Setting the context for the Community Disputes Resolution Bill

Madam Speaker,

1. I beg to move, 'That the Bill be now read a second time'.
   

I. The context for the bill

2. Madam Speaker, the Community Disputes Resolution (“CDR”) Bill 2015 proposes to introduce a new statutory tort for private disputes between neighbours and to establish specialist Tribunals in the State Courts to facilitate the resolution of such disputes.

3. Last year in the Committee of Supply, I spoke about the need to strengthen our approach to managing such disputes. I emphasised individual and community ownership and how everyone has the responsibility to be a considerate neighbour, so that residential living will be more pleasant to all. When problems arise, residents should first seek to resolve the matter amicably with their neighbour, failing which, they should try mediation. But I also acknowledged that for a minority of 'deadlocked disputes', adjudication by a specialist Tribunal may be necessary.
   

Why the need for this bill?

4. So, let me explain the impetus for this Bill. In a densely populated city-state like Singapore, day-to-day friction between neighbours will sometimes occur. Living in close proximity with our neighbours can heighten sensitivity towards disturbances, like noise, smells and what we perceive to be inconsiderate use of spaces like the common corridor. These tensions could easily sour relations between neighbours, even when there are attempts to talk through these issues.

5. Mediation can help disputing parties find a mutually accepting solution but as members are aware there are sometimes limitations to mediation and showing up for mediation is only the first step to resolving the issue. While more than 70% of the cases seen by the Community Mediation Centre (or the CMC) are resolved, the remaining ones are not settled. And more importantly, some parties refuse to avail themselves to mediation in the first place. This is evident from the no-show rate at the CMC every year, which is about 60%, or about 900 out of 1,500 cases.

6. So, Madam Speaker, this is the context we have today which has led to this Bill.
   

II. Objectives of the bill

7.  Madam Speaker, I will now take the House through the primary objectives and key features of the Bill.

8. In devising this Bill, we kept in mind three factors:
   

   a. First, the legal recourse introduced in this Bill is intended to be the avenue of last resort to deal with intractable cases.

   b. Second, conciliation through mediation will continue to play a critical role in the process of the Tribunal.

   c. Third, robust enforcement mechanisms must be put in place to deal with recalcitrant anti-social persons.

9. These are the considerations which underpin our effort to put in place effective measures to long-running disputes between neighbours.
   

III. Overview of the bill

10. There are two main aspects of the Bill.
    

    a. Part 2 of the Bill deals with the new statutory tort of interference with a person's enjoyment or use of his place of residence; and

    b. Part 3 of the Bill deals with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, including their establishment, jurisdiction, proceedings and appeals.

11. There are also consequential amendments to be made to the Community Mediation Centres Act and the Small Claims Tribunals Act.
    

IV. New statutory tort

12. Let me first explain the new statutory tort provided for in this Bill.

13. The Bill introduces a new statutory basis of claim that a person may bring against his neighbour, for unreasonable interference with enjoyment or use of his place of residence. A person can bring this claim in any court, or ask for a community dispute order from the court. I will refer to the person suffering the unreasonable interference as the “victim”, and the neighbour causing the interference as the “respondent”.

14. So this new tort and the community dispute order give victims the legal tools to deal with unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their own residence. This new tort is required because existing laws do not adequately cover the wide range of disputes that can arise.
    

Examples of acts or omission that may cause interference

15. With this new tort, the natural question is: what types of situations can be considered as unreasonable interference with a person's enjoyment or use of a person's place of residence?

16. And the Bill provides that the tort can involve any act or omission by the respondent, including acts or omissions causing excessive noise, smell, smoke, light or vibration, littering, obstruction, surveillance, and trespassing on a neighbour's place of residence.

17. These examples are set out in Clause 4(2) of the Bill; they are merely for illustration, they are not exhaustive. Nevertheless, they represent a broad range of common issues faced by residents, based on actual cases seen by frontline agencies as well as the feedback we have gathered from the public consultation on the Bill.

18. Members may ask what would be considered unreasonable. The courts will have the discretion to determine this, based on the facts of each case. For example, it is unrealistic for a person to expect that his neighbour's children will never make any noise. But if the children play drums late into the night persistently, then this might be considered unreasonable interference.
    

V. Types of court orders & enforcement

19. Madam, for the Bill to be effective, it has to offer practical and effective resolution to community disputes. After all, the parties involved would have to live close together as neighbours even after mediation or the process they go through.
    

Just and equitable orders

20. So, Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the types of orders that a court may make as part of a community dispute order if it is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so. The court can order: (i) the respondent to pay the victim damages, (ii) an injunction, to stop the respondent from doing something, (iii) specific performance, for the respondent to do something, (iv) an apology from the respondent to the victim, and (v) any other order necessary to give effect to the court's orders.

