Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 45.
“Empowering the CDRT to make an MTO in civil proceedings with the constraints that I had set out earlier, allows the root cause of the issue to be tackled early on and upstream, if the hoarding behaviours, for example, stems from an underlying psychiatric condition. If the root cause of the issue is not tackled early on, the person might eventually face more serious criminal charges for breaching the special direction. We do not think this is desirable, especially if upfront, we are, at least, based on the framework that we have set out, able to discern. And I think, most Members would agree, that in serious hoarding cases, you would most likely be able to discern that mental health conditions are at least one contributory factor to the interference. So, we believe that if we can treat the root cause early on, upfront, without bringing the person through the criminal process, and in the process, possibly stigmatising him and the family even more, then as far as we can, we should. I would add that the enactment of an MTO framework outside of the criminal framework that Dr Syed Harun spoke about is not new. Similar frameworks exist today under the Protection from Harassment Act and under the Women's Charter. Dr Syed Harun also asked if the MTO framework will continue to apply if a person with a psychiatric condition is no longer causing unreasonable interference to his neighbour. The MTO framework under the new section 12A applies only if a person has caused unreasonable interference to his neighbour. It does not apply to a person who is not causing this interference. So, the short answer is no. So, even if there might be a mental disorder, but there is no nexus to an unreasonable interference being caused, then the provisions do not apply.”
“But as a measure of last resort, if all else fails and this continues and disamenity and the interference continue, CRU may, then, initiate an application to CDRT and, thereafter, in the appropriate case, apply for an MTO. A few questions touched on increasing access to our mental health services ecosystem. This was discussed in a different forum previously and Members can refer to those debates. I want to emphasise that this is not really so much a Bill to deal with the mental health aspect of the case but, rather, to look at mental health as being one cause of community interference and how we address not so much the mental health issue but the community interference question. Ms Joan Pereira asked if CMC mediators can refer parties for mental health support in appropriate cases. The answer is yes. CMC mediators are trained to detect basic mental health issues, and do refer parties for mental health support if they consent. Coming to the MTOs, I believe I have covered this in some detail in my opening speech. But I heard Dr Syed Harun's speech, and I think it bears emphasising our thinking and our approach to MTOs in this case. In particular, Dr Syed Harun asked why we are introducing MTOs outside of the criminal regime, the criminal context. Currently, the breach of a CDRT special direction or exclusion order, is already an offence. Upon conviction, as Dr Syed Harun noted, it is possible for the criminal Court, at that stage, to make an MTO and require the offender at that stage to undergo psychiatric treatment. In other words, after there has been a breach, and after an offence has been found.”
“Consequences can range from an advisory to a warning or to more serious enforcement actions, such as a composition. Various Members have raised questions on mental health. The Senior Minister of State Sim Ann outlined our approach to mental health earlier. Let me just briefly recap and answer some additional questions. As far as possible, we will facilitate assessment and treatment in a consensual environment. We understand the sensitivities that Dr Syed Harun talked about and that is a very important consideration. We want to do it as far as we can with the cooperation of the individuals; and as far as we can, also with the strong support of the family and their caregivers. But addressing the root cause of the problem will not only mitigate the disturbance to the community, but I believe, also overall improve the quality of life for that individual and his family and also allow the community to find a more long-lasting solution. For example, we encountered a case where a family of two brothers played loud music, shouted and dragged furniture around, over the course of 30 years – this is a real case – into the wee hours of the morning. The neighbours really did not want to escalate this case, did not want to take action, did not want to go to the CDRT and chose to tolerate the noise for as long as they could because they suspected that the brothers had a mental health condition. But this also meant that the community and those around them continued to suffer this disamenity. In such a case, CRU may bring in community mental health teams to try to secure the brothers' cooperation to be referred to for mental health assessment and support as early as possible.”
“Well, let me start by saying that first of all, the Mediation Direction is not onerous. It only requires you to turn up for a mediation with your neighbour who is often someone you see on a day-to-day basis anyway and if you do not want to see him face-to-face, as I said, you can go online and do it on a virtual platform. More importantly, I would encourage those who are asked to attend mediation to not just go, but go with an open mind. Try and see it from your neighbour's perspective, understand the issue. If you do not have a mediated solution, you really have to go for an adjudicatory position and, today, you might succeed in your claim. You might be able to put your shoes a bit closer to your neighbour's homes and so on; or play your music a bit louder or a bit later and so on. But the shoe might be on the other foot at some point in time and it is not healthy for two neighbours who live in close proximity to have to live by what a third-party adjudicates or directs for you to do. So, it is really best for this to be done on a consensual, amicable basis. Notwithstanding all of that, if there are valid reasons for not attending, either you fell ill or for some reason – there is a good enough reason – CMC will arrange for another session. The stance of the CMC is to try, not so much catch out people who failed to come for mediation and then say that you are in breach, but to try to be on the front foot, to accommodate parties as much as possible so that they can attend the mediation and find a long-lasting solution. Having said all that, if you do not show up deliberately or if you leave the mediation session halfway through without permission, then a direction can be issued and that is an offence.”
“CMC has worked closely with the frontline teams to guide their assessment and, in some cases, make the right call on the right types of cases. Sometimes, a dispute may not be suitable for mediation because one side lacks the mental capacity or they may have tried mediation many times and failed or the other party is simply unresponsive or unreasonable. So, in some these cases, we have decided to provide for a certification where they can bypass to mediation so that effectively it saves time and expense and, in the right cases, you proceed straight to the subsequent process. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's question about the roles of CMC and CRU. CMC continues to provide mediation services whilst CRU is set up, essentially, with a range of investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in the manner that the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had outlined and myself as well in my earlier speech. CRU may, even, at that stage direct parties to attend mediation at CMC, but CRU themselves do not carry out the mediation. But we provided for CRU even at that stage to refer cases to mediation, because we feel that unless you have really intransigent cases where the issues are deep-rooted and really dug in, otherwise mediation should still be something that we think about constantly in the whole spectrum of resources to offer to the parties. Mr Saktiandi also asked about the waivers. The requirement of pre-filing mediation for CDRT claims may be waived, if the frontline officers assess that it is not suitable for the reasons that I have outlined earlier. Mr Mark Lee, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Alex Yam asked what the consequences are if a party does not comply with the Mediation Direction or if he or she is uncooperative.”
