Passing of the Community Disputes Resolution Bill

Madam Speaker,

1. I thank Members for speaking up and supporting the Community Dispute Resolution Bill. I think for all the Members who spoke supported the Bill although I know that Mrs Lina Chiam expressed some reservations which I would address later on.
   

2. Inherently, I would say that this is a very difficult and complex issue, as many Members also highlighted. We are working very hard to get the balance right. We have no interest in legislating social behaviour. But we also know that the status quo is not desirable today. Because all of us have encountered residents who have been victims with recalcitrant neighbours with anti-social behaviours and some of them have been suffering for years with no recourse.
   

3. Because they complain, agencies try to resolve the matter but it sometimes stops for a while, and then continues again. They go for mediation and sometimes the person doesn’t show up. Sometimes they do but things do not get resolved properly.

4. So this is what we are trying to resolve with this Bill. How can we offer some help for such victims? So that is why I’m rather disappointed at the way Mrs Lina Chiam characterised what we are doing as a U-turn or try to distort the intent of the Bill.
   

5. We are not trying to take the easy way out through legislation. The easiest thing for us to do is to do nothing, and be status quo. But will this truly be of help to the victims who are suffering, or the residents who are asking for help? I don’t think that is the right answer.
   

6. That is why over the past two years, MCCY has been working very closely with the various agencies, including the Ministry of Law to work on a new framework, on the Bill as well as the Tribunal. Mrs Chiam mentioned a few times what Minister Shanmugam has said in this house on the principles in which community disputes should be resolved. I am not the Minister of Law neither am I a lawyer. But I would like to assure Members that this Bill is indeed worked, not just by MCCY officers alone, but together with MinLaw and many agencies involved.
   

7. Let me go on to address the specific issues which Members have raised regarding the Bill as well as the Tribunal. I think there is one set of issues which Members asked about which is the operational mechanics of how this new framework will be implemented on the ground.

8. Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef, Dr Lily Neo, and Mr Lim Biow Chuan – asked questions related to this. For example, the collaboration between grassroots leaders, CMC and government agencies, the role of the NPC, and whether there will be a one-stop centre.
   

9. I would say that for all these operational issues, it is not so straight-forward to have a one-size fits all solution. We are certainly going to strengthen the coordination between the CMC and frontline agencies and the grassroots organisations.
   

10. But this is inherently a complex matter and there are a myriad of possible issues that may give rise to private disputes between neighbours.
    

11. Where there are clear regulatory breaches, then its best to approach the relevant agency. For example, if the issue is the over obstruction of the common corridor, and there is a clear breach of the rules, then it is best to approach the Town Council directly. If the dispute is over high impact noise which is affecting the entire block, then the residents can approach the Police. And to enhance such ground responses to such noise disturbances, the Police, as mentioned earlier by DPM Teo, will be introducing the Community Wardens programme later this year.
    

12. What this Bill seeks to do is to address the issue of difficult private disputes between neighbours, long intractable disputes between neighbours. In such cases, the first recourse should not be to seek resolution at the Tribunal. The first recourse should be for the individuals concerned to take responsibility of the issues, to speak to each other and to strive to resolve the issues amicably.
    

13. If the issue cannot be resolved, then disputants should seek help from a neutral third party, such as a grassroots leader or even a friendly neighbour to facilitate such resolution. 

Mediation

Informal mediation

14. Such intervention or informal mediation can go a long way to prevent a simple conflict from escalating further. So our first step and first priority is to strengthen this network of informal mediation and many Members spoke about this and how we need to strengthen this network of informal mediation.

15. So we will indeed be doing more to step up training for our community leaders because they require special skills to manage delicate situations, sometimes even cultural differences which can be sensitive. We will be giving our community leaders and volunteers more support to be trained as informal mediators.

16. In fact, we have already started this work and some 600 grassroots leaders have already been trained in informal mediation by the Community Mediation Centre, or CMC, and the National Community Leadership Institute, or NACLI. This resource of mediators in the community, on top of the CMC mediators, can be now mobilised to help bring disputing neighbours together and to hopefully facilitate win-win outcomes.

