Building more gracious and harmonious communities: Facilitating effective resolution of neighbour disputes

From time to time, there will be friction between neighbours. With neighbourliness and strong social capital, a lot of this can be avoided. Where there is still friction, neighbourliness paves the way for such friction to be resolved through community self-help. Therefore, neighbours should come together often and communicate frequently, with empathy and consideration for each other.

  2             To encourage such neighbourliness and self-help, agencies and community stakeholders have been promoting social norms and raising awareness of community- based mediation. For example, PA and HDB regularly hold events and activities to foster social cohesion and neighbourliness. Through campaigns like Singapore’s Friendly Neighbourhood Award and “Then How?”, HDB and the Singapore Kindness Movement promote ways to show care and concern for neighbours. Residents and grassroots in Pioneer and Mountbatten have also experimented with community-based interventions.;

  3             As part of the Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF), PA is also developing a core group of grassroots leaders trained in mediation. This involves training nominated grassroots leaders in basic mediation techniques, and developing protocols they can adopt on the ground during mediation.;

  4             In 2014, the CDMF was set up to further facilitate effective resolution of neighbour disputes and foster a more gracious and harmonious living environment for all Singaporeans. The Government reviews the CDMF from time to time, making refinements when necessary. The current review addresses pain points and gaps, taking in valuable feedback from public and stakeholder consultations.

Summary of Feedback Received

  5             In May 2023, three Ministries (Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, Ministry of Law, and Ministry of National Development) jointly conducted a public consultation via REACH to seek public feedback on the CDMF, where we received over 300 responses from members of the public. In addition, we conducted more than 30 focus group discussions between July 2023 to January 2024, where we further consulted more than 200 stakeholders such as members of the public, academics and frontline personnel with experience in dealing with community building and neighbour disputes.

  6              The majority of respondents supported the idea that neighbours should get to know each other and communicate frequently, which in turn paves the way for more open communications and amicable resolution in the event of disputes. Respondents also acknowledged that there are active steps that disputing parties can take to resolve differences, including practicing empathy, taking responsibility for their actions, and being considerate to each other. Where necessary, neighbours could consider dispute resolution channels, such as mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC).

  7              For a minority of cases which were particularly severe (e.g. intentionally using noise as a way to disturb or cause distress to their neighbours and where attempts to facilitate dialogue and reach resolution have proven unsuccessful), most respondents expect the Government to exercise greater authority to intervene and provide relief to the neighbours. There was strong support for powers to allow the Government to intervene in severe cases of neighbour disputes involving noise. Respondents generally felt that the Government should not be overly intrusive and exercise appropriate and proportionate use of powers, and some respondents sought clarity on safeguards that Government would put in place to prevent over-reach.

  8              A summary of the main feedback received, together with the ministries’ response, has been published on REACH’s website. The feedback from the consultation and engagement sessions have been instrumental to the CDMF review, and we would like to take this opportunity to thank all participants for their contributions.

CDMF enhancements to further strengthen community and maintain harmonious living

  9             Agencies have carefully considered the responses from the public consultation and engagement sessions in developing the enhancements to the CDMF. As some of the enhancements require legislative levers, the CDMF enhancements will be done by way of a Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill.

  10              These enhancements will strengthen, not replace, the ability of the community to come together early and resolve their differences as good neighbours. Through the Amendment Bill, we aim to facilitate gracious and harmonious living through three enhancements to the CDMF:

1. Encouraging the increased use of community mediation to resolve neighbour disputes at an early stage: Authorised agencies may direct parties to attend mediation at the CMC to resolve neighbour disputes, including noise-related disputes. The CMC has also set up more satellite mediation venues at selected community clubs and Service SG centres to improve access to mediation.

2. Piloting a new Community Relations Unit (CRU) to address a small minority of severe neighbour noise disputes and hoarding cases: This unit will have calibrated powers to investigate and take action for severe cases of neighbour disputes involving noise and hoarding.