“There is a comprehensive training and mentorship programme that CMC has in place. CMC also regularly engages its volunteer mediators to seek feedback on whether they are well-supported, what else can we do, do they see areas in which they need more training in and which we will then organise and so on, to provide for a more resilient and more knowledgeable and, as far as we can, more up-to-date group of mediators. More importantly, the community of CMC volunteer mediators has over the years built up a strong esprit de corps. Many of our volunteer mediators have been with us for decades. In fact, we just had an occasion few weeks ago to appreciate them and we saw many handled large numbers of cases over many, many years and there is a very strong sense of community amongst the mediators. They know they play an important role in not just mediating a difference, but they see it as a higher calling to promote and preserve community cohesion and that is a very important and useful way to frame the work that they do. They also take it upon themselves, the more senior ones, to train and mentor younger mediators. I can see that there is a real sense of pride in being a CMC volunteer mediator. Sir, there were several questions on how the directed mediation framework will pan out on the ground: Mr Derrick Goh asked how frontline officers will determine if a case is suitable for mediation; Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked why authorised persons "may" direct parties for mediation, why there is still a discretion. Let me explain this. Whilst mediation is suitable and effective for many, I would say, most of the disputes, there will, nevertheless, be situations where mediation may not be suitable.”
“Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked why over 70% of registered cases do not proceed to mediation. In many cases, parties declined or failed to respond to the mediation invitation and without speculating, it is for a whole variety of different reasons. In other instances, parties just did not show up at the mediation sessions, despite repeated reminders. But once we have directed mediations, we expect that to change. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the use of noise sensors to collect evidence pre-mediation. Ms Sim Ann had responded to it, but I want to just add that, really, the intent of mediation is to facilitate a consensual open amicable discussion and not so much focused on what precise evidence one has and you can imagine, if you get into a mediation and one party turns up with noise data, you would expect that the other party would also want to have a series of other evidential provisions that will help to substantiate his or her case as well and before you know it, from a mediation process, you end up getting into an adjudicatory process, which is what we want to avoid. We want it to be designed upstream, to be purely mediation and if you cannot work that through, then there are provisions downstream, which provide for the adjudicatory process to take place Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about CMC's efforts to retain its volunteer mediators and to prevent burnout. I thank Mr Gan and other Members for having a care about the load that will inevitably fall on CMC. CMC has, over the years, refined a robust framework to ensure that its volunteer mediators are looked after, well-managed and taken care of. For example, cases are carefully assessed for complexity and assigned to mediators with the commensurate requisite skill and knowledge and experience.”
“CMC, as I said, has been preparing for this. It has appointed 30 experienced duty mediators to manage directed mediation cases. These duty mediators have also undergone training and they will continue to grow its pool of volunteer mediators through recruitment and appointment. We hope that, with directed mediation, more parties will come forward for mediation. I would add that many cases that come to CMC are settled and we will continue to track the settlement rate. Although I did say earlier that once you have compulsory or mandatory mediation, you might expect to see a drop in those rates. To Mr Yip Hon Weng's question on the number of cases where settlement agreements are, thereafter, breached, we do not track this data. We do not have access to this data because parties do not usually report every breach of a settlement agreement with CMC. In the spirit of community self-help, we leave it to the parties to decide what next steps ought to be if and when a settlement agreement is breached. Preferably, parties should try to come back to the table, agree on a revised set of terms that works for both. Sometimes, it is a breach because circumstances have changed so it may well be useful to renegotiate or maybe even have a subsequent mediation before the mediator. Relatedly, Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the mechanics to prevent abuse of CMC services. The CMC has safeguards in place. For instance, an applicant cannot apply for mediation against the same respondent, within a certain period of time. Mr Derrick Goh also mentioned the CMC's $5 administrative fee, as I said, with effect from 1 January, we will remove this and we hope that this will further promote the use of voluntary mediation to resolve disputes earlier.”
“Currently, there are 16 satellite mediation venues right across Singapore at selected Community Clubs, ServiceSG centres as well as at Neighbourhood Police Posts. Virtual mediation, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, is also available and in the right cases, has been very useful because you do not really have to leave the comfort of your own homes but, at the same time, you can take part in a proper mediation session chaired by a trained mediator. We will continue to do more where we can. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked why not have evening sessions as well. Well, in the past, the CMC did offer mediation on weekday evenings. But the take-up rate was low and we had to deploy more staff to deal with that. So, we decided not to have those and, instead, focus our energies on offering mediation during office hours on weekdays and on Saturday mornings. On promotion of mediation, CMC has been highlighting the benefits of mediation through multiple channels. From the speeches I have heard from Members, you would do well as ambassadors for us as well as you go out there and meet your own networks and in your own community, please tell them what a mediation is about. It is non-binding, you do not have to agree if you cannot find a set of terms that you agree with. You do not have to agree. But at the same time, it is an opportunity to canvass your ideas constructively with the counterparty and explore different ways of finding a solution. We have also been promoting mediation through digital and bus stop advertisements and light-hearted social media platforms and videos. The CMC's brochures are also translated into the vernacular languages to ensure a broader and a wider reach. On caseload, this is expected to increase once directed mediation is operationalised.”
“On neighbour disputes that involve religious matters, the IRCCs, now known as Harmony Circles, provide assistance to frontline agencies as well. We have worked hard over the years to build up that social capital and trust amongst our different communities; our Harmony Circles have also been refreshed and energised with members that have a broader network to reach out to a broader segment of the community. As part of our efforts to strengthen the CDMF, MCCY has identified selected Harmony Circle members to attend basic mediation training together with PA's grassroots leaders as well. This will, in turn, strengthen their ability to provide ground support when needed for religion-related disputes. These, sometimes, if you do not quickly fix it or address it, can have the potential to become highly inflammatory, very emotive and it is not wise to have them escalate. Members also raised several questions on promoting the use of community mediation. Ms Ng Ling Ling, in particular, asked about our efforts to encourage greater participation in CMC mediation and how the Government will evaluate its effectiveness. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Alex Yam spoke about enhancing accessibility. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for data on cases where settlement agreements were breached while Mr Derrick Goh asked how the CMC will maintain the high quality of its community mediation services. Sir, CMC has been working hard to enhance the accessibility of its services. In fact, it has been doing so since we conceived of the idea behind CDMF, knowing that one day, such as today, and one day when we operationalise it, we will really need to step up the mediation resources.”
“Mr Mark Lee asked about tapping on religious platforms and organisations for disputes with religious undertones. Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Derrick Goh also asked about supporting grassroots leaders' efforts to address conflicts upstream at an earlier stage. Again, we agree. This is very much in coherence with the philosophy that we see, the CDMF. We have been, in fact, working very closely with grassroots leaders (GRLs) and agencies, such as HDB, to strengthen the existing community-based framework. I have said earlier that mediation is an important community-based solution that underpins the CDMF. So, what are the steps that we have taken on this? Let me share with Members a few. As of October 2024, the People's Association (PA) has trained over 500 GRLs in basic mediation skills. We foresee that this will be useful. You do not always have to go to CMC. Sometimes, the mediator can be, as I said earlier, someone residing within the community, who is senior, an elder stateman or a community or religious leader. The plan is to have more of them trained, at least in basic mediation skills. Should there be disputes between neighbours, they can then step in. If these early resolution efforts fail, then authorised HDB officers will then consider the Mediation Direction, in the manner that I had outlined earlier. I want to just emphasise that if you receive a Mediation Direction, there is nothing wrong with that. Please respect it and come. Come, hear out your neighbour, hear out the other party. There might be a different point of view. And as I said, from January of next year, we will remove the payment of the $5 fee so that it is entirely free.”