17. Mr Zainal Sapari asked if there is protection against abuse for community leaders who step forward to mediate quarrels between neighbours.  For grassroots leaders who are engaging in this work, it is really part and parcel of their community work. So they are already covered under the People’s Association’s general insurance scheme when they perform such community work. 

18. So, that’s at the level of informal mediation, which we will strengthen and improve.

Formal mediation

19. At the next level, should informal mediation be unsuccessful, then we want to refer the case to CMC for further intervention. The residents can also bring their case directly to CMC by calling the CMC hotline or registering via the CMC website. Here again, we too are going to strengthen the capacity within the CMC.

20. Indeed they have already done so. In anticipation of greater demand for mediation, the CMC has already stepped up training over the past year to increase its pool of community mediators.

21. It now has 162 community mediators on its panel, all of whom are trained to handle disputes between neighbours. Of these, 65 are Master Mediators, meaning that they are with at least 9 to 16 years of experience each in handling community disputes. And they have the capacity to mediate up to 5,500 cases annually.

22. So they have sufficient capacity and they are prepared for an increase in caseload arising from this. Because we do expect and are prepared for more cases being directed to the CMC for mandatory mediation.

23. For a start, a dedicated pool of 25 Master Mediators will handle cases referred by the Tribunals.  The CMC will be monitoring the number of cases and will increase its mediation capacity as required.   

24. So informal mediation will be improved. Formal mediation via the CMC will also be improved.

Mandatory mediation

25. Thirdly, this concept of mandatory mediation, which the new Bill provides for, under Clause 30 provides the Tribunal with the power to order mediation when required. And so, the Bill emphasises mediation and the resolution of disputes in a manner that preserves neighbourly relations.

26. The Tribunals as I mentioned earlier and continue to emphasise, will ensure that parties make some effort mediate their case and it will determine whether it is necessary to order the parties to mediate before it adjudicates on the dispute. So now it has the power to mandate mediation.

27. I know Mr Lim Biow Chuan sort of asked whether this was something worth doing, because he said that a basic principle of mediation is the willingness of parties to mediate. He said that if it is mandated, maybe they are not doing it willingly. On the other hand, there are Members like Mr David Ong and Mr Patrick Tay, who have said please mandate more. I think Mr David Ong said mandate generously. 

28. So again, it is about finding the right balance. We think that mandatory mediation has its benefits. For example, a person may refuse to voluntarily attend mediation initiated by his neighbour. Perhaps because it might be seen as a loss of face, perhaps it could be seen as an admission of guilt, a whole host of reasons. However, if it was the court’s requirement for both neighbours to attend mediation, he or she may be more prepared to do so and to work things out.

29. So mandatory mediation provides both parties an opportunity to hear each other’s views. It might help them understand their neighbours’ perspectives, and hence be more accommodating. So we certainly hope that the majority of cases will be resolved through such mediation, whether voluntarily through the CMC or mandated by the Tribunals. And the relationships between neighbours can be mended and there will be no need to appear before the Tribunals.

30. I should also clarify that we do not envisage the CMC or government agencies referring cases to the Tribunals directly.

31. As I mentioned earlier, since we are dealing with essentially private disputes, there must be individual ownership of the issues so the person feeling aggrieved must want to resolve the case enough to file a claim in the Tribunals.

32. So the victim has to apply to the Tribunals personally. But when he or she does so, must show proof that they had made attempt and efforts at mediation. They must provide evidence of the anti-social conduct to prove his or her case. So details on the Tribunals’ procedures will be worked out subsequently after the Bill is passed, and we are mindful of Members’ comments and suggestions that these will be streamlined and made simple and also accessible to the public.
    

Tribunals

33. Let me now address specific questions pertaining to the Tribunals themselves.

34. Mr Zainal Sapari asked what the differences between a regular civil court and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals. As I explained earlier, parties will not be represented by lawyers. So costs are kept low compared to normal civil proceedings.

