Opening speech by SMS Sim Ann at the 2nd Reading of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill

Nov 12, 2024


Mr Speaker,

MND has been working closely with MCCY and MinLaw on the review of the Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF).

We will play two roles in supporting the enhanced CDMF.

  • First, the Municipal Services Office (MSO) will host the dedicated unit to address severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases.
  • Second, HDB, which helps to manage neighbour noise disputes within HDB flats today, will pilot the early issuance of mediation directions by frontline officers.

As the Minister-in-charge of MSO, I will therefore be speaking on Part 2A of the Bill which deals with the operationalisation of the Community Relations Unit (CRU), and allows Community Relations Officers and officers appointed by the Minister to issue mediation directions.

The CRU will comprise the Director-General (DG), as well as other authorised officers[1] to be appointed by the Minister; and the Community Relations Officers and Auxiliary Community Relations Officers appointed by the DG – or CROs and ACROs for short.

I will speak on: The types of cases CRU will take on; the powers this Bill will equip it with; how it will intervene; and the safeguards we will put in place.

I will also share an update on our plans to pilot the CRU, starting in Tampines. I will then speak about the issuance of mediation directions by frontline officers, which HDB will pilot, also starting in Tampines.

Piloting of CRU to investigate and intervene in severe neighbour noise cases and hoarding cases

Minister Tong earlier stated that the CRU will focus only on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases.

The two main archetypes of severe noise cases that CRU will focus on are:

  • One, Severe and prolonged cases, where noise is being used to cause suffering to the surrounding neighbours; and
  • Two, Cases where the acts that cause noise could be due to an underlying mental health condition.

Take the first scenario. Let us say there are two neighbours who live next to each other, in Tampines town – Mr X, and Mr Y.

Mr X reports that Mr Y has been making intense banging noises from late night to early morning for the past 10 years. However, Mr X is unable to provide agencies with clear evidence that the noises are caused by Mr Y.

According to Mr X, Mr Y tends to play a cat-and-mouse game. He stops banging when officers visit, but resumes banging right after officers leave.  In such a case:

  • CROs may exercise their powers under the new section 13I and take statements from Mr X, Mr Y, and the surrounding neighbours. They may also require Mr Y to attend interviews.
  • If Mr X wishes for CROs to deploy noise sensors, and the relevant Town Council agrees, CROs may also deploy noise sensors in Mr X’s unit, as well as along the common corridor to collect objective evidence of the reported noise, to measure its intensity and triangulate where it is most likely to be coming from.

Subsequently, if CROs are satisfied that Mr Y is indeed engaging in acts that were deliberately disrupting the peace of the neighbours throughout the day and night, then a written warning may be issued to Mr Y, which will warn him to cease making the noise with immediate effect.

If Mr Y persists with his actions, then the Director-General of Community Relations may issue an abatement order under the new section 13L, and direct Mr Y to stop the noise.

If Mr Y does not comply with the abatement order to stop, then that will be a criminal offence. The DG may also seize the item that Mr Y used to cause the noise.

CRU powers

We will equip CRU officers with powers to carry out their tasks, and also put in appropriate safeguards.

First, under the new section 13E, before exercising any power, CROs and ACROs must identify themselves by showing their official identification card.

Members of the public will be able to go to an MND webpage, to verify that the person standing before them, is indeed from the CRU.  Impersonation of a CRU officer will be a criminal offence under section 13Q.

Next, under the new section 13I, CROs will have powers to take statements, photographs, and recordings. They may also issue advisories and warnings. These are standard powers for public officers who perform enforcement functions.

Advisories and warnings do not carry penalties. However, if they are not heeded, further enforcement action may be taken.

CROs will also have powers to issue mediation directions under section 13M. Minister Edwin Tong explained this in detail earlier.

Under section 13L, the Director-General can issue an abatement order to an individual, if he is satisfied that the individual is engaging in an act or omission that causes unreasonable interference. This is modelled on what countries such as the UK and Australia have done.

An abatement order requires the recipient to stop any acts that are causing unreasonable interference to their neighbours.

The recipient can also be required to take steps to ensure that other persons in the home, such as family members, stop the acts which are specified in the order.

Failure to comply with an abatement order will be a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, or imprisonment, or both.

CROs will also be empowered to leverage on technology to perform their work. In particular, under sections 13I and 13J, CROs, assisted by ACROs, may deploy noise sensors to collect objective evidence on matters such as the direction, timing, and intensity of the noise nuisance.

This addresses a gap today, where complainants attempt to collect evidence by making simple audio recordings, often on their mobile phones. These recordings are unable to tell us the intensity or direction of the noise disturbance. They can also easily be distorted upon playback, or edited, and therefore cannot be relied upon for official investigations or court proceedings.

The deployment of noise sensors gives us a sensible alternative to deploying officers on long and possibly futile stakeouts. We also hope sensors can deliver evidence in cases where the nuisance-maker stops the noise when officers are present, but starts making noise again once the officers have left.

In relation to the deployment of noise sensors, I would like to assure Members there will be safeguards to protect residents’ privacy.