“There are also public education efforts, such as the "Then How?" Campaign by the Singapore Kindness Movement and HDB. These efforts suggest ways for neighbours to approach one another. One of the rate-limiting factors of mediation was the fact that neighbours did not feel that they were equipped to or that they could approach a neighbour or someone with whom they had a minor disagreement. And sometimes, because of that, then, you sort of see ghosts in the shadows and you think the worst of the situation and then the problem escalates. So, these suggestions about how neighbours can approach one another, can have casual conversations and break down some barriers, allow them to ventilate and then, in turn, hear suggestions on how one can be constructive on solving the problem, are all very helpful. MSO also partners community stakeholders, such as schools, to promote considerate behaviour through ground-up initiatives. For example, Dunman High School students designed standees with messages on keeping noise levels low in Jalan Batu – I think that is in Mr Lim Biow Chuan's constituency – to raise awareness of pro-social norms on quiet hours. Temasek Polytechnic students installed LED-integrated posters in Bishan simulating traffic lights to provide visual cues on basketball court closure timings. So, when you see that it is turning yellow, it means it is time to wind down and, when it is red, it is time to turn off the lights and not cause any more noise disamenity. This was done to encourage basketball court users to leave before closing time, in a somewhat innovative, very casual and very non-threatening way. We will continue to work on this to deepen social capital and encourage interaction among Singaporeans.”
“But in this case, the claimant was unable to demonstrate that there was a breach of the order. I hope that clarifies on both of those cases. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Alex Yam asked about the broader community-building efforts. Mr Derrick Goh, in particular, asked about what strategies there were to increase residents' awareness of self-resolution approaches. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum made some interesting and useful suggestions on how to improve collaborative problem-solving. Sir, we agree with all of these suggestions and we think it is important to do so. In fact, if Members heard my speech earlier, I said it is fundamental in our philosophy, even behind the CDMF, which enhances the levers for us to intervene more and to take steps upstream, that we do not lose sight of the fact that we want the community to continue to be engaged in resolving their own issues in a conciliatory and amicable way as far as possible. But in response to the Members' questions and suggestions, let me give some idea of some of the ongoing efforts. In 2021, MSO set up the OneService Kakis Network, or OSK Networks in short. This network of community stakeholders works with MSO to co-create and implement ideas that address municipal issues in their own neighbourhoods and we appreciate that no two neighbourhoods are the same. Sometimes, the needs are different, sometimes the way in which you look at disamenity might well be different, depending on the layout and the structure, size and type of the estate. So, these local networks for local suggestions are useful. In addition, other initiatives, such as the "Love Our 'Hood Initiative" by MSO, also provide opportunities for residents and community stakeholders to develop community-based solutions to foster neighbourliness.”
“But we also need to understand the extent of the problem and what the CDMF is scoped to deal with. In this case, there are specific mechanisms that MSE has deployed with NEA to deal with second-hand smoke and, at least, from these numbers alone, they do look like there is some improvement and they will continue to work on them. The CDMF framework is designed to deal with the vast majority of disamenity cases that it is best equipped to deal with through processes like mediation. I also want to make the point to Mr Louis Ng that there were two cases that Mr Louis Ng referred to earlier. One was a case where he cited the individual or resident suffering a seizure. And the other was a question on the order, in Mr Louis Ng's words, what purpose does this order serve if its enforcement is ineffective? I want Mr Louis Ng to know that we had checked on these cases. In the seizure case, the CDRT claim was filed in October 2021. Three months later, in January 2022, the claimant withdrew the application on the basis that the claimant had reached a settlement agreement. So, it does show that mediation is also effective in these cases. That is one. Two, therefore, in that case, no CDRT order was issued. So, it is not a question of the CDRT order not being effective. In relation to the other case where there was also an order to ban smoking – I think Mr Louis Ng referred to that – the claimant in that case did, as Mr Louis Ng said, apply to enforce the order. But at the hearing before the CDRT, the claimant was unable to demonstrate that there was a breach of the order and, therefore, the enforcement application was dismissed in April 2023. So, again, it is not a question of the order being ineffective.”
“I think some other Members have also accepted what I said earlier about the CRU being a very substantial endeavour and one which is going to be very broad and which is why you have heard me as well as Senior Minister of State Sim Ann say that there needs to be a calibration and we do need to have the pilot to allow us to make that calibration. But specifically on enforcement for second-hand smoke, my colleague, the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Amy Khor, has previously explained the Government's position on managing second-hand smoke. The framework here we need to think of quite carefully. In those cases, I think Mr Louis Ng will know, there are challenges with effective enforcement. We have had that debate on several occasions. The other point to bear in mind is that the framework here is designed to deal with the vast majority of disamenities between neighbours. You have heard me say earlier the types of cases that we get and, of those, noise constitutes the vast majority. In contrast, just a couple of weeks ago, in response to Mr Louis Ng's Parliamentary Question, Mr Louis Ng cited some numbers, but he might have forgotten that a couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) explained to Mr Louis Ng that as a result of the measures that they have taken, the number of complaints that are second-hand smoke-related has come down. I think Mr Louis Ng remembers that, two weeks ago. In 2021, 2022 and 2023, every year-on-year, the numbers came down. In 2023, the last numbers, second-hand smoke comprised 0.6% of the total number of NEA-related complaints. I am not saying that the problem is not there and I appreciate what Mr Louis Ng has said about the severity of second-hand smoke.”
“This is linked to the registration of settlement agreements, which I have just mentioned. Since a registered settlement agreement is enforceable like a CDRT order, repeated non-compliance can ultimately lead to an exclusion order as well. Mr Faisal Manap asked about disamenities arising from commercial units below the HDB flats. There are existing processes to address such issues. But one must also bear in mind the context. If you are living and you choose to live next to a residential unit as most neighbours are, versus if you bought a unit which you know is above a commercial unit, I think the circumstances and therefore, the expectations are quite different. And one needs to look at the different scenarios when you deal with practices and when you deal with norms between neighbours, which is what we are trying to set up in the framework. Mr Faisal Manap also suggested introducing an order for mandatory counselling sessions. From our experience, mediation is quick and, thus far, has proven effective and our intention is to focus on increasing the uptake on mediation. Mediation, as opposed to counselling, also has the benefit of being specifically focused on the issue at hand, on the parties' particular dispute and try to find consensus and common ground for that particular dispute, as opposed to a broad general counselling provision. Mr Louis Ng, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Alex Yam raised the issue of second-hand smoke in homes and other community issues, and they asked if the CRU can address these issues.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like my colleague, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, I thank Members for the robust debate and the unanimous support for the Bill. Let me address the various questions that Members have raised on the overall framework, focusing, in particular, on the mediation aspect of the Bill as well as on the CDRT framework. Ms Joan Pereira asked about neighbour disputes outside of the CRU pilot. I want to emphasise that it is only the CRU that is being piloted. The framework, as regards mediation as well as the enhancements to the CDRT, is not the subject of the pilot and they apply the moment the Bill is operational. But to Ms Pereira's question, residents who stay in private estates or in HDB estates outside of the CRU pilot areas, will, therefore, still benefit from the enhancements to the mediation and CDRT framework. I spoke earlier on the enhanced mediation framework. Parties who reach a mediated settlement may now register the agreement as a CDRT order, if all parties agree. This registered settlement can then be enforced as if it were a CDRT order. If the dispute must be taken to the CDRT, then the affected resident can avail himself or herself of the interim orders that we have now enhanced under the CDRT process. The evidential requirements for obtaining an interim order under the new section 5A are lower. They should not be too hard to satisfy if the case is egregious. This is so that affected residents in those cases can avail themselves of the relief provided by the interim orders framework. There are serious consequences for disobeying CDRT orders. For example, if the respondent disobeys an interim order and a CDRT order, then he can be ordered to vacate his home for a period of time.”