3. Enhancing the processes and powers of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT): The CDRT remains an avenue of last resort for cases where earlier intervention by the CRU and community mediation have not resolved the neighbour dispute. The CDRT will be able to consider all relevant evidence that CRU officers have gathered in the course of investigations and will also be empowered to make new orders such as interim orders and mandatory treatment orders. This will facilitate quicker and more effective resolution of cases that are brought before the tribunal.

  11              The details of the three CDMF enhancements are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Encouraging the use of community mediation to resolve disputes amicably

  12             Community mediation is a quick, low-cost and effective way to help neighbours reach an amicable resolution to their disputes. Today, about 80% of voluntary mediation cases mediated by the CMC are successfully settled: Many of these neighbours who attempted mediation with the assistance of trained mediators, were able to find a mutual compromise beneficial to all parties. However, despite its effectiveness, many parties in dispute are unwilling to attempt mediation. Less than 30% of the total cases registered at the CMC proceed to mediation because one party does not wish to participate in mediation.

  13             The Bill will extend the benefits of mediation to more disputes¹, by empowering agencies (such as the CRU and the CMC) to direct disputing parties to attend mediation at the CMC by issuing a Mediation Direction. Disagreements are more likely to be resolved when parties take time and effort early on to hear each other’s views and perspectives and work through their differences, with the help of trained mediators. For a start, the Mediation Direction framework will be piloted together with the CRU, to resolve suitable disputes over noise.

  14              The Government has also heard positive feedback from the public consultation exercise on the proposal to improve the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. As such, the Bill will allow consenting parties to register their settlement agreement as a CDRT order. A registered settlement agreement will carry the same force and effect as a CDRT order. This will facilitate quicker and simpler legal recourse in the event the terms of the registered settlement are breached.

Community Relations Unit (CRU) Pilot to address severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases

15              To better address severe neighbour noise disputes, we will pilot a dedicated unit. The CRU will be given regulatory powers to intervene in severe cases of noise-related neighbour disputes. The pilot will run for a year initially in the HDB estates of one to two towns, starting with Tampines. Agencies will review the scope and resources required thereafter, to assess whether and how it can be sustainably scaled up island-wide². The CRU will be an important part of the overall CDMF, and step in only after neighbours’ attempts to resolve the disputes amongst themselves have failed.

16              The CRU will be staffed by Community Relations Officers (CROs), who have experience in law enforcement and basic mediation, and have passed strictbackground checks. The CROs will be supported by auxiliary police officers, termed Auxiliary CROs. CROs and Auxiliary CROs are required to identify themselves in the course of duty. Members of public can also verify their identity via an MND webpage. 

  17              The CROs will have the following investigation and enforcement powers to investigate, deter and stop severe neighbour noise nuisance:

1. Take statements from the neighbours concerned, and others who can help with the investigation;

2. Enter a place of residence to gather evidence, with the consent of the owner, occupier, or with approval from the Director-General of Community Relations;

3. Issue a mediation direction to require the neighbours concerned to attend mediation, if the case is found suitable for mediation;

4. Issue advisories, warnings or abatement orders that require the individual to take reasonable steps to stop the noise nuisance; and

5. Require the removal of the nuisance-causing object, after sufficient warning and with authorisation from the Director-General.

Please refer to Annex A for the proposed offences and penalties.

  18              In addition, the CRU will be empowered to deploy noise sensors, to collect objective evidence on the direction, timing and intensity of the noise. This addresses the current gap where sound recordings made by complainants are often not useful for the purposes of determining the volume (as playback can be distorted) or source of noise. The CRU intends to use noise sensors as a confirmatory tool, after CRU’s initial investigations narrow down the residential unit the noise nuisance might be coming from, and neighbours have been given opportunity to share their perspectives and work through differences. Taking in feedback from the public consultations and stakeholder engagements, we have developed the following operational framework to safeguard resident privacy:

1. The noise sensor data will be transmitted in real-time to Singapore-based servers with strict access controls for processing only.