These safeguards incorporate feedback from public engagements that we have conducted.  Let me elaborate.

  • First, noise sensors will be deployed only after CROs, assisted by ACROs, have done initial investigations and narrowed down the unit where the noise might be coming from.
  • Second, noise sensors will only be deployed with consent, as laid out under the new section 13I, subsection 1.  So, if the sensor is to be installed in someone’s home, then the owner or occupier of the home must grant consent.  If the sensor is to be installed in the common areas, then CRU must seek consent from the managing agent of the common area.

In the course of public consultations, some members of the public suggested that CRU should be empowered to deploy noise sensors without obtaining consent, for example within the home of a suspected noise-maker. We considered this carefully, but decided that it is not necessary to take this step for now.

  • Third, to prevent tampering, raw data that is collected by the sensors will be transmitted in real-time to Singapore-based servers for processing.  Strict access controls will be placed on these servers, and the raw data will be automatically expunged once it has been processed.  Only processed data will be retained for the purposes of CRU’s investigation, and any subsequent court proceedings. This processed data will provide objective, untampered evidence on the direction, timing and intensity of the noise events above an ambient baseline. The actual sounds, including any conversations that were picked up by the sensor, will not be available to our officers.

Compulsory Acquisition as a very last resort

As a deterrent and an absolute last resort, for the most severe of cases that involve recalcitrant nuisance-makers, CRU may refer the matter to HDB after exhausting other levers, for HDB to consider Compulsory Acquisition.

HDB has compulsory acquisition powers which have been used very sparingly. We recognise that it is a very severe action, which would affect not only the nuisance-maker but also the rest of the person’s household. We will not take this course of action without due care and consideration.

We may consider referring the case to HDB to consider Compulsory Acquisition if:

All other levers have failed to abate the nuisance; and measures are required to protect the wider community.

Therefore, Clause 36 of the Bill amends section 63 of the Housing and Development Act to empower HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat.

HDB may also consider Compulsory Acquisition of the flats of severe and recalcitrant nuisance-makers, if, for example, the owner or an occupier has been convicted by the Courts at least twice for disobeying an abatement order or a CDRT exclusion order.

The second noise scenario that CRU will focus on involves persons who may have mental health conditions.

For example, let’s consider a case where a resident who lives on his own has been shouting to himself for extended periods of time, even late at night.  The surrounding neighbours inform CRU that the resident might have an underlying mental health condition, as suggested by his behaviour.

For cases with mental health conditions, the aim will be to facilitate assessment, confirmation, and treatment of the mental health condition.

In this case, CROs will work with partner agencies such as the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), Institute of Mental Health (IMH), and the Police, to facilitate assessment, confirmation, and treatment of the underlying mental health condition.

If all attempts to persuade the resident to voluntarily seek mental health treatment fail, then as a last resort, the Director-General may make an application to the CDRT under the new section 17A.

If the CDRT is satisfied that the resident has indeed engaged in acts of unreasonable interference, and the CDRT has reason to believe that the resident is likely suffering from a psychiatric condition that is contributing to his behaviour, then the CDRT may exercise the Mandatory Treatment powers under the new section 12A.

Hoarding

Sir, I have talked about severe neighbour noise cases, which will be the bulk of the cases managed by CRU. Now, let me talk about our approach for severe hoarding cases.

While the volume of cases is not high, it is an issue that not only causes dis-amenities, but also poses public health and safety risks. It affects not only the hoarder, but also surrounding neighbours.

In severe hoarding cases, the home may be infested with pests from rotting food. The accumulation of clutter is also a potentially fatal fire hazard, as occupants may be unable to escape if a fire should break out.  The pests and stench may prevent surrounding neighbours from the normal enjoyment of their own homes.

The root causes of a hoarder’s behaviour are complex. They could be due to trauma, grief or underlying mental health conditions.

Given the complexity of the issue and the hazards it causes, the Government has been taking an inter-agency approach to address the issue. There is a Hoarding Management Core Group (HMCG), led by the MSO, which coordinates efforts across agencies to resolve protracted and severe hoarding cases. Agencies adopt a concerted approach combining enforcement efforts with community and social interventions.

Together with community partners, we have made some progress in reducing the severity of many hoarding cases.

However, some cases remain protracted and unresolved because it is difficult to gain hoarders’ cooperation to declutter.

Frontline officers face real tensions on the ground, in balancing between the person's individual right to choose how they want to upkeep their own home and their neighbours' enjoyment of their own residences.

Officers often need to engage and persuade the hoarders repeatedly, to obtain their cooperation to declutter. Despite our best efforts, there are cases where hoarders refuse to cooperate.  Even if their homes were successfully decluttered once, the clutter may recur as habits do not change quickly.

To better address severe in-unit hoarding, Clause 11 of the Bill inserts a new section 11A into the CDRT.

The provision empowers the Director-General to apply to CDRT to declutter a residential unit, as a measure of last resort premised on public interest; and only after existing regulatory levers from frontline agencies have been exhausted. This is necessary to protect public health and safety.

