New government unit to resolve neighbour disputes not intended as ‘first responder’ for all cases: Edwin Tong

SINGAPORE: A new government unit with the power to investigate severe neighbour noise disputes is not meant to be the “first responder” for all cases, said Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong on Tuesday (Nov 12).
Speaking in parliament where the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill was introduced for a second reading, Mr Tong said that the Community Relations Unit (CRU) will focus resources only on severe neighbour noise cases that are causing “disamenity” to the community, as well as severe hoarding cases.
It will have the discretion to judge the severity of cases with the specific facts and circumstances of each case, he added.
“It is therefore not our intention in this Bill to be overly prescriptive,” said Mr Tong.
“CRU officers will assess on a case-by-case basis, and have the ability to make a judgement call.”
Generally speaking, due to the “transitory nature” of noise, a case would be considered severe only if it persists over a period of time, said Mr Tong.
However, he also noted that in some cases, a single occurrence can be treated as severe.
Citing the example of a person who drills into his wall at 3am, with the “intent” of waking up his neighbours, Mr Tong said that HDB officers may look into this the next day and if it happens again, CRU may treat it as “severe”.
“I would also like to caution that we must strike a balance between the CRU stepping in to manage a dispute, and also at the same time leaving enough room for neighbours to settle the private disputes between themselves,” added Mr Tong.
He added that with the CRU framework, the government is taking a “significant step forward” to help resolve serious cases, particularly if they threaten to have a wider negative impact on the community.
“This will plug an existing gap where agencies do not presently have sufficient powers to intervene, to more effectively deal with some individuals who are seriously disrupting the community harmony with their behaviour,” said Mr Tong.
Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann said that the CRU is aiming to begin pilot operations in Tampines from the second quarter of 2025.
Tampines was chosen due to its average caseload compared with other towns in Singapore, said Ms Sim. 
Ms Sim also elaborated on the powers of the CRU and the safeguards in place to protect residents.
Community Relations Officers (CROs) and Auxiliary Community Relations Officers must first identify themselves by showing their official identification card. 
Members of the public will be able to go to a Ministry of National Development webpage to verify their identity. Impersonation of an officer will be a criminal offence. 
CROs will have powers to take statements, photographs, and recordings, and issue advisories and warnings. 
While advisories and warnings do not carry penalties, further enforcement action may be taken if they are not heeded. 
In the most severe cases involving recalcitrant nuisance-makers, CRU may refer the matter to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for the board to consider compulsory acquisition.
This scenario may occur if all other steps have failed to resolve the nuisance, and measures are needed to protect the wider community. 
“HDB may also consider compulsory acquisition of the flats of severe and recalcitrant noise 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 Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) exclusion order,” said Ms Sim.
An abatement order requires a noise maker to stop causing the noise disturbance, while an exclusion order is an order for a party to be kept out of his or her residence.
Mr Tong said the CRU fact-finding process will be integrated with CDRT proceedings. 
The CDRT, which remains an avenue of last resort for severe disputes, will have its powers enhanced so that it can deliver “quicker and more effective relief”, Mr Tong said. 
These include having a general requirement that residents must attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. 
The CDRT will also be able to issue mandatory treatment orders or interim orders under certain conditions. 
The mandatory treatment order can be issued if the CDRT has reason to believe that the respondent’s acts of unreasonable interference stem from an underlying psychiatric condition. A mandatory treatment order requires an offender suffering from certain treatable psychiatric conditions to undergo treatment
An interim order could be issued if acts of unreasonable interference appear as if they are likely to continue, and are likely to have a substantial negative impact on the claimant. 
The order will allow claimants with serious cases to obtain relief more quickly.  
Ms Sim said that the CRU will focus on “two main archetypes of severe noise cases”. 
These are: 
1. Severe and prolonged cases, where noise is used to cause suffering to the surrounding neighbours
2. Cases where the acts that cause noise are due to underlying mental health conditions 
As part of their powers, CROs will be able to deploy technology, such as noise sensors, to collect evidence on the direction, timing and intensity in the cases of noise disturbances. 