21. The court's consideration of whether it would be “just and equitable” allows the court to consider all the facts of the case before determining whether it would be appropriate to make a community dispute order, and what type of order should be made. In particular, the court may consider the impact of the order on the respondent, the persons living with him, and any other person who can reasonably be expected to be affected by the order. The court may also consider the ordinary instances of daily living that can be expected to be tolerated by reasonable persons living in Singapore. So, this provides a safety valve against abuse of the community dispute order by perhaps over-sensitive individuals.

22. At this juncture, Madam, perhaps it would be useful to provide a case study for illustration.
    

Case for illustration

23. Let's say there are two neighbours living side by side, and for simplicity I would say it is Mr X and Mr Y. Let's say Mr X has issues with his neighbour, Mr Y, because of persistent noise emitting from Mr Y's air-conditioner at night. And being a good neighbour, Mr X first approached Mr Y to mitigate the problem. Unfortunately, this did not work. So Mr X called the authorities to investigate. When they went to the home, they did not detect a problem. But still the sound continues. With the best intention, Mr X resorted to mediation at the CMC. Even after mediation, after promises to stay quiet, the same problem continues. And so as the noise issue continued, the relationship with Mr Y got worse. This may sound like a problem many members may face when you talk to your residents. So, Mr X now knows that there's this new statutory recourse. What can he do? Understandably, he would like to seek community dispute order from Mr Y for Mr Y to stop switching on his air-conditioner at night. But perhaps unknown to Mr X, Mr Y has a child who cries non-stop unless he sleeps in an air-conditioned environment.

24. So, based on the facts of the case and the elements of the new tort, the court may decide that the order sought by Mr X is not realistic. A more just and equitable order could be, for instance, for Mr Y to service his air-conditioner, to ensure that it no longer causes persistent noise and disturbance. 
    

Two-strike approach to enforcement

25. Ideally, all will be well if Mr Y complies with the community dispute order. Realistically, however, there will be some inconsiderate, recalcitrant persons who will not be deterred by a court order. In fact, the need for effective enforcement was a key issue raised during public consultation on the Bill. Members of the public who responded to our feedback were concerned about whether court orders would be ineffective or difficult to enforce.

26. And we agree a strong deterrent is necessary to ensure that the community dispute orders have bite. At the same time, we also recognise that bringing the full weight of the law upon wrongdoers for one-off breaches may be too harsh. So we really work hard to get the balance right. What the Bill provides for is a two-strike approach of enforcement. The consequences are calibrated and may become more severe with each additional breach.
    

Special direction

27. So to illustrate, what if Mr Y fails to comply with the community dispute order without reasonable excuse for the first time? Mr X can apply to court, with the necessary evidence, for a special direction for Mr Y to comply with the order within a specified time. This is what we call the 'first strike'.
    

Compliance bond

28. Along with imposing a special direction on the offender, order any person other than the offender to enter into a compliance bond and impose any conditions or make such directions as part of the bond. The idea is that since the person has already breached the community dispute order once, it may be necessary to involve those around him to ensure he does not do it again. This recognises that community disputes are sometimes not just a matter between two persons, but require the efforts of those around them to resolve the matter.

29. So, this Bill gives the courts a broad discretion to decide who should be required to enter into the bond, and whether any conditions or directions should be imposed, as this would depend very much on the facts of each case. They could include parents and guardians, particularly for young offenders.

30. For example, the parents of a young person causing a nuisance may be ordered to keep away a child's musical instrument if it is the source of loud noise at night causing interference with a neighbour's rest. It could also include requiring caregivers to ensure that those whose mental illnesses may have contributed to the anti-social behaviour receive appropriate treatment. And the court will give these persons an opportunity to be heard first, so they can voice their concerns and objections.

31. Another group who could be ordered to enter into a compliance bond are landlords. For example, if Mr Y is a tenant, the court may order his landlord to enter into a compliance bond of a specified sum, and impose any conditions or make directions as part of the bond. The landlord has to ensure that Mr Y complies with the order, otherwise his bond may be forfeited. For a case like this, the landlord could take steps to resolve the issue, such as by ensuring that Mr Y services the air-conditioner regularly.

32. The Bill also provides that if a landlord is ordered to enter into a bond, the landlord has the option to terminate the tenancy agreement with the wrongdoer by giving at least 14 days' written notice. This will not extinguish any rights which the landlord may have against the tenant. At the same time, this will incentivise tenants to be considerate.
    

Criminal offence

33. Now, assuming Mr Y remains recalcitrant and fails to comply even with the special direction of the court. So, he has already breached once and he remains stubborn and recalcitrant. He fails to comply with the Special Direction of the court. This is what we call a “second strike” because the offender would have failed to comply with a court order two times in a row.

34. A breach of the special direction without reasonable excuse is an offence, and, if found guilty, the offender will be liable to be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned for a term not exceeding 3 months or both. We believe that for most wrongdoers, the real possibility of criminal sanctions will be sufficiently deterrent to ensure compliance.
    