35. However, if both disputants agree and it is approved by the Registrar or the Tribunals, lawyers can represent the parties. And that is something which Mr Lim Biow Chuan has suggested. So the provision is available for both of them to have lawyers if both parties agree.

36. The Tribunals will have simple, streamlined procedures. Hearings will be judge-led. The judge will have the flexibility to conduct the proceedings as he thinks best.

37. In the regular civil court, proceedings are adversarial and parties are responsible for highlighting evidence and arguments to the judge. In the Tribunals, the judge will play a more active role in the proceedings, by questioning the witnesses directly or asking parties to produce certain evidence. So the Tribunals will have the flexibility to hear witnesses and review documents as they deem appropriate. They will not be bound by the rules of evidence. These simplified procedures, allow the costs of proceedings in a Tribunal to be lower compared to normal civil courts.

38. Mr Patrick Tay asked if the Bill can be used together with the Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA.

39. The two are different. The Tribunals can only hear disputes relating to the new statutory tort under this Bill, whereas POHA is for victims of harassment and unlawful stalking, which is different from the Community Dispute Bill which we have before us, to adjudicate intractable disputes between neighbours.

40. I acknowledge that there may be instances where a person faces both a neighbour dispute and harassment. And if so, he may wish to consider pursuing remedies under both sets of legislation separately. Of course, the person can seek legal advice if he wishes to do so. The courts may decide how the case should be adjudicated.

Types of cases

41. Now let me go onto the specifics of the different scenarios and the cases. Several Members spoke about situations they encounter in their own constituencies. And they range from food smells, noise due to parties, littering, surveillance or video recording, placement of an altar, dripping water from laundry. The list goes on and the scenarios are endless.

42. It is very hard for me to go through each and every case, because really because what we have with this new statutory tort is meant to cover a wide range of issues that can give rise to community disputes. So the examples listed in Clause 4 of the Bill are illustrative. They are not exhaustive.

43. Mr Lim talked about video recording, because a person sets up a video outside his home to deter loan sharks. Is that considered to be an intrusion, interference into enjoyment of property? I think Mr Faisal Manap asked about the case of a corner unit.

44. I think these are all specific scenarios which the courts will decide based on the principle of what is deemed by unreasonable and excessive. And this will have to be determined by the Tribunals, based on the facts of each case, using a commonsensical approach and the light of everyday experience. And they will do so bearing in mind the ordinary instances of daily living that can be expected to be tolerated by reasonable persons. So they will take into context our unique multi-racial and multi-cultural context, in considering what is reasonable and excessive.

45. It is not possible nor will it be wise for very precise definitions to be hard-wired into the Bill at this stage. I think we should give the courts the flexibility to decide. We set out the broad principle and the Tribunals to decide on the facts of each case.

Definition of a “neighbour”

46. There was a question on the definition of a “neighbour”. I think Mr Hri Kumar asked about this – several others as well. This is defined in the Bill as an individual who resides either in the same building, or within 100 metres of the other party’s home.

47. Why 100 metres? It is included to make clear that the focus of this Bill is on disputes between neighbours. As shared by some Members, disputes can involve residents living a few units away, and above and below in a block setting.

48. So, we have looked at the past cases and based on the experiences of these cases, we believe that 100 metres will be adequate to cover all those living in nearby units or adjacent blocks whose acts cause unreasonable interference to neighbours. If the nuisance were to originate from further than 100 metres, it would most likely be something more significant than a private dispute between neighbours, and other remedies will then have to be sought.

Definition of “lawfully residing”

49. There was also a question by Mr Hri Kumar and I think Mr Faisal Manap on the definition on “lawfully residing”. What does it mean “lawfully residing” in a place of residence?

50. We have put this in place to rule out all those who are not legally residing in the residential unit, such as squatters. So they will not be able apply to the court under this Bill.