The DG may apply to CDRT for an order to address hoarding, under the new section 11A, after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to the hoarder’s neighbour, and the hoarder has failed to comply with the CDRT’s order to declutter.

If the order to address hoarding is granted by the CDRT, then CROs will be authorised to enter the unit in question; remove and dispose of any hoarded materials and/or items that are causing unreasonable interference; and take any other actions as specified by the Court.

Piloting CRU in Tampines

Now, let me address the CRU pilot.  As Minister Tong mentioned, we will start the pilot within Tampines Town.

The concept of operations is also new. We will therefore need to test it, refine it, and then test it again. This will be an iterative process. The pilot will allow us to assess how the model can be scaled up in a sustainable manner.

Tampines was chosen as it has an average caseload compared to other towns in Singapore, which will give us a representative setting to test the model.

We have formed the initial team of officers, who are working on developing their operational procedures.  We hope to begin operations from the second quarter of 2025.

Directed mediation as an added tool for frontline responders

As part of the pilot, we will also look at directed mediation as an early lever, to arrest and resolve the dispute upstream, before they worsen. We hope that more disputes can be addressed early, between neighbours and with the help of agencies and grassroots leaders (GRLs), if needed.

If residents are unable to resolve the conflict by themselves, in many instances, they will reach out to GRLs, and frontline agencies such as HDB for assistance.

By and large, GRLs and frontline agencies are able to resolve most cases through informal mediation.  This should and will continue to be the case going forward. However, as mentioned by Minister Tong, we will give selected frontline responders an added tool of directed mediation, to bring neighbours together to discuss their differences.

We hope this approach will help to bring even more cases to an amicable resolution.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude.

MND, MCCY, and MinLaw consulted extensively on the enhancements to the CDMF – and in particular, the CRU framework.  In the course of our consultations, many members of public expressed strong support for the CRU. Some have even asked when the CRU can come by their unit and conduct enforcement on their neighbour.

So let me end with a few points:

  • We recognise that enforcement tears at the fabric of neighbourly relations, and should be reserved only for serious cases.
  • When neighbours are engaged in a dispute, our priority must always be to bring them together – to understand each other’s perspectives, needs, and interests; and to cooperate on a solution that is workable for all sides.
  • It is neither desirable for community spirit, nor sustainable, for the Government to step in to resolve differences between neighbours all the time.

I call on all Members to help us with this.  When your resident comes to you, and says that his next-door neighbour is making noise, please advise him to speak to his neighbour first. And encourage them to go for mediation.

If these basic strategies do not work, then the case might be a severe or prolonged one. CRU would be alerted by HDB or other frontline officers handling the case. 

Our officers could: move the case towards mediation,  make investigations leading to the issuance of warnings, abatement orders or even mandatory treatment orders down the line; or help make eventual CDRT proceedings smoother with the evidence that they have collected.

Ultimately, the CRU must not function as a first resort.

It is intended to complement, and not substitute, the interlocking system of positive community norms, good neighbourly relations, and amicable dispute resolution through friendly discussion and compromise.

I also call on Members to continue supporting MSO’s ongoing efforts, with our partners and agencies, to build pro-social norms that contribute towards harmonious living. These include:

  • the MSO’s Love Our ‘Hood Youth Challenge for youths to transform their creative ideas into effective solutions to create a better living environment; and
  • HDB’s Singapore's Friendly Neighbourhood Award, where we recognise and celebrate the efforts of Singaporeans who have gone the extra mile to connect with and care for fellow residents.

When we have strong community norms that value harmony and reinforce considerate behaviour in the neighbourhood, fewer cases of community disputes will arise. And where they do arise, involved parties will be more likely to resolve their differences through mediation without prompting, which means less reliance on intervention through CRU or other agencies.

This is an outcome worth working towards, even though we all know it takes effort and time.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin

成立社区关系处是解决邻里纠纷的一个重要环节，也是政府的一项新举措。

为了打好社区关系处的基础, 我们决定先在淡滨尼试行一年 。

通过较小范围的实践，我们将明确社区关系处的运作概念，再将工作范围扩大至全岛。

社区关系处所存在的意义有几层：

（一）对于那些有望通过调解获得解决的邻里纠纷由社区关系处的人员出面发出调解指示，加以推动，让它们尽快得到调解。

（二）有些案例需要靠调解以外的途径解决，社区关系处的人员可以进行调查，对这类案例发出警告、禁止令，或是促使法庭动用强制治疗令。

（三）社区关系处人员通过调查所获得的证据，在邻里纠纷审裁庭可以派上用场，节省人力、物力和时间。

重要的是，社区关系处虽有关键的功能，但也绝非万能。我们无法取代邻居之间沟通的必要。我们也必须维护社区内自我解决纠纷的能力 。

秉着以上的指导原则，我们计划在2025年上半年开始运作。

在法案通过后，我们会继续草拟附属法例，并进一步细化运作流程。

 

[1] Authorised officers refer to the Directors, Deputy Directors and Senior Assistant Directors of Community Relations.