Exclusion order

35. Madam Speaker, there may be situations where a very strong enforcement response is necessary. When someone commits a “second strike” breach of the special direction, in addition to criminal penalties, the victim can also apply to court for an order to exclude the wrongdoer from his place of residence. And it will be an offence for the wrongdoer to breach this exclusion order.

36. This is a very serious consequence for those who have repeatedly ignored court orders, and will not be invoked lightly. The court will consider whether it is “just and equitable” to make the exclusion order. And this will include considering the impact of the order on those living with the offender, and those who could be reasonably be affected by the order. It is similar to the Personal Protection Order (PPO) regime, where a domestic exclusion order can be granted in cases involving family violence to protect family members.

37. So, to sum up, the two-strike enforcement mechanism is carefully designed to give the offender opportunities to stop his anti-social behaviour, so that residents can enjoy peaceful and harmonious living in their community, failing which, the Bill provides a range of calibrated enforcement options to prevent or deter recalcitrant offenders from continuing to interfere with their neighbour's enjoyment or use of his home.
    

VI. Establishment of the community disputes resolution tribunals

38. Madam Speaker, I will now turn to the next set of provisions in the Bill, namely those relating to the establishment of Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, which are specialised courts hearing cases involving only the new statutory tort I just spoke about.
    

Distinguishing features of the Tribunals

39. The Tribunals will be part of the State Courts, as full-fledged courts presided over by District Judges. But the Tribunals have several distinguishing features.

40. First, the Tribunals will be governed by special and simplified procedures to help laypersons navigate the court process. Given that parties will usually represent themselves without involving lawyers, proceedings will be less formal, and more judge-led. Proceedings in these Tribunals will also be in private, by default.

41. Second, the costs of proceedings in the Tribunals will be lower compared to normal civil proceedings, as processes will be streamlined and no lawyers will be involved, unless the parties agree to have legal representation and a Tribunal allows this to happen.

42. Third, to ensure that no one will be denied access to justice, a third party may present a case on behalf of a party who is a minor, elderly, illiterate, or mentally or physically unwell.

43. Fourth, considering the simplified procedures, we do not expect the Tribunals to be a forum for complicated claims where large sums of money are involved or where there are other issues at stake. The Tribunals will have jurisdiction to hear claims of up to $20,000, which is aligned with the prescribed limit at the Small Claims Tribunals. Larger claims, of course, can still be brought in other courts, where more formal processes will apply.

44. Lastly, the Tribunals will not hear claims which are brought more than two years after the cause of action in the statutory tort has accrued. This aligns with the position in the Small Claims Tribunals, and provides sufficient time for parties to attempt earlier conciliatory efforts – including mediation – before resorting to the Tribunals.
    

Mediation plays critical role

45. Mediation will play a critical role in the Tribunals' process. We envisage that the Tribunals will generally only hear cases if mediation has already been attempted.  So, parties are encouraged to mediate their disputes even before filing their cases in the Tribunals. If one party has tried to mediate but the other has persistently refused to participate, then the parties may be ordered to attend mandatory mediation.

46. Mediation is important because solutions which have been reached by mutual agreement will help preserve good neighbourly relations. And even so, we recognise that some people will remain uncooperative. These people should not frustrate attempts at dispute resolution indefinitely, as is sometimes the case now. Where mediation fails, the Tribunals will proceed to hear the case and make the orders as may be necessary and just.
    

VII. Implementation

47. Madam Speaker, I have highlighted the key features of the Tribunals and provided a walk-through of how a case could possibly find closure at the Tribunals.

48. If the Bill is passed, time will be needed to work out the specialised rules for the Tribunals and to set up the infrastructure for the Tribunals to operate under the auspices of the State Courts.

49. We expect that the Tribunals will be able to start accepting cases in the second half of this year.
    

VIII. Conclusion

50. To sum up, this Bill provides legal recourse for community disputes and emphasises the priority of a conciliatory approach to resolving disputes, such as by providing for the Tribunals to have the power to order mediation. Considering that individual ownership and community ownership is a key principle of this Framework, this Bill has also incorporated other elements, such as a compliance bond mechanism, to bring home the point that persons related to the wrongdoer should not cede responsibility to the State when it comes to correcting the behaviour of anti-social persons.

51. So to reiterate our approach, we would like, first and foremost, to encourage and promote good neighbourliness. When differences arise, neighbours should try to resolve issues between themselves in the first instance and seek help from their grassroots leaders, through informal mediation, or the CMC if external help is needed to formally mediate a solution.

52. To enhance ground response DPM Teo has also announced that Police will be piloting Community Wardens, to assist Police in managing such severe cases of noise nuisance.

53. Finally, the Tribunals will be an avenue of last resort to adjudicate long-standing difficult disputes between neighbours, where other efforts at resolution have failed.

54. Madam Speaker, I beg to move.