51. But we have kept the definition deliberately broad and not just limited to those with proprietary interests in the residential unit. This is because there may be family Members who do not have direct stakes in the unit, but are legitimate long-term residents there. And that will include also family members who may not have the address updated in their NRIC for whatever reasons. Such family members will then under this broad definition be able to bring an action in their own name, rather than to have to rely on the lawful owner to do so on their behalf.
    

Co-tenants as neighbours?

52. Mr David Ong asked if co-tenants could be included in the definition of a “neighbour”. These are individuals living in the same place of residence, but who occupy different rooms. For the purposes of the Bill, they are not considered “neighbours”.

53. Because we feel that such disputes are better treated as domestic disputes. Again it’s about getting the balance right. We want to address difficult disputes between neighbours but we do not want to over-reach and intervene into disputes happening within the same residential unit, which are more likely to be domestic in nature.

54. Furthermore, co-tenants who have disagreements with one another, can always approach their landlord for resolution. For aggrieved tenants who share a flat under the Joint Singles Scheme, I believe they should raise the matter with HDB, which will have its own mechanisms to deal with such cases.
    

Prevention of abuse

55. I also want to address concerns raised by several Members about the prevention of abuse. I want emphasise that in designing the framework, we are very mindful of the risks of abuse. As Dr Lily Neo put it, there may be “fussy neighbours who just want to find fault with other neighbours”.

56. So to prevent frivolous claims and abuse of the Tribunals to embarrass or inconvenience neighbours, we envisage that the Registrar, when the application is made, will assess such claims and dismiss them where appropriate.

57. Firstly as I mentioned, they would already check and make sure that the parties have made the effort to go through mediation. If they have not, they should do so before coming to the Tribunals.

58. In addition, if the case heard at the Tribunals is subsequently found to be frivolous and vexatious, the Tribunals can award costs to the respondent. So the rules of court, which will be worked out after the Bill is passed, will specify the circumstances under which the costs can be awarded to the respondent for such cases. These will deter persons from being overly sensitive or even being vindictive and take out frivolous issues with the Tribunals.

59. I agree with Mr Alex Yam that the Tribunals should not “set precedents in too many minute areas” of daily living. Again, I would like emphasise one more time, I think it is worth reiterating this, the intent of this Bill is not to curb behaviours. It is provide a last resort for truly anti-social behaviours that are a nuisance to those living nearby.

60. So this is about striking the right balance and how we can provide sufficient remedies for such victims which we feel for and want to help. Even with a new statutory tort, I must emphasise that the Tribunal will only make an order if it is just and equitable to do so.
    

Transfer of cases to other courts

61. Mr David Ong raised a concern that a party could game the system by filing a counterclaim in the Tribunals, so that the whole proceedings can be transferred to the regular courts, where the person can hire a lawyer and enjoy an advantage over the original applicant. And I agree that we should not allow this to happen.

62. So the Bill provides that no proceedings related to the private dispute may be started in another court after the same claim has started in the Tribunals. If a party makes a counter-claim in the Tribunals, only the proceedings not covered under this new statutory tort, can be transferred. So the non-relevant portions can be transferred. And the courts will have the powers to decide and to prevent gaming of the system.

63. Mr Ong also asked about the transfer of cases that had begun in the regular court and then to transfer to the Tribunals. Well, if a case is better heard in the Tribunals rather than the regular courts, then the courts would indicate this to the parties concerned, so that they can then decide to terminate the proceedings in a regular court and the to commence fresh in the Tribunals.
    

Enforcement

64. Next, let me talk about enforcements. Many Members also spoke about enforcement, and I agree with them that the enforcement mechanisms have to be effective. That’s why the Bill provides for calibrated enforcement mechanisms, ranging from ordering an apology by the respondent to the award of damages, and the extreme case of issuing of an exclusion order.

65. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether it would be useful for the Tribunals to order an apology as it might be just done pro-forma. I know it may not be a sincere apology. Well this is a matter of judgment. But we do see that community disputes, being relational in nature, can sometimes be resolved by addressing underlying emotional hurts. An apology might be appropriate in such situations to repair neighbour relations. An order of apology may well be sufficient in cases involving minor anti-social behavior without the need for further orders.