“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 roles in the community, to exercise mutual consideration for one another, and where differences are best bridged through discussion and compromise, and not necessarily by direction or order. Sir, with that, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The Police Force Act is amended to repeal the existing community warden powers under sections 65C and 65D. This is because it is no longer required, with the creation of the CRU. Other consequential amendments are made under clauses 30, 38 and 39 of this Bill. Sir, let me conclude. I hope that the enhancements under this Bill will address many of the cases that are escalated to agencies every year – and you heard the numbers earlier. For example, cases where neighbours are unwilling to take the first step to engage with one another, or for one reason or another, refuse to do so. Or cases where the neighbourly relationship has deteriorated to the point where a person is deliberately disrupting the community peace, sometimes to get back at the neighbour. Or cases where CDRT claimants find it difficult, when they go through the process, having had mediation, but failed – and the case is protracted, it is intransigent, it is severe, but you go through a process where you then have to lead evidence afresh, almost from ground zero again. All that, we try and change and improve with these sets of amendments. At the same time, Sir, I wish very much to emphasise that these enhancements cannot be seen as a silver bullet – they are not a panacea, they are not a silver bullet, they cannot address everyone's disputes and ills between neighbours. There will likely be cases that will continue to resist resolution, even under this enhanced framework. Ultimately, this is delicate work, as I mentioned earlier, to balance between intervening too much with the framework that allows us all these measures of relief, but also empowering neighbours themselves to take ownership and responsibility of their own difficulties, their own neighbourly problems and resolve them themselves.”
“Next, the CDRT processes are designed to be simple, judge-led and accessible. And with these amendments, we intend for it to be more so. But this also raises the possibility of abuse. Once you set the bar too low, it is easy to access, and people file claims easily. And just like we come across occasions where our residents complain to us of a disamenity of a neighbour, you may also have heard of the shoe being on the other foot, where the neighbour comes to us to complain that they are unreasonable complaints or calls to the Police or calls to HDB being made by the neighbour. In such cases, sometimes parties may exploit the simple low-cost process and commence unmeritorious claims and sometimes repeatedly so. Therefore, under the new sections 31B to 31E, the CDRT will be empowered to make civil restraint orders. For example, if a person makes two or more applications that are totally without merit or are an abuse of process, then the CDRT can restrain the person from making further applications, unless permission is granted. Sir, on a final note, this Bill also amends the Community Mediation Centres Act or the CMC Act, the Housing and Development Act and the Police Force Act. These are all, as a consequence of the enhancements that I have outlined. The CMC Act is amended to support the new directed mediation framework. The amendments also clarify that community mediation may be conducted by virtual means, like video conferencing and this adds to the convenience of parties attending mediation. The Housing and Development Act is amended to enable HDB to consider compulsory acquisition of HDB flats in egregious cases – and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will expand on this point later.”
“It empowers the affected resident, under these amendments, to involve the landlord at an early stage, and this improves the chances of an amicable resolution in these cases. Next, while mediation should be the first resort, there can be exceptional situations where it is necessary for the case to be brought before the CDRT. Under the new section 17A, the DG of CRU may apply for a dispute to be heard and determined by the CDRT, if satisfied that this is necessary in the interests of preserving the community peace. For example, there may be a protracted dispute between neighbours, where both parties, for example, could agree on the specific noise event, such as children playing in the corridor or making noise beyond a certain level and so on. But they may disagree strongly on whether that constitutes unreasonable interference. Or parties may have tried for some time, and there is evidence of that, but are unable to resolve this through other means, after multiple rounds of mediation, and they keep looking to CRU to make an intervention or make a finding, whilst at the same time, both parties themselves refuse to submit the case to CDRT for adjudication. In such cases, by way of example, the DG of the CRU may bring this to the CDRT for resolution and the CDRT can require disputing residents to attend Court and examine the dispute, before making orders. Along with that, the CDRT will be empowered, under the new section 5B, to vary an order, if there is a change in the personal circumstances of the applicant and it is just and equitable to do so. For example, when the original terms are no longer workable. The CDRT may also vary its order to address situations where respondents attempt to circumvent the original order.”
“Next, under the new section 5A, the CDRT will be empowered to issue Interim Orders on a prima facie threshold if the acts of unreasonable interference are likely to continue, likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant, or his day-to-day activities, and it is just and equitable for an interim order to be made. This will help claimants with serious cases to obtain relief more quickly, even as they wait for their cases to make their way through the process of the CDRT. Even though we have expedited it, there might be some occasions where the disamenity of the interference is pressing and severe. Next, the new section 10A, addresses tenant-occupied properties. We have heard feedback that some landlords adopt a "hands-off" approach, refusing to intervene even after being informed and being made aware that their tenants are causing a nuisance. This is not desirable. Landlords are key stakeholders in this ecosystem. They have a responsibility to exercise some oversight on their tenants' conduct. Hence, under the new section 10A, residents who experience unreasonable interference from a tenant-occupied property can notify the landlord. The landlord must then act to abate the nuisance from his tenant. If the nuisance is not abated, and the affected resident succeeds on a CDRT claim, then the CDRT can make an order against the tenant. Concurrently, the CDRT can require the landlord to put up a bond to secure his tenant's compliance with the CDRT order. And if the tenant does not comply, then the Court may forfeit all, or part of, the landlord's bond. This effectively brings forward the existing compliance bond that can currently already be made against a landlord. There is already a provision for such a landlord's bond in the current framework.”
