Reply Speech by SMS Sim Ann at the 2nd Reading of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill
Nov 12, 2024
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
I am heartened by the keen interest that many Members have shown in this topic as well as the strong encouragement that Members have offered to our fledgling team of officers who will be forming the CRU. Members' candid sharing of cases from their own wards is greatly appreciated and will inform our approach as we roll out the CRU pilot.
Let me address the questions that have been raised on Part 2A relating to CRU. Minister Edwin Tong will address the questions on the overall community disputes framework, mediation and CDRT.
Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Faisal Manap, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have raised some questions with regard to who constitute the CROs and ACROs and also whether their services are chargeable. Sir, CROs and ACROs will be full-time officers because CRU serves a public function with enforcement powers. We do not intend to appoint volunteers, such as grassroots leaders, to serve as CROs and ACROs. But for avoidance of doubt, CROs and ACROs can, of course, like public officers, choose to volunteer in their own time, as long as it does not clash with their public duties. Also, CRU services to the public and the deployment of sensors that have been authorised by CRU are free of charge.
Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Darryl David, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked for clarifications regarding the CRU's powers.
In proposing the CRU's powers, we have incorporated feedback from public consultations and various stakeholder engagements. CROs and ACROs will be empowered to investigate cases that are escalated to the CRU, so that the root causes of neighbour noise disputes may be uncovered, the parties concerned are brought together to address these root causes and, where necessary, the appropriate action is applied and/or support given, as the case may be, to the correct party.
To assess whether the noise is causing unreasonable interference, CRU will consider various factors, such as the loudness or intensity of the noise; the time of occurrence and the duration; what is reasonably expected to be tolerated in ordinary daily living; the impact of the noise on the neighbours; and whether the noise is caused intentionally, recklessly or negligently.
To Mr Mark Lee's question on introducing sound thresholds or time-based guidelines, we do not intend to do so at this time. This is because it is not straightforward to set across-the-board thresholds for noise and apply them in all situations. For example, the ambient baseline differs in different neighbourhoods and at different times of day; and the same noise made during the day, when most people are up and about would impact differently than if it were made in the middle of the night, when most people are resting. CRU will exercise these powers with due regard to the severity of the noise disturbance.
Let me illustrate with an actual case that agencies have encountered in the past to show how CRU will handle such a case going forward.
Mr A sent multiple complaints over several months to HDB about noise from his neighbour living upstairs, Mr B. HDB officers engaged Mr B as well as surrounding neighbours. The surrounding neighbours said that they did not hear any noise nuisance from the alleged unit and instead pointed to Mr A's unit. Later, Mr A admitted to retaliating to the noise he perceived to be coming from Mr B and Mr A's family member staying in the same unit corroborated that Mr A was, in fact, the nuisance maker. HDB officers also observed items in Mr A's home that may have been used to cause the noise nuisance. And yet, Mr A continues to write in to allege the same noise nuisance against Mr B.
For such cases, section 13K gives the CRU discretion not to investigate or take further action. If Mr A persists in his frivolous and vexatious allegations, the DG may direct Mr A not to further make such unfounded complaints. Failure to comply will be an offence. These powers are important safeguards to avoid residents being subjected to unnecessary investigations for unmeritorious complaints and preserves the CRU's resources for worthy cases.
To Mr Darryl David's question about the bar for CRU to intervene and Ms Ng Ling Ling's and Ms Hazel Poa's questions on the dismissal of complaints not made in good faith, I would like to assure Members that all cases escalated to CRU will be carefully assessed. CRU has been developing, in partnership with the relevant agencies, a framework for severe neighbour noise cases to be escalated for assessment and follow-up.
In general, a case will be considered severe if the noise persists over a period of time, say, several weeks or more and causes distress to neighbours despite attempts by the neighbours to resolve the issue between themselves and assistance by frontline officers. Cases will be closed or dismissed only after the relevant assessment has been done.
With regard to Ms Ng Ling Ling's concerns about the privacy of a genuine complainant, because CRU deals with protracted, severe cases escalated by HDB and other frontline agencies, the nuisance maker and the complainant would, usually, already be known to each other. Nonetheless, if there are law and order risks, frontline agencies, CRU and the Police will closely coordinate and monitor the case and CRU will refer the case to the Police, if necessary. Genuine complainants who are concerned about harassment may also seek remedies from the Protection from Harassment Court.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Alex Yam asked how CRU would use noise sensors responsibly. As I mentioned in my opening speech, safeguards have been proposed.