This is given that current attempts by complainants to collect evidence through audio recordings – often through mobile phones – are often unable to pinpoint the intensity or direction of the noise. Recordings are also easily distorted or edited, and hence cannot be relied upon for official investigations or court proceedings, Ms Sim said. 
“The deployment of noise sensors gives us a sensible alternative to deploying officers on long and possibly futile stakeouts,” said Ms Sim.
“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.”
Ms Sim stressed that there would be safeguards in place to protect residents’ privacy in the deployment of noise sensors. 
Noise sensors will be deployed after CROs have done initial investigations and narrowed down the unit where the noise might be coming from. 
The sensor will only be installed in a home, or a common area, with the consent of the home owner, occupier or managing agent. 
While there have been suggestions to deploy the noise sensors without obtaining consent – such as in the suspected noise-maker’s home – the authorities have decided against this for now. 
As another safeguard, raw data collected by the sensors – such as conversations – will be transmitted in real-time to Singapore-based servers for processing. The raw data will be expunged automatically once processed, and only processed data will be retained for the CRU’s investigation and court proceedings.
Raw data will not be available to officers. 
Processed data will provide objective, untampered evidence on the direction, timing and intensity of the noise events above an ambient baseline, said Ms Sim. 
In cases where the acts that cause noise stem from mental health conditions, CROs will work with partner agencies such as the Agency for Integrated Care, Institute of Mental Health, and the police, to facilitate assessment, confirmation, and treatment of the mental health condition.
As a last resort, the Director-General of Community Relations may make an application to the CDRT, which may then issue a mandatory treatment order. 
The law will also have a new section that empowers the Director-General of Community Relations to apply to the CDRT to declutter a residential unit, as “a measure of last resort premised on public interest”, said Ms Sim.
This would be applicable for cases of severe and recalcitrant hoarding, where frontline agencies have exhausted all other means in engaging the hoarder. 
The Director-General of Community Relations may apply to the CDRT for a forced decluttering order. With such an order, 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 other actions specified by the court.
While the government is introducing these changes, the aim remains to build a “strong, resilient, cohesive community”, said Mr Tong.
In such a community, neighbours are friendly with one another, are more likely to be tolerant and understanding, and will be more open to discussing minor annoyances, and addressing them without escalation.
And there have been steps taken to foster a shared understanding of community norms among residents when it comes to noise, said Mr Tong. One such initiative was the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise.
However, as disputes will still arise, the “guiding principle” is that neighbours should “proactively and constructively” engage with one another, and try to reach a workable compromise, said Mr Tong.
Even with the new framework, this is the best way to resolve a dispute between neighbours, he added.
Mr Tong pointed out that around 90 per cent of neighbour noise feedback is resolved after grassroots and other community leaders, or HDB officers, help both sides reach an amicable compromise. 
Many of the remaining disputes are resolved after neighbours attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC), he added.
If they are unable to do so by themselves, then they should seek assistance from a community mediator.
“Mediators at the CMC… have deep experience in facilitating effective dialogue between disputing neighbours, and encouraging them to find common ground,” said Mr Tong.
Fundamentally, the government believes that most neighbour disputes ought to be addressed by “strengthening the community,” he added.
He added that creating an overdependence on the state to police community behaviours at home will invariably weaken the community’s ability to self-moderate. 
“These enhancements cannot be seen as a silver bullet… There will likely be cases that continue to resist resolution, even under this enhanced framework,” said Mr Tong.
“Ultimately, I call on all members to help us through our interactions with our residents. To build a gracious society, where neighbours are conscious of their role in the community, to exercise mutual consideration for one another, and where differences are best bridged through discussion and compromise, and not necessarily direction or order.”
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article said the Community Relations Unit will begin pilot operations in one to two towns. This should be only in Tampines. We apologise for the error.