“These measures ensure that improper applications are dismissed early, so that the party is not put through the course of the proceedings unnecessarily. It also ensures that MTOs are only made in appropriate cases. Next, let me touch on cost orders. Clause 21 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 25 and clause 27(c) expands the existing rule-making power on costs. At present, Members may know that other than disbursements, costs cannot be awarded in CDRT proceedings. We will amend this and align with the general costs position under the Rules of Court 2021. In particular, the CDRT will be able to award costs to self-represented persons, on the usual costs principles. This compensates him for the time and work required for the proceedings. We also intend to make subsidiary legislation to the effect that costs can be awarded against a party who did not make efforts at amicable resolution. This will include situations where a resident declined an invitation from his neighbour to attend voluntary mediation, without good reason. So, in other words, even before you invoke mandatory mediation, if a neighbour approaches one party to offer voluntary mediation outside of this rubric and one unreasonably refuses to take up the offer, the Courts at the CDRT can take this into account when considering the cost orders to be made. The intention, ultimately, is to encourage dispute resolution at the earliest possible opportunity. And it would be best if neighbours go for mediation voluntarily – and not just wait for a Mediation Direction to be issued.”
“MTOs can be issued if the CDRT has reason to believe that the respondent's acts of unreasonable interference stem, at least in part, from an underlying psychiatric condition. Such a condition sometimes causes a person to disrupt the community, with noise or even hoarding, sometimes even unknowingly. In those cases, the issue therefore is not just a disamenity one. Hence, the MTO is intended to address the root cause of certain acts that a resident may engage in. Our priority will remain to persuade the resident to voluntarily go for treatment. And I want to emphasise that a CDRT-issued MTO will be a measure of last resort, taking into account the circumstances. Members will see that the Bill provides for a robust framework to ensure that MTOs are issued only in deserving and appropriate cases. And I think it is worth outlining the framework to Members in some detail. Under section 12A subsection 1, the claimant must first establish that the respondent has caused unreasonable interference. Next, the CDRT must have reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent is likely suffering from a psychiatric condition; and the psychiatric condition is likely contributing to the acts of unreasonable interference. So, there must be a nexus between the behaviour or the suspected behaviour and the interference. There is an On-site Psychiatrist Scheme in the State Courts to facilitate this assessment. After both conditions are met, the CDRT must, under subsection 8, call for a formal assessment from an appointed psychiatrist. The respondent may also submit a report from a psychiatrist of his choice, and the CDRT can only make a MTO if the formal assessment report certifies certain matters – such as the respondent's suitability for treatment.”
“It is always better for parties to agree on an arrangement that both are comfortable with and both are prepared to abide by, than for a third party to adjudicate and then direct what one party can or cannot do. This, in the long term, leads to more lasting peace in the community. Next, under new sections 13I subsection 4, and 13J subsection 4, the DG of CRU and CRU officers may disclose information gathered, in the course of their work, to the CDRT. This brings the CRU process closer to the CDRT, if necessary. This will help to alleviate the evidential difficulty highlighted by a number of CDRT users. They often tell us when we conduct our focus groups discussions and take feedback, "How do we gather evidence of noise which is transient or transitory, and how do we ensure that when we get to the CDRT, we can establish the provenance of that piece of evidence". So, we decided that we would bring the process of the CDRT closer to that of the evidence collected by the CRU. In the proposed new framework, therefore, if the CRU had previously looked into the case, and a CDRT claim is thereafter filed, then the evidence gathered – such as observations, noise sensor data, statements from neighbours or previously-issued warnings and compliance or non-compliance therewith – can be submitted to the CDRT, for consideration. This is so that claimants need not start all over again to prove their cases afresh. They will not need to gather evidence from ground zero that CRU officers had already gathered and which they possess. This will also help the CDRT come to a fair decision in a shorter period of time. Third, under the new section 12A, the CDRT will be empowered to issue a Mandatory Treatment Order, or MTO for short.”
“I mentioned earlier that many difficult noise and hoarding cases should be addressed by directed mediation enhancements or by the CRU framework. We are hopeful that, eventually, only a small fraction of cases will remain unresolved after these layers of upstream intervention. By the time we get to this stage, however, these cases are likely to be quite severe and protracted, involving a recalcitrant party. We will therefore enhance the CDRT's processes and powers; and equip it to deliver quicker and more effective relief. Some of the CDRT enhancements will also go towards supporting upstream amicable resolution efforts. Let me take Members through the key amendments. First, under the new section 18A, there will be a general requirement that residents must first attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. This, I think, is just the flip side of imposing mandatory mediation. This ensures that neighbours do not take each other to the CDRT, without at least first trying mediation. We do this, because when we look back at our cases, in the last five years, more than 70% of CDRT claimants indicated that they did not first attempt CMC mediation, before filing a CDRT claim. So, we think that there is a reservoir of cases out there that will benefit from mandatory mediation, even on the existing framework as it currently exists. And this is not what we want to see. We accept that there may be some cases that could not or may not be suitable for mediation – and there is, therefore, flexibility in section 18A to waive pre-filing mediation for such cases. But, by and large, I would say residents should go for mediation first. Court proceedings should be the last resort.”
“If we intervene too much, we take away the community's ability to self-police and self-moderate, which is the essence of really good neighbourliness. With the CRU framework, the Government is already taking a significant step forward, to lean forward to help to resolve these cases, particularly if they threaten to have a wider negative impact on the community. Fundamentally though, we believe that most neighbour disputes ought to be addressed by strengthening the community in the manner that I have outlined earlier and creating an overdependence on the state to police community behaviours at home will invariably weaken the community’s ability to self-moderate. In addition, we must be prudent with how we spend our limited resources and manpower. And I think Members can appreciate that, for a matter like this, for the CRU to be stepping in on those occasions with the kinds of cases and the volume of cases or noise that I have outlined, it is very resource-intensive. And this is a substantial endeavour, both in terms of resources as well as manpower. As such, we intend to, first, pilot the CRU in the HDB estate of Tampines town. The learnings from this pilot will help us understand how to effectively scale up these operations and make it effective and efficient island-wide. During the CRU pilot in Tampines, grassroots leaders and frontline agencies will continue existing efforts to manage neighbour disputes, both in Tampines as well as applying in the rest of Singapore. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will share more details on the CRU. I move on, Sir, to the third bucket of enhancements in this Bill, which is the CDRT. We intend, as I said earlier, for the CDRT to remain an avenue of last resort.”
“However, it is not intended for the CRU to become the first responder in all cases, and that is simply not possible. The CRU will focus its resources only on severe neighbour noise cases that are causing disamenity to the community and also severe hoarding cases. As I explained earlier, this noise, in particular, forms the vast majority of neighbour disamenity complaints and we have got to balance resources against what impact can be felt in the community and how we feel these resources best make a difference to resolving disputes between neighbours. The CRU will, of course, have discretion to judge the severity of these matters and cases, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and we will reflect this in subsidiary legislation made under section 13Z read with section 13G. It is, therefore, not our intention in this Bill to be overly prescriptive. CRU Officers will assess on a case-by-case basis and have the ability to make a judgement call. In general, due to the transitory nature of noise, a case would be considered severe only if it persists over a period of time. But, in some cases, a single occurrence might well possibly be treated as severe. For example, if a person deliberately takes a drill to his wall or ceiling at 3.00 am, in the middle of the night with the intent of waking up his neighbours, then HDB officers might well look into this the next day and, if it happens again, the 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 their private disputes between themselves. I think we have to strike that balance very judiciously and very carefully.”