First, if noise sensors are deployed within residents' homes, this will be done only with consent. They are intended to support CRO's initial investigation. For example, to ascertain the timing, direction and intensity of the noise nuisance. Second, the actual sounds picked up by the sensor will not be available to our officers. Raw data picked up by the sensors will be expunged once it is processed. Only processed data, which is, charts and tables that show the direction, timing and intensity of the noise events, will be retained for the purposes of CRU's investigation and any subsequent Court proceedings.
Operationally, we are looking at having all raw data being processed automatically within 48 hours. As I have mentioned earlier, the processing will be done in Singapore-based servers that only a very small number of authorised MND officers and vendor personnel can access, with all access and activities logged. This is in line with prevailing Government data security policies and guidelines, such as the Public Sector Governance Act and Government Instruction Manuals.
In the event that the Police requests for the noise sensor data for law-and-order reasons, CRU will be obliged under the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC, to provide whatever raw or processed data that is available at the point of request to the Police to aid their work. It is in the public interest for the Police to have access to such data. The Police must be able to pursue all available information and leads to bring perpetrators of crime to justice and to protect public safety and security.
In this connection, Mr Dennis Tan had suggested the use of sensor data before mediation. Our thinking is this: mediation works well when both parties are willing to talk with one another and this involves some acknowledgement that there is noise being made. Whereas sensors would come in more useful in cases where, perhaps, one party may acknowledge that there is noise but the other party denies it. In such cases, the sensors will help us make a more objective measurement.
I should also address Mr Dennis Tan's concerns. Yes, we are sourcing for sufficient units of noise sensors so that CRU can carry out its work effectively and without the parties being involved in cases having to wait too long.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the setup of the CRU and how the CROs and the ACROs will be trained to handle cases sensitively and bring in additional professional help when needed.
The CRU currently comprises 15 full-time dedicated public officers trained in investigation and basic mediation. In addition, a number of them have experience in law enforcement. They will also undergo training by Agency for Integrated Care to identify and support persons with mental health needs.
ACROs are Auxiliary Police Officers, or APOs. They are qualified security personnel who have undergone basic APO training and have at least one year of experience in carrying out auxiliary police activities around Singapore. They will also be trained by the CRU to perform their roles as ACROs. The ACROs are meant to accompany and assist CROs in the discharge of their functions and to provide physical security.
To this end, they will have a narrower set of powers, under section 13J. For example, both CROs and ACROs may verbally advise persons to stop certain acts that are causing excessive noise. Both may also take statements from affected parties. However, only CROs can issue written warnings under section 13I(1). ACROs will also be paired with CROs at all times.
Mr Louis Ng also asked about the equipment that may be provided to CROs and ACROs to carry out their duties. CROs and ACROs will be provided with equipment to carry out their roles, such as tablet computers and body-worn cameras. As mentioned, they can also be authorised to deploy noise sensors.
Mr Alex Yam also asked about how residents would identify CROs and ACROs. They will be issued with an authority card and officers must identify themselves in the course of duty. Members of the public can also verify the identity of the officers via the MND website.
As far as practicable, CROs and ACROs will investigate and enforce against severe cases without entering the unit or seizing items. When they do need to exercise such powers of entry and seizure, they can do so when pre-conditions have been met and there are also statutory safeguards in place.
For example, under section 13I subsection 1, para m, CROs may only enter a unit to install noise sensors with the consent of the owner or occupier of the unit. So I hope this addresses the concerns that Mr Dennis Tan had raised in the course of his speech. Under section 13L, CROs may only enter a unit to seize items if: a written warning was previously issued to the individual; and that written warning was not complied with, and an abatement order was issued; and the abatement order was not complied with; and at least two written warnings were issued to the individual to comply with the abatement order. The DG must also approve the CRO's request to enter a resident's home.
As Members will see, the individual would have been given ample warnings and chances to comply with, and if the individual still does not comply and continues to cause severe noise disturbance to the community, then the CRU will have the necessary powers to intervene and to put a stop to the noise.
Some Members spoke about the compulsory acquisition of flats and had some questions. Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Alex Yam asked about the criteria for compulsory acquisition of flats for nuisance makers, and Ms Poa also asked on the number of expected cases and how the Government will ensure that the measure is exercised fairly and only as a last resort. Mr Darryl David suggested preventing nuisance makers from relocating to another estate until the authorities are certain that they will not cause further nuisance, so that a problem is not transferred from one estate to another.
Sir, we do not take compulsory acquisition of flats lightly. Members would know that compulsory acquisition is already being done in serious cases, where flat owners breach HDB rules. It stands to reason that in an extreme case where a HDB flat owner persistently and egregiously disturbs the peace of his neighbours despite all measures, such as abatement orders, that compulsory acquisition be also made available as a consequence of last resort. As with all compulsory acquisition cases, safeguards will be in place.
