, what I have explained earlier in mediation cases, we want it to be as broad as possible and give the unit as much flexibility as possible to determine what noise, what hoarding might be and what disamenity might be and the different constituent steps that might lead up to it, so that there is more flexibility for it to do its work, as I have explained in my opening speech.

Mr Faisal Manap asked about whether disputes related to ceiling leakages can also be brought under this scheme. It is possible for the CDRT to hear such a dispute if there is evidence that the leakage stems from an act of unreasonable interference. The affected resident can also consider bringing the claim to the Strata Titles Board if the issue in question happens on strata title properties.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about CDRT data. Let me just share some data, but again, also, take it with a pinch of salt. From January 2016 to December 2019, an average of 88 CDRT claims were filed each year. From January 2020 to December 2023, that number went up to 205 CDRT claims each year.

But I would caution against attributing the increase solely or primarily to just the COVID-19 pandemic. Hybrid work arrangements, work from home, could be one factor, but there may be a whole range of other factors that have contributed to this increase. For example, there could be greater awareness of the CDRT, with cases being reported in the news over time.

For the four-year period of January 2020 to December 2023, 529 claims or 64% of total claims filed involved a complaint on excessive noise. Seventy-five claims or 9% of them, are involved a complaint on obstruction of place of residence and 67 claims or 8% of total claims are on excessive smoke. That was Mr Louis Ng's point.

It is possible for a single claim to contain allegations on more than one type of unreasonable interference, but it is quite clear that the vast majority of claims revolve around excessive noise.

Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Alex Yam spoke on simplifying the CDRT process. We agree and we have tried to do so in this Bill. CDRT processes have been designed to be simple and accessible for users, and claimants and respondents do not require legal knowledge to pursue or defend a claim. Applications are filed online using simplified forms. The forms are in plain English and they are accompanied by explanatory notes that guide users through the filing process.

CDRT judges play a proactive role in not just leading, but also guiding the proceedings. For example, the judge will pose questions to the claimant or respondents directly in order to elicit a position from them and also ask them, guide them, to provide certain pieces of evidence to support their claim.

The CDRT is also not bound by the rules of evidence that ordinarily apply to court proceedings, so it can consider any evidence that points towards the source of interference, the type of interference or its intensity and surrounding circumstances. To alleviate the evidential difficulty, we have, as I have explained earlier, put in place processes to integrate upstream CRU findings so that we do not have to repeat the evidence gathering.

We understand that despite all these, some users may still find the process to be daunting and complex and it is foreign to many parties to be engaged in an adjudicatory court process. So, detailed step-by-step guidance on the CDRT process has been made available on the judiciary's website. Members of the public can also approach the State Courts directly for process-related queries. And for those who wish to seek advice on their legal options, they can approach Pro Bono SG's various Community Legal Clinics. They will be very happy to advise on the options available as well as on the process.

Sir, we have tried to simplify the process as much as possible, but I also hope that Members appreciate, ultimately, that the CDRT process is a formal court adjudicatory process and there needs to be some level of formality and also decorum accorded to the process.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Miss Rachel Ong asked about the enhancements we are making for tenant-occupied properties under the new section 10A. I touched on it in my opening speech, so I will just briefly respond. Today, if the tenant does not comply with the first order, the CDRT can already make the second order against the tenant called a special direction and at that stage, the landlord can be asked to put up a compliance bond and the landlord must ensure that the tenant complies with this second order.

So, the enhancement that we are now making, adds on to this – it does not introduce anything that is new but adds on to this, by bringing that step forward – the compliance bond mechanism is now brought forward by one step and we set out a clearer process of how landlords will then be involved. If the landlord had been notified that his tenant is engaging in acts of nuisance and does not do anything and the matter is then taken to the CDRT, the CDRT can, at that stage, make a compliance order against the landlord together with the first order against the tenant.

It just makes it faster, neater because you are now before the CDRT and we want to ensure that the landlord is aware that there is such a case happening, rather than to wait for one breach and then the next step before involving the landlord. So, we brought the landlord's bond upfront and at the first stage. The landlord must be given express notice of the tenant's actions and it is therefore not that the tenant or the landlord is unaware.

In this context, I think Members will agree with me that the landlord really should not be sitting back and doing nothing. Inaction on the landlord's part, it does not gel with our philosophy of having a community-first approach that we are trying to foster.

Miss Rachel Ong suggested that we enhance the deterrent effect of the compliance order. At the same time, Mr Yip Hon Weng expressed the view that expectations must be balanced and realistic, and Mr Mark Lee referred to the need for a framework that provides clarity for the landlords.

The different speeches on this topic itself illustrates the competing tensions that we see and we have tried to adopt a calibrated approach. We are aware that there is a range of profiles of landlords – some are more cooperative than others, some are more hands-off, some may even be living overseas, as Mr Yip highlighted. We will take on board Mr Yip's suggestion when we operationalise these enhancements and provide clear guidelines to landlords to help them understand the obligations – a point that Mr Mark Lee made as well.

Really, the last thing we want is to inadvertently create disputes out of this process when we are trying to resolve an underlying neighbour dispute between two parties.