“Under the new sections 13I and 13J, the CRU may also leverage on technology and deploy noise sensors, with consent, to collect objective evidence of noise events. After investigations are completed, officers may issue advisories or warnings, as appropriate. These warnings or advisories do not carry penalties, in the first instance. But if they are not heeded, then an abatement order under section 13L may be issued subsequently. An abatement order can require the recipient to stop any acts that are causing unreasonable interference to surrounding neighbours and it will be an offence under section 13L subsection 5 to disobey an abatement order without reasonable excuse. I hope we do not always have to resort to issuing an abatement order. Sometimes, the mere presence of a uniformed officer with powers will be sufficient in itself to abate certain behaviours. Other times, a warning may then have to be issued. Over time, Sir, we hope to see this framework have a salutary effect or a self-moderating impact on both the community and individual residents. The community will know the boundaries, and then begin to self-police. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will expand on the details on the new CRU. But before I leave the topic, let me explain the thinking behind the role of the CRU and the scope of its powers. The statutory powers that will be conferred on the CRU in this Bill under the new Part 2A have been drafted to cover a range of matters. These are matters which usually cause community disputes. They can cover a wide range of acts or omissions, which can lead to unreasonable interference with a neighbour’s enjoyment or use of place of residence and this is intended to cater for flexibility in the CRU's deployment to allow it to do its work effectively.”
“For example, we have heard of cases where a neighbour deliberately disrupts the peace by banging loudly on the walls or the ceilings throughout the day and, even sometimes, in the middle of the night continuously. There are also cases where the acts might not be deliberate or consciously deliberate. But the community nonetheless suffers disamenity, impacting harmony and quality of life and, sometimes we see severe hoarding cases as some examples. Fortunately, at this point in time, these cases are still in the small minority. But if left unaddressed, they can escalate and, thereafter, have an outsized impact on the community. So, we are thinking of how we can pre-emptively disrupt this. Today, agencies do not have sufficient powers to effectively address them. We have considered this carefully and also studied what other countries have done. In our public consultations, Singaporeans have generally agreed that we need stronger levers to act decisively and effectively in these types of cases. We have decided, therefore, to set up a dedicated CRU. Under the new Part 2A, the Bill proposes for CRU officers to have a range of powers to investigate, take decisive action in neighbour disputes that involve unreasonable interference, and this includes the kinds of cases that I have given examples of. Officers may investigate, for example, by taking statements from neighbours or taking photographs and recordings, which can then have evidential value. This can help ameliorate cases which very often we see descend into a "he said/she said there is this noise at that time" or "this volume and that volume". I think this helps to cut through all that and allows objective statements and evidence to be taken.”
“Next, Sir, as we strengthen the ability to foster open dialogue between parties, we should also give more "bite" to the settlement agreements that parties enter into, after a successful mediation. So, under the new section 31A, we sought to strike a balance. Parties who come to a settlement can opt to register their settlement agreement as a CDRT order if both parties consent. Thus, if one party to the agreement breaches the settlement terms, assuming it is registered, then the other party can quickly proceed to use the simplified CDRT process to enforce the settlement agreement in the same way as a CDRT order. This helps to facilitate quicker and simpler recourse if registered settlements are breached. And in such situations, I would hope that neighbours, disputing parties, need not be trigger-happy to always seek enforcement applications in the first instance. They can sometimes inquire with their neighbours as to why or how such an order came to be breached or an agreement came to be breached and I would say if you can speak to your neighbour first, there is a good chance you might then find a way to reach a compromise and resolve the matter, having already done so once. The simpler Court enforcement process is there to ensure that, if it is indeed breached and there is no subsequent solution found, then, thereafter, the relief can be quick and expeditious. But that, really, I would encourage as a measure of last resort in this case. Sir, let me move on next to the CRU. This is the second bucket of enhancements to the CDMF. Sir, we have seen cases where the disamenity in question does not amount to law-and-order issues. But at the same time, they are severely disrupting community peace.”
“Parties who receive a Mediation Direction must attend mediation at the CMC. Failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, will be an offence. The statutory thresholds for Mediation Directions to be issued under section 13M have been deliberately kept low. Authorised officers, such as HDB officers, may issue these Directions if there is a complaint or dispute involving neighbours, and that complaint or dispute relates to alleged unreasonable interference. Officers are not required to conduct detailed fact-finding to determine who is right or who is wrong, or, indeed, the nature or extent of the alleged nuisance. The role of these frontline officers, as first responders to a community dispute, is not to determine fault in that first instance, but to bring the neighbours together for open dialogue and, if need be, through a Mediation Direction. As I mentioned earlier, mediation at CMC is quick and effective. Our statistics have shown that, today, more than 80% of voluntary mediation cases at the CMC are settled amicably. Since 2014, CMC mediators have helped to make peace between neighbours in more than 2,400 cases. These are cases, of course, where the parties had agreed to attend mediation and did attend meditation. We might, therefore, expect to see the settlement rates become lower once directed mandatory mediation takes place. But if we can even help more neighbours to make peace through a consensual, amicable arrangement, that is still a good outcome. And even if after going through the process, mediation were to be unsuccessful in that it did not result in a compromise or an amicable solution, time, I think, is not wasted. Parties would have heard each other’s perspectives and this can help to lay the groundwork for eventual resolution.”
“So, we know that conciliation is effective in resolving community disputes. It saves time and cost and, as I said, preserves the longer-term goodwill in the relationship. And so, this has remained the guiding philosophy with which we have approached the proposed enhancements to the CDMF framework in this Bill. So, let me start on the three buckets of enhancements with mediation. The first part of the enhancements is straightforward. We want all suitable cases to go through an amicable mediation in the first instance. We will, therefore, empower authorised officers to direct disputing parties, the neighbours, to attend mediation at the CMC in appropriate cases. Today, we have often heard of many cases where one or both sides refused to engage in mediation even though we might think that is the best option for them. They might refuse to consider mediation for a variety of reasons. Some are personal ones, some perhaps may be ill-conceived ones. Or they register for mediation, but then do not show up. The new directed mediation powers will strengthen our ability to address such cases. It will enable us to bring neighbours together for a good discussion in a non-confrontational space, at the CMC or perhaps some other agreed venue, and coming together is a critical step in finding a solution to resolving a dispute. So, Sir, under the new section 13M that is inserted under clause 14, authorised persons, such as a community relations officer or an officer from the CMC, may issue a Mediation Direction to individuals involved in a complaint or dispute involving alleged unreasonable interference. Public officers or officers from a statutory body, such as HDB, can also be appointed to issue Mediation Directions.”