66. Mr Hri Kumar asked for an estimate of the bond amount, and whether the landlord’s bond would be forfeited if the tenant contravened the Special Direction after the landlord had given notice to terminate the lease. Again, it is something that the Tribunals have to decide based on the facts of the case. But I would imagine based on the principle that we have set out, that if the landlord had initiated the step to terminate the lease, and the Tribunals conclude that the landlord had done everything possible to ensure the tenant’s compliance with the Special Direction, then the bond should be safe.

67. I think a member also asked about the recourse an individual has if he has been awarded damages and the contravening party refuses to pay despite being able to. So where an order for damages has been awarded, the successful party can enforce the award in the usual manner, such as by applying to court for a writ of seizure of sale, if necessary.

68. There were also some questions about the exclusion order. I would like to emphasise that this is really a measure of last resort. First, the whole Bill and the legal recourse under this Bill, is already the last resort. But within that, the exclusion order is really a measure of last resort to protect long-suffering victims from intransigent respondents.

69. It is only available after the court order has been breached at least twice (breach of Order firstly, followed by breach of Special Direction to comply with Order). It is similar to the Personal Protection Order (PPO) which prevents the perpetrator from going near the victim.

70. So we envisage the exclusion order will only be made in the most egregious of cases. The court will consider whether it is “just and equitable” before it makes the order, and the duration of such an order. It will also consider the impact of the order on the respondent, those who live with him, and any other person who may be affected by the order.
    

Managing the mentally ill

71. Finally, let me talk about issues of managing those who are mentally ill. I think several Members like Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Alex Yam, Ms Tin Pei Lin and Dr Lily Neo spoke about this and we’re very mindful that this is an area of concern. The Members ask what actions can apply to persons who may be suspected to be mentally ill or have some other medical conditions. We have existing laws and procedures regarding mentally ill persons and these will continue to apply. If the person is a danger to others, the Police can apprehend the person and take him to a doctor, who can send the person to a psychiatric institution for treatment.

72. However, if a respondent who is suspected of mental illness breaches the community dispute order and the victim applies for a Special Direction, the court making the Special Direction can also order, say his family member, to enter into a bond with conditions that the respondent goes for assessment and/or treatment.

73. If the respondent commits the offence of breaching the Special Direction, then criminal court convicting the respondent can also call for a psychiatric assessment to determine whether it would be appropriate to make a Mandatory Treatment Order, under section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

74. So these are the recourse but I would say that the beside the legal mechanisms and recourse, there is a lot of work that is taking place right now to tighten the frontline partnerships between agencies, grassroots leaders, community leaders and voluntary welfare organisations to deal with mental health issues. I hope that these efforts will over time contribute to better community-based care for a mentally ill respondent who is not violent, and in so doing reduce the nuisance imposed on his neighbours.
    

Conclusion

75. Madam Speaker, to sum up, let me emphasise that the legal recourse provided in this Bill is really intended a last resort to resolve difficult private disputes with neighbours. It is just one part of a larger Community Dispute Resolution Framework which we have put in place.

76. Within this framework, we will continue to do our utmost to promote good neighbourliness and we will continue with efforts to strengthen the ‘kampong spirit’. There are many agencies that are involved in this effort. MCCY is doing it together with partners such as the HDB, the People’s Association and the Singapore Kindness Movement. And we will work to cultivate good neighbourliness as well as good social norms.

77. If third party intervention is needed, then let’s rely on mediation as a first step to resolve the dispute, and this can be done informally by community leaders. As I explained, we are stepping up our capabilities there to have more trained mediators in the community to do this informally.

78. If that is not successful, we elevate it to the CMC for formal mediation. And again if that is not successful, then the final recourse is provided in this Bill as a final resort when all other attempts to resolve the dispute have failed.

79. Madam Speaker, I believe I have addressed the concerns and points raised by Members. And I beg to move and I seek the Members’ support of the Bill.