2. The raw recordings of the noise (e.g. loud conversations or loud noises) will not be stored. CRU officers will not be able to listen to any raw recordings of the noise.

3. The noise sensors will only be deployed with the consent of the owner or occupier of the affected units or, if the noise sensors are deployed in common areas (e.g. corridors), the managing agents. If complainants do not give consent, the CRU will not deploy the sensors.

4. The use of noise sensors will be an option for parties to prove their case, and not a requirement. This is particularly important as there have been times where the noise source turns out to be different from what the complainant originally thought it was, a learning point from the Noise Experiential Lab which was mooted by the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise and which the Municipal Services Office (MSO) ran from September 2023 to January 2024.

(Please refer to Annex B for details on how the noise sensors would be used.)

19              As a deterrent and the absolute last resort for severe, recalcitrant nuisance- making, we intend to allow HDB to consider Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of the flats in the event of recalcitrant cases. This lever will only be considered where all other levers have failed, and CA is needed to protect the interests of other residents. This will be similar to the throwing of killer litter, where HDB can consider CA of flats for convictions under the Penal Code.

(Please refer to Annex C for actual, anonymised cases of severe noise-related neighbour disputes and how the CRU could help with such cases going forward.)

20              Lastly, to address severe in-unit hoarding, the CRU can apply for a CDRT order to declutter a residential unit, after the CDRT is satisfied that the hoarding has caused unreasonable interference to the hoarder’s neighbour and the hoarder has not complied with an initial CDRT order to declutter. This again is a measure of last resort, premised on public interest, after existing regulatory levers from frontline agencies have been exhausted.

Enhancing the processes and powers of the CDRT to deliver faster and more effective relief

21              In the course of the public consultation exercise, some members of the public expressed concern that CDRT proceedings (which are court proceedings) are not able to address the root cause of neighbour disputes, and can be damaging to neighbourly relations. At the same time, respondents accepted that CDRT proceedings may be necessary for serious cases; and supported the proposal to enhance the range of orders that the CDRT can make.

22              Court proceedings should be the last resort to resolve a dispute between neighbours. Any adjudicatory outcome will inevitably result in a winner and a loser. This is not the best way to resolve a dispute between neighbours who are likely to have to continue living alongside each other after court proceedings are over.

23              As such, we intend to impose a general requirement that disputing neighbours must attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. We will also make broad enhancements to powers and processes of the CDRT to support upstream amicable dispute resolution efforts, and to deliver quicker and more effective relief for those cases that remain unresolved.

24              These enhancements include integrating the CRU’s fact-finding process with the CDRT process, empowering the CDRT to make interim orders and mandatory treatment orders, strengthening the measures which encourage landlords to take early action when their tenants engage in acts of nuisance, and imposing cost consequences on parties who impede the amicable resolution of a dispute.

25              More details on the specific enhancements to the CDRT’s powers and processes are set out in Annex D.

Concerted effort and commitment on the part of every individual

26              Good neighbours should come together early and often. Such ties go a long way to building social capital that can weather everyday frictions.

27             For the minority of cases that cannot be resolved via community self-help, the enhanced CDMF will provide a wider range of options to facilitate effective resolution of neighbour disputes.

28             Together, we can make a difference in building a more gracious and harmonious living environment for all.

Annex A: Proposed Offences and Penalties [PDF, 67 KB]

Annex B: How the Noise Sensors would be used [PDF, 153 KB]

Annex C: Actual, Anonymised Cases of Severe Noise-related NeighbourDisputes and How the CRU Could Help [PDF, 50 KB]

Annex D: Key Enhancements to the processes and powers of the CommunityDisputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) [PDF, 63 KB]

¹ In particular, this includes cases where the party did not think mediation would work, or that there was any issue to mediate. It could also include those where parties had previously reached a settlement through voluntary mediation, but the dispute resurfaced.

² Tampines was chosen as the pilot site as it has an average caseload compared to other towns. As
the pilot is to help with design and resourcing of the CRU model, we need a pilot site with average load so that our experience and learnings will be more representative of the national picture.