“Nothing wrong with the needs of both sides but, sometimes, finding that common ground to alleviate this dispute is a challenge. When such disputes arise, our guiding principle has been that neighbours should proactively and constructively engage with one another and try to reach a workable compromise. If they are unable to do so themselves, they should seek assistance from a community mediator. Mediators at the Community Mediation Centre, or CMC for short, have deep experience in facilitating effective dialogue between disputing neighbours and encouraging them to find common ground. This, we feel, and continue to feel even with the new CDMF framework, is the best way to resolve a dispute between neighbours. It is non-confrontational, it preserves the long-standing relationship as far as possible and, overall, maintains harmony in society. Indeed, as an Asian society, amicable resolution is not unknown. Respected elders in the community in the past, like village headmen or clan or religious leaders, used to help in this process. They stepped in, lowered temperatures, heard both sides, found common ground. Times may have changed. But I think the underlying principles of amicable resolution through discussion and compromise remain just as relevant, if not more, relevant today. Indeed, many neighbour disputes have been resolved in this way and that was one of the considerations we took into account as we formulated the enhancements in this Bill. Today, around 90% of neighbour noise feedback is resolved after grassroots and other community leaders or HDB officers helped both sides to reach an amicable compromise. Many of the remaining disputes are resolved after neighbours attend mediation at the CMC.”
“We have thus far, taken steps to foster a shared understanding of community norms among residents when it comes to noise. Let me share one initiative. In 2022, MND brought together representatives from various sectors and set up the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise, or CAP in short. More than 4,400 members of the public, participated in CAP's engagements. Many agreed that the first step in managing noise disputes should be communication with neighbours. The CAP also highlighted the importance of practising considerate behaviour. It highlighted some simple, but sometimes we take for granted, practical steps that residents can take in their day to day living. For example, using door stoppers to prevent the accidental slamming of windows and doors. Or closing the windows when engaging in noisy activities, like karaoke and other such pursuits that one might enjoy at home. Since then, MND has worked with the Singapore Kindness Movement and agencies like HDB to promote the community norms and encourage considerate behaviour. Despite this, occasionally, I think we have all come across in each of our constituency occasions where disputes between neighbours will arise. These disputes do not usually raise law-and-order issues. So, it is not a matter for the Police. Instead, these disputes usually, though not always, stem from differences in lifestyles, schedules, depending on working schedules, preferences at home. We might have parents with young energetic children – nothing wrong with that – but they live next to teenagers preparing for exams or the elderly who might need their rest at an earlier hour in the day. The laughter of children may bring joy to many but, in some situations or occasions it is an intrusion on peace and tranquility.”
“Noise complaints, by far, form the vast majority of all neighbour disputes feedback received by agencies. Most complaints, not surprisingly, come from Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates – since around 80% of our population reside in HDB estates. But having said that, we are not unique in having this problem. Other cities around the world face similar issues. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, it has been reported that at least two in five people have had disagreements with their neighbours. And like in Singapore, noise disamenity is the top cause of disputes in the UK. In 2014, we formalised our approach for managing neighbour disputes under the umbrella of the CDMF. That was when we first set up the CDMF. The CDMF seeks to promote good relations among neighbours to minimise the occurrence of disputes. So, it is not just a question of dealing with the disamenity, but how do we go upstream to manage the conflict at an early stage. It also seeks to encourage neighbours to resolve issues amicably among themselves when such disputes arise. It helps to promote community mediation as the primary source of assistance if neighbours need to resolve their differences, and it provides for the CDRT, as an avenue of last resort. So, as a primary starting point, I want to emphasise to Members in this House, that even as we introduce this Bill to substantially strengthen the CDMF framework, our aim remains building a strong, resilient and cohesive community where neighbours are friendly with one another, they are more likely to be tolerant and understanding. And they will then, in turn, be more open to discussing minor annoyances which may arise and then aiming to constructively address them without escalation.”
“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. Third, Sir, the Bill enhances the powers and processes of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, or CDRT in short. By and large, once this new framework becomes fully operational, we expect most of the disamenity cases to be addressed by the mediation enhancements, or by the CRU framework that we will put in place. There will, however, be a small fraction of cases that will be harder to resolve, where parties might be intransigent and where the issues at hand might have become deep-rooted. These will come before the CDRT. By the time these cases get to the CDRT, these cases will need to be managed quickly and effectively. We will therefore revise the CDRT framework to enable this. In my speech, Sir, I will first set out our overall approach to managing community disputes. And thereafter, explain the details which underpin each of the three areas of enhancements. My colleague, Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann, will be overseeing the CRU powers under the new Part 2A. She will share more details on the CRU framework and directed mediation by frontline officers in her speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a densely populated city-state. When individuals, most of us, live close to one another, some degree of friction will inevitably arise. Over the past three years, public agencies have received more than 90,000 pieces of feedback on neighbour noise alone. Let me just say that again – 90,000 pieces of feedback on neighbour noise alone! On average, that is around 2,500 complaints every month, or over 80 complaints every day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Sir, this is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Ministry of National Development (MND) and Ministry of Law (MinLaw). The Bill has been put together after a holistic review of the Community Disputes Management Framework, or CDMF in short. In doing so, we have also consulted extensively with the public and other stakeholders. This included more than 30 focus group discussions with members of the public, academics as well as frontline personnel. Sir, let me start by broadly outlining the main enhancements in this Bill to the CDMF framework in three key areas. First, the Bill will strengthen the community mediation framework. It will empower authorised officers to direct disputing neighbours to attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre. This will effectively make mediation mandatory. This move will strengthen our ability to bring neighbours together, in an amicable environment to discuss their differences and understand each other's perspectives. Mediation is quick, it will be made free and thus far, has proven effective. We will therefore strengthen this framework to encourage neighbour disputes to be amicably resolved, as a measure of first resort. Second, the Bill proposes the setting up of a dedicated Community Relations Unit, or CRU in short. CRU officers will have a range of investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in neighbour disputes. This includes the power to issue advisories, warnings and abatement orders. The CRU will focus on addressing severe noise and hoarding disamenity cases. A substantial proportion of neighbour dispute cases involve noise disamenity.”
“Such advisory panels already exist and information on these panels are available online. For example, the current Singapore International Festival of the Arts (SIFA) Advisory Panel not only includes members from the arts community, but also a representative from the entertainment sector. The current Singapore Writers Festival (SWF) Advisory Panel comprises members from the arts sector as well as professionals with education and media experience. These advisory panels ensure the major festivals offer quality arts offerings for different segments of Singaporeans. They also provide advice to the festival director and commissioners ranging from the overall artistic direction of the festivals to areas, such as marketing. For the Singapore Art Week (SAW), the National Arts Council co-leads a workgroup with the Singapore Tourism Board. The workgroup includes key visual arts institutions as well as private and public sector partners, to facilitate the cross-sharing of ideas and foster collaboration across major stakeholders in Singapore's visual arts industry.”
“Such programmes include, the Arts x Tech Lab, which supports arts practitioners to create innovative arts experiences; as well as the Acceleration Programme for the Arts, which helps to build artists' business and financial competencies.”