To the question raised by Ms Sylvia Lim and other Members, we do not intend to implement compulsory acquisition of flats where mental health conditions or special needs are involved. I should add that I will speak a little bit more about such cases later.
To Ms Hazel Poa's question relating to cases where the root of the issue may lie in a lack of understanding of the law, let me reassure Members that our interactions with residents, both verbal and written, will be conducted in plain and simple language, including in the vernacular, where necessary. This is to ensure that our intentions and the implications of the residents' actions are made clear to them.
To Mr Darryl David's suggestion, we recognise that there are no simple solutions in this complex issue. As far as possible, CRU will focus on addressing the underlying cause for the noise nuisance. And to Ms Hazel Poa's query on compensation, HDB's prevailing compensation framework will apply to the compulsory acquisition of flats which are undertaken pursuant to the amendments under clause 36 of this Bill.
Next, Mr Derrick Goh asked about how CRU would collaborate with other agencies and professionals to diagnose and address the underlying root causes of behaviours, such as social or psychological root causes.
Sir, we are mindful that disturbances caused to neighbours may be unintentional and that it is important to address the root causes of disruptive behaviours. For example, there was a case that involved frequent slamming of a front door and gate at a HDB flat which affected neighbours. It turned out that there was marital strain between the couple living in the flat. One party was slamming the door and gate to show displeasure towards the other. So, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) officers were brought in to encourage the couple to try marital counselling.
Going forward, CRU will take a holistic approach to resolving disputes, including bringing in other public agencies and stakeholders with the relevant expertise or referring cases to them, when needed.
Members spoke about the approach for cases involving persons with mental health conditions or special needs. For instance, Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the initial mental health assessments involving persons with mental health conditions will be carried out. And Mr Alex Yam asked on how CROs would handle interactions with persons with mental health conditions or special needs. I will address the question in the context of how CRU will approach these cases while Minister Edwin Tong will address questions on CDRT Mandatory Treatment Orders. We are cognisant of the need to approach such cases sensitively.
At the same time, we also recognise that persistent noise disturbances can be very disruptive and take a toll on the health and well-being of the wider community too – something which several Members have also spoken about. Our approach is: first, to address disturbances in the neighbourhood in a timely manner, to maintain a peaceful living environment for all; and second, to support persons with mental health conditions to get the help they need. This means to facilitate the assessment, confirmation and treatment of the mental health condition.
We will approach these cases with care and sensitivity, and manage them differently from other cases. CRU officers will be trained to identify persons with mental health needs. When they come across such cases, they will bring in professionals from agencies, such as the Agency for Integrated Care to assist. CRU officers will seek to understand the unique challenges faced by these individuals and their caregivers and work with mental health professionals to refer them for the support needed, even as we address disturbances to the community. Hopefully, with treatment, the resident's condition will improve and the disamenity to the community will be reduced.
As for persons with special needs, very often, these cases call for empathy, encouragement and support, in addition to finding workable solutions. Where the noises create significant impact, despite neighbours making allowances for it and cannot be easily reduced, CRU may need the help of social service agencies, in addition to the person's family members or caregivers, to develop appropriate solutions. These may, for example, involve changes to the person's daily routine and care arrangements. We hope that initiatives, such as MSF's upcoming Enabled Living Programme pilot, can help more persons with disabilities and special needs live and thrive within the community.
Several Members spoke about the approach for hoarding cases and the decluttering order. Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana asked for details and examples on the decluttering order to address severe hoarding cases. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether there is any recourse for hoarders when faced with a CRU application for a decluttering order. He also asked if it is possible for hoarders to be directed to undergo psychiatric treatment. And Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Ministry could consider integrating mental health support into interventions for hoarding cases, while Dr Syed Harun asked for more info on the state of serious hoarding cases in Singapore.
Sir, as at 2023, some 602 cases were on the Hoarding Management Coordination Group or HMCG's radar, with 254 cases seeing some improvement in the situation. Over the years, there has been a clear growth trend in the number of hoarding cases and the causes can be complex. Earlier in my opening speech, I talked about grief, trauma, it could be loss; it could be psychological pain. There could also be mental health conditions involved, but not always.
And addressing hoarding behaviour in a sustainable, long-term manner would usually have to involve some very thorough understanding of what the person is trying to balance or address, through keeping items that most people would deem are of very little value.
This may also have to involve a change in the person's routines and also a shift in the person's daily focus. I think Members would agree that this is not easy to do, even for very highly trained personnel. So, we do not view decluttering as an end in itself. We also acknowledge that entering a person's home to remove their property is highly intrusive, so the decision to do so is not taken lightly.