I believe Mr Dennis Tan suggested introducing an additional factor on subletting by having covenants imposed before allowing a landlord to rent out or to sublet. I think, as I have said, finding the right approach with the right balance is useful and we do not think at this stage, we want to impose or have an additional factor on the ability of a landlord to rent out as long as this process is in place.

Mr Derrick Goh and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether mediated settlement agreements can be registered as a CDRT order by default instead of by consent. The short point is, we did look at this and we felt that requiring consent would give the best chance of improved outcomes. Because if every settlement agreement were automatically registered or had the same effect as a Court Order, this would change the complexion of mediation, which is consensual and amicable. And it may well hinder parties from wanting to come forward to enter into a mediation agreement. Requiring consent makes also for a more transparent process. It crucially helps to preserve the trust between the settling parties. If both parties agree, then it can be registered and both will go in with their eyes open, rather than having it automatic. This process of having consent also aligns with our position in the Mediation Act. Under the Mediation Act, any party outside of community disputes who reaches a mediated settlement agreement, also registers it by consent under the Mediation Act.

Miss Rachel Ong asked about the agreements between a resident and a Government agency. The CDMF is concerned with disputes between neighbours and we do not expect a Government agency to be a party to such a dispute.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about the transfer provision, whether lawyers will be allowed in CDRT cases that are transferred to the Magistrates' Courts or the District Courts. The short point is that under section 20, the reason for the transfer is because a party may well file a claim that includes claims or allegations that fall outside of the CDRT's jurisdiction. So, in such a case, the CDRT court or judge will decide to transfer the case to the appropriate Magistrate's or District Court. In such cases, the ordinary civil process will apply and both parties may engage legal representation if they wish.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the cost provision that we are trying to put in. We did not have this previously available. So, now we are introducing it to align with the usual cost practices. The intention is like other cost orders in court. It is at the court's discretion to reflect the fairness and equity of the particular situation. As I said in my opening speech, if a party unreasonably refuses to attend mediation, even before the Mediation Direction kicks in, when your neighbour offers to go to mediation and you unreasonably refuse to attend, leading to protracted proceedings, in such a situation, the court might then consider that it is appropriate to order costs consequences to be visited upon the party refusing to attend.

Or sometimes there could be a flagrant disregard of agreed obligations, for example, in a breach of a settlement agreement, or there is a dishonest conduct of the proceedings, withholding evidence or making false statements and so on. In such a case, we wanted to give the court hearing the case flexibility in deciding where costs should follow the event and to make the appropriate costs orders. I want to assure Ms Lim that it is not CRU's intention to seek costs against the resident. So, there will be no cost recovery as such, as she had put it in her speech.

Ms Jessica Tan asked if the CDRT enhancements will apply to existing CDRT cases. This really depends on the enhancement in question. As I said, we have a pilot in the CRU but not a pilot in the other cases. But where possible, we have tried to ensure that the existing cases will benefit from the enhancements in this case.

But there are some cases where you are halfway through the process. If you are halfway through a CDRT process and it is unfair to then impose, after you have started the case, amendments that have been brought in subsequently, then we will not do so. So, in fact, the Bill provides for it to be applicable only from the time the Act is operational.

Ms Tan might want to look at the interim arrangements, the Interim Orders clause, as well as the registration of settlement agreements provision. These will kick in after the Bill is effective because you do not want to introduce a provision halfway through a process when the parties are already engaged in the system.

Mr Derrick Goh asked for us to monitor the CDRT's effectiveness. We will certainly do so and continue to make enhancements as may be necessary.

Finally, Ms Tan asked about the proposed enhancements and when they will be operationalised. I think Ms Sim Ann said the first half of next year and that is the plan as well. We intend to do so by the first half of next year.

Sir, let me now conclude. I want to start this conclusion by thanking the team of officers across all three Ministries who have worked over several years in coming up with this piece of legislation. It has not been straightforward, mainly because it is not just dealing with a process or a procedural issue, but you are really deeply intervening with two neighbours, the way in which they live their lives, the way in which they conduct themselves as neighbours. And so, we had to be very careful about striking the right balance, as I emphasised in my speech earlier.

But at the same time, we realised that disputes between neighbours, sometimes they have a religious undertone, sometimes there is an ethnic undertone, and if left unchecked, they can escalate very quickly. It is very easy to label these disputes as one type or another and that is really unhelpful, but those labels sometimes stick. This then frays our relations, undermines our trust and disrupts our social cohesion. That is not something that we want to see.

In reality, while this is a Bill that deals with the process, sets up a framework, deals with mediation, I really think that this is a Bill that is aimed squarely at trying to enhance our social cohesion in Singapore. We want to do this to ensure that there is a framework, people know what the framework is, but at the same time are able to practise self-moderation, knowing what the framework is, and having the ability themselves to self-help, to sort out their own problems. Which is why I have emphasised, whether it is the CDRT or the CRU, we do not want to be overly intrusive and we want to retain a balance and discretion and a responsibility on the part of neighbours to live in harmony and to sort out their own issues from time to time.

Fundamentally, we want to strengthen trust amongst our communities. We can then elevate this level of harmony to strengthen our national multicultural inter-faith harmony as well. That really was the thinking behind a very detailed root and branch review of the CDMF.

Sir, I believe I have addressed almost all, if not all, of the questions raised. With that, Sir, I beg to move.