“The Sector Transformation Fund (STF) was introduced in 2022 with the objective of supporting arts companies in their transformation efforts. This includes developing financial and operational resilience as well as exploring areas for innovation and growth. Under the scheme, companies can receive funding to pursue the following outcomes, at both organisational and sectoral levels: (a) generate market demand by creating new and/or innovative arts experiences; (b) improve operational efficiency; or (c) develop diverse revenue streams. The STF funding has enabled participating arts companies to identify market gaps, invest in technological solutions to improve their operations and create new markets for their products. Since 2022, STF has supported close to 40 companies for business consultancy or the implementation of transformation projects, or both. For example, performing arts company Sri Warisan tapped on STF to digitise and host past productions on a centralised Cloud storage platform. This transformed their business operations by streamlining the sharing of files for teaching staff and external partners, including for programmes like the Light to Night Festival. Book publisher TrendLit used the STF funding to work with 10 artists to produce merchandise containing literary elements. This enabled the company to diversify its offerings and collaborate with retail and design companies that were previously not involved in the literary arts scene. The National Arts Council also supports arts companies' transformation efforts through other sector-wide programmes.”
“The Government takes a broad-based approach to encouraging philanthropic giving to the arts. Our initiatives benefit, but do not focus solely on minority arts groups. To encourage philanthropic giving, the Cultural Matching Fund (CMF) provides dollar-for-dollar matching grants for private cash donations to registered charities and Institutions of a Public Character in the arts and heritage sectors. Beneficiaries of the CMF include arts groups, such as the Indian dance group Apsaras Arts and the Malay theatre group Teater Ekamatra. To support smaller arts groups, the National Arts Council (NAC) administers the Sustain the Arts (stART) Fund. This Fund supports operational needs, capacity building, and community impact programmes for eligible arts groups with Total Operating Expenditure below $1 million. It is funded by donations from the private sector and may be matched through CMF. Through the stART Fund, NAC has channelled donations to programmes, such as Tamil theatre production Vilangkuppannai by theatre organisation Agam Ltd, and ORANG (working title) by Malay dance group P7:1SMA. In addition, the Government has provided significant support for minority arts groups to develop their craft and reach wider audiences. This was detailed in an earlier reply to Parliamentary Question on 9 Sep 24. [Please refer to "Plans and Initiatives to Support Minority Arts Groups to Reach Wider Audiences", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“The construction of Punggol Regional Sports Centre started in 2020 and was originally scheduled to be opened in 2023. However, the project, like several others in various sectors, faced multiple challenges, such as material and labour shortages, due to the impact of COVID-19 on the construction industry. As a result, the construction progress was significantly delayed and the opening of the sports centre had to be delayed to 2026. Meanwhile, Punggol residents can use the sports facilities in Punggol under the Dual-Use Scheme. These include four indoor sports halls at Edgefield Secondary, Greendale Primary, Oasis Primary and Punggol View Primary and the school field at Punggol Secondary. Punggol residents can also consider using the nearby Sengkang Sports Centre.”
“This follows the usual assessment process before any building, site or structure can be preserved as a National Monument, and we will apply this accordingly to 38 Oxley Road.”
“The National Heritage Board (NHB) conducts research on buildings, sites or structures with the potential to be considered as a National Monument. Such research could cover technical aspects, such as the historic, cultural, architectural and national importance of the building, site or structure. The research is then presented to the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSM AB), set up by NHB under section 7 of the Preservation of Monuments Act, for their independent assessment, as part of the decision-making process on whether the building, site or structure should be preserved as a National Monument. The PSM AB makes this assessment based on objective criteria, for all sites which have the potential to be preserved as a National Monument. In the case of 38 Oxley Road, this research was done by NHB for the 2018 Ministerial Committee Report. While the research was incorporated into the Report, the Ministerial Committee concluded that no decision had to be made at that point in time, and all options would be kept open. Hence, the research was not presented to PSM AB for their assessment then on the suitability of 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument. In view of the recent application by the owner to demolish the building, which would immediately rule out a proper and full consideration of options, NHB has commenced the process to determine 38 Oxley Road’s eligibility and suitability for preservation as a National Monument. This includes presenting the research to the PSM AB for their independent assessment. Based on the assessment, NHB would then provide a recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth to decide whether to issue a Preservation Order for the Site under the Preservation of Monuments Act.”
“This follows the usual assessment process before any building, site or structure can be preserved as a National Monument, and we will apply this accordingly to 38 Oxley Road.”
“The National Heritage Board (NHB) conducts research on buildings, sites or structures with the potential to be considered as a National Monument. Such research could cover technical aspects, such as the historic, cultural, architectural and national importance of the building, site or structure. The research is then presented to the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSM AB), set up by NHB under section 7 of the Preservation of Monuments Act, for their independent assessment, as part of the decision-making process on whether the building, site or structure should be preserved as a National Monument. The PSM AB makes this assessment based on objective criteria, for all sites which have the potential to be preserved as a National Monument. In the case of 38 Oxley Road, this research was done by NHB for the 2018 Ministerial Committee Report. While the research was incorporated into the Report, the Ministerial Committee concluded that no decision had to be made at that point in time, and all options would be kept open. Hence, the research was not presented to the PSM AB for their assessment then on the suitability of 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument. In view of the recent application by the owner to demolish the building, which would immediately rule out a proper and full consideration of options, NHB has commenced the process to determine 38 Oxley Road’s eligibility and suitability for preservation as a National Monument. This includes presenting the research to the PSM AB for their independent assessment. Based on the assessment, NHB would then provide a recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth to decide whether to issue a Preservation Order for the Site under the Preservation of Monuments Act.”
“I thank Ms Poa for clarifying, but I think when I first answered the Member's question, I quoted the Member, and I asked her whether that is what she meant and the Member said yes. So, that is how I answered her question. But be that as it may, the point is, in this transaction, they were entering into a transaction with an insurer and had plans to re-insure part of their portfolio of risk. And so, the simple point really is, in that context, the statement that was made in the reference the Member gave, paragraph 7, is not misleading, because there will be improvement to capital resiliency after the transaction. 7.35 pm”
“Mr Leong, I said earlier that it is not for us to tell Income or indeed any party what to do and how to run their business. You also mentioned that as a policy-holder yourself and you sort of conflated that point with surpluses, and suggested that there might be some risk to the surpluses, these are all subject to capital adequacy ratios that Income is complying with, and in fact, they will be required to comply with. So, from that perspective, I think you do not have to worry.”
“I had answered Ms He's question and when I used the word flexible. It was in the context of my answer to Mr Keith Chua's query about the extent to which social mission might evolve. That was when I used the word flexible. But in the context of the exemption, there was a series of discussions. I mentioned in my speech on Monday that we engaged with Income over a period of time. We exchanged views. They sent various letters representing their position. It was on this basis that the corporatisation and the exemption was granted.”