As mentioned earlier, we take this measure premised on public interest and it is to be used after other regulatory levers have been exhausted, and when efforts by agencies and community partners to obtain the hoarder's cooperation to declutter have failed. We know that hoarding affects not only the hoarder, but also their neighbours.
Examples where hoarding may constitute unreasonable interference include situations where there are excessive smells or pests. This can have a severe impact on neighbours and affect the enjoyment of their homes, even if it does not cross the thresholds for agencies, such as NEA, to take enforcement action on.
The DG can only apply for a forced decluttering order after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to his neighbour, advisories to declutter have been issued to the hoarder and the CDRT ordered the hoarder to declutter, but the hoarder refused to comply with the Court order.
Where the hoarder has a suspected mental health condition, CROs will work with mental health professionals from relevant agencies and community partners to refer such cases for the appropriate mental health assessment and support. If the hoarder with the suspected mental health issues refuses assistance or assessment, affected residents can file a CDRT claim and apply to the CDRT for an MTO.
If necessary, the DG of CRU can also apply to the CDRT to seek mandatory treatment for the hoarder after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to his neighbour. The MTO process, which Minister Edwin Tong has explained in his opening speech, will apply.
Sir, as I have mentioned, when it comes to hoarding, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Given the complexity of the issue and the impact of hoarding on the individual, as well as the individual's neighbours, a whole-of-society approach is needed to address the issue in a more holistic and sustainable manner. This entails Government, social agencies, community groups, grassroots organisations and the private sector coming together to learn from and tap on each other's strengths and capabilities.
In general, advisories to declutter are issued to the hoarder by frontline agencies and Town Councils. This is an existing practice by the Agencies for Hoarding Cases. To be clear, grassroots advisers and MPs are not considered to be a person exercising a public official function under these amendments. This would refer to statutory office holders in agencies, such as the Director-General of Public Health.
Sir, Mr Derrick Goh asked how the success of the pilot would be assessed and the criteria to determine whether the CRU is to be scaled up nationally. He also asked how feedback from stakeholders in the pilot region will be incorporated. Sir, we intend to track the extent to which the CRU's intervention helps resolve cases and reduce the recurrence of neighbour noise disputes and hoarding.
We also intend to track the extent to which the early issuance of Mediation Directions by frontline officers is effective in encouraging neighbours to attend mediation at the CMC. Agencies will continue to refine the qualitative and quantitative data points that they track to evaluate the effectiveness of the CRU model. We will also carefully consider feedback from frontline agencies and stakeholders in the pilot town.
Several Members asked about the scope of CRU model and pilot. In short, Members have urged us to do more, scale faster. There have also been questions about whether the CRU can provide 24/7 response or response late in the night.
I would like to first clarify on Mr Alex Yam's query about hours. The CRU will not attend immediately to cases reported after hours, because neighbour noise or hoarding disputes are not usually emergencies that require immediate intervention. CRU will, on the next working day, process cases that were received after hours the day before and arrange to visit the affected parties as soon as practicable.
From the cases we have been studying, the key to eventual relief and resolution to serious and long-standing noise disputes is not so much having officers appear on the scene right after a report has been made. Rather, the key lies in moving more cases through the mediation and CDRT processes, and investigations leading to the issuance of formal warnings, abatement orders and if necessary, MTOs. And these can be achieved without operating a 24/7 response unit.
We also leverage on technology in the form of noise sensors, which Members have shown a lot of interest in, to reduce the need for human officers on stakeout to catch noise as it occurs.
We know that Members are eager for us to do more and scale faster. We seek your patience for us to pilot the CRU model and review it carefully to ensure that our processes are effective and that manpower needs for expansion of coverage are sized correctly. We hope to commence pilot operations in the first half of 2025. After this Bill is passed, we will continue working on the subsidiary legislation and firm up operational processes. I do want to assure Members, however, that we will do so as quickly as we can because we understand and we know how important this issue is to so many of our Members as well as the communities they represent.
Sir, I have addressed questions on the CRU and Part 2A. Let me reiterate that the enhancements are not intended to supplant community-driven solutions. An over-reliance on CRU intervention can erode the essence of our community spirit over time, something which Dr Syed Harun very eloquently talked about.
The CRU's role is to tackle the severe noise and hoarding neighbourly disputes that are out there, where prior attempts at amicable resolutions have been exhausted and where there is serious disamenity to the community. The vast majority of cases can and should be addressed through better dialogue between neighbours and community self-help. This is the case today and will continue to be the case after the establishment and rollout of the CRU.