Mandatory mediation a first step in settling disputes between neighbours: Edwin Tong

The new laws to tackle disputes between neighbours aim to strengthen mediation and dialogue between neighbours, rather than have them look to the authorities to step in at every turn, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong said.

This is why the Government was amending the Community Disputes Resolution Act to allow authorised officers to order neighbours to go for mediation, Mr Tong told Parliament on Nov 12.

It would encourage disputes to be amicably resolved, and addresses cases of neighbours who refuse to consider mediation, or do not show up for the mediation session despite agreeing to do so, he said.

This amendment was among the other changes to the Act meant to curb spats between neighbours that were passed in Parliament on Nov 12, following a debate that lasted over five hours.

Under the changes, a new Community Relations Unit (CRU) will be established, where officers will be given investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in neighbour disputes; and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) will also get enhanced powers to resolve cases brought before it more quickly and effectively.

Mr Tong told the House that the vast majority of disputes between neighbours are noise-related, pointing out that government agencies have received more than 90,000 such reports over the last three years, or an average of about 2,500 complaints a month.

Pointing to mediation facilitated by the Community Mediation Centre (CMC), he said this was quick, free and effective, noting that 80 per cent of voluntary mediation cases have been resolved. Since 2014, the centre has handled more than 2,400 cases.

He said the settlement rate may be lower when the changes are passed and neighbours are directed to go for mediation.

“But if we can help more neighbours make peace, through a consensual, amicable arrangement, that is still a good outcome. Even if mediation were to be unsuccessful... time, I think, is not wasted,” Mr Tong added.

More “bite” will also be given to settlement agreements after mediation is successful, he said.

Parties who come to a settlement can register their settlement agreement as a CDRT order, if both consent to it.

If one party breaches the settlement terms, the other can enforce the settlement agreement in the same way as a CDRT order, which would facilitate quicker and simpler recourse.

Mr Tong stressed that taking the matter to court should be a last resort, adding that neighbours should not be “trigger-happy” with enforcement applications.

“If you can speak to your neighbour first, there is a good chance you might then find a way to reach a compromise and resolve the matter, having already done so once,” he said.

The new laws will also mean CRU officers have powers to investigate and take action in disputes where a neighbour severely disrupts the peace, such as cases where the neighbour deliberately makes loud noise throughout the day.

Officers can investigate, such as taking statements from neighbours, and with the resident’s consent, install noise sensors in homes to collect evidence.

When investigations are complete, officers can issue advisories or warnings which do not carry penalties. If the warnings are not heeded, the officers can issue an abatement order.

“Over time, we would hope to see this framework having a salutary effect – or a self-moderating impact – on both the community and individual residents. The community will know the boundaries and then begin to self-police,” said Mr Tong.

He added that the CRU’s powers allow the unit to do its work effectively, but the Government does not intend the CRU to become the first responder in all cases.

The unit will focus only on severe noise or hoarding cases, and will begin operations from the second quarter of 2025 first as a one-year pilot in Tampines, he said.

Mr Tong also said that if cases are not effectively addressed through mediation or the CRU, going to the CDRT is the last resort.

As such cases are likely to be severe and prolonged, and involve a recalcitrant party, the CDRT’s processes and powers will be enhanced to solve the matter more quickly and effectively, he added.

Neighbours will be required to go for mediation first before filing a claim with the court, said Mr Tong, noting that more than 70 per cent of claimants did not go for mediation before filing a claim in the past five years.

The CDRT’s new powers will include issuing interim orders to provide quick relief, as well as mandatory treatment orders for those believed to be causing disturbances due to a mental health condition.

In cases involving tenants, the landlord must act to abate the nuisance from the tenant. If this is unsuccessful, the CDRT can make an order against the tenant and require the landlord to put up a bond for his tenant’s compliance.

All 20 members of the House who spoke during the debate said they supported the new laws, with some asking whether the scope of the CRU’s responsibilities should be expanded.

Mr Louis Ng (Nee Soon GRC), Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC) and Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten) asked if the CRU could look at complaints of second-hand smoke.

In response, Mr Tong said the framework is designed to deal with the vast majority of disamenities that are best dealt with through mediation.

He pointed out that complaints related to second-hand smoke had gone down each year from 2021 to 2023, and made up 0.6 per cent of all feedback cases the National Environment Agency received in 2023.

Workers’ Party MP Faisal Manap (Aljunied GRC) asked if cases of leaks caused by an upstairs neighbour could be brought to the CMC or filed with the CDRT.

In such cases, the affected resident may have to seek compensation for damage from a neighbour who might be unwilling to pay up, he said.

Mr Tong said it is possible for the CDRT to hear such disputes if there is evidence that the leakage stems from an act of “unreasonable interference”.

Nominated MP Syed Harun Alhabsyi raised the concern that using the threat of legislation to deal with community disputes could risk creating adversarial relationships within neighbourhoods.

He also pointed out that it could create an over-reliance on the Government to solve such problems.

Mr Tong said the vast majority of cases should be addressed through better dialogue and mediation between neighbours, adding that while the laws involve deeply intervening in the lives of two neighbours, they are meant to enhance social cohesion.

“Fundamentally, we want to strengthen trust amongst our communities... to strengthen our national multicultural and interfaith harmony,” he added.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Qoo10 vendors, customers accept they will likely not get money back New workplace fairness Bill proposed to protect S’pore workers against discrimination