NCMP Hazel Poa addressed Parliament on 12 November 2024 in support of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, which empowers HDB to acquire flats from persistent offenders as a last resort. She called for clarity on fair enforcement, compensation, and safeguards against misuse, emphasizing that these powers should be applied carefully to preserve community harmony.
Mr Speaker Sir,
I rise today in support of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, which addresses longstanding issues arising from neighbourly disputes.
Intransigent neighbours who engage in abusive behaviour, littering, hoarding, vandalism, and noise pollution have long been a serious issue at the municipal level. Even if such cases are relatively few in number, they have a profound impact on victims. Affected neighbours may feel an overwhelming and deep sense of helplessness at their neighbours who are engaging in ungracious behaviour.
Since 2015, we have established the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) to create a specialised process to resolve community disputes. CDRTs are used as a measure of last resort to resolve community disputes[1]. However, some will choose to ignore or flout CDRT orders. The enhancements made in this Bill can help to address some of these concerns, as it seeks to tighten the Act and provide more effective tools for dispute resolution.
One of the most significant and attention-grabbing provisions in this Bill are in Part 3, which grants HDB new powers to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner, or a specified authorised occupier, has, among other requirements, been convicted of an abatement offence or exclusion offence under the CDRA.
This new provision is drastic but necessary to enforce compliance. It underscores the importance that we place on good neighbourliness and harmonious community relations in a densely populated society.
While we support this provision as an absolute last resort, we would seek clarifications from the Government to ensure that there will be appropriate checks and balances in the enforcement of this provision. Based on HDB’s, CMC’s, and CDRT’s analysis of past cases, how many cases of compulsory flat acquisition can we expect in a given year?
Under Clause 36 of the Bill, compulsory acquisition is only allowed if the owner or occupier has been convicted of at least two abatement offences or exclusion offences, or had at least one other abatement offence or exclusion offence which was either compounded or taken into consideration for sentencing. But what if both offences were met in relation to the same incident? If the flat is compulsorily acquired in such a scenario, the offender may not have been given sufficient latitude to fully appreciate the gravity of their offence under the law. I seek more clarifications from the Minister on how this provision will be judiciously enforced, especially in cases where the root of the issue may lie in a lack of understanding of the law due to educational or mental health challenges.
Next, PSP would like to seek assurances from HDB on the formula for compensation. In a Parliamentary Reply in October 2022, Minister Desmond Lee told the house that “HDB’s compensation policy for flats that are compulsorily acquired takes into account various factors, including the severity of the infringement and the circumstances of the case, as well as the administrative and holding costs in acquiring the flat. The policy also ensures that flat owners who infringe the rules will not enjoy undue financial gains.”
Would compensation for flats compulsorily acquired under Clause 36 of the Bill be similarly determined?
I would also like to highlight the provisions in the new Section 13K, which empowers the CDRT to dismiss complaints deemed vexatious or made in bad faith. I would appreciate if the Minister could provide examples of such cases, or include more detailed descriptions of these terms in subsidiary legislation. Will there be appropriate legal training for CDRT officers to make such determinations? Furthermore, when such complaints are dismissed, does the complainant have any recourse? If not, what safeguards are in place against possible abuse by CDRT officers?
Finally, Mr Speaker, the new Section 18A requiring parties to go to the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) before the CDRT is, in our view, a good one. It encourages a more conciliatory approach before invoking the powers of the Tribunal. It is also important for the CDRT to put in place systems to avoid or minimize situations where community relations officers handling these cases happen to live in the same block or nearby blocks and may know the parties involved. This could potentially create situations of perceived bias, especially given the limited ability to appeal many classes of orders.
In closing, while this Bill is tough, it provides necessary measures to tackle issues that have disrupted the lives of many residents. It gives voice and power to those who have suffered at the hands of recalcitrant neighbours. However, the use of severe measures must always be tempered with fairness and sensitivity to the unique circumstances of each case.
As such, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify some of the points that I have raised and provide the necessary assurances that these new powers will be exercised judiciously and with due respect to all parties involved.
Thank you.
[1] https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-speeches/written-pq-effectiveness-of-cdrt-orders-neighbour-disputes
