Sim Ann
Singapore
“Sir, given the increasingly transnational nature of crime and the rapid advancement of digital finance, international cooperation is indeed key. Singapore will continue to issue MLAs where it is appropriate, but also pursue international cooperation in informal manner. This applies not just to AML/CFT and PF, but also to scams.”
“Sir, I believe that the first and the third supplementary questions from the Member are related. I would say that if the facts of the case are such that it warrants taking action under the Penal Code for offences relating to the circulation of intimate images, the Police will do so.”
“Sir, we have a national movement to prepare Singaporeans against terrorism – SGSecure. This is one way through which we disseminate important information so that Singaporeans are aware of security risks.”
“Sir, we want to see everyone get home safe everyday. If safety is compromised, then livelihoods and many other good things in life are going to be at risk. We believe that the public will see our proposed for changes in this light, particularly our vocational drivers, because safer roads also mean a safer working environment for them.”
“To Ms Cassandra Lee's question, the alcohol limits that are currently enforced have been in place since 1985, and that is more than forty years ago. Now, Singapore is one of the jurisdictions with the highest alcohol limits, while the other jurisdictions have adopted stricter regimes with lower limits.”
“MFA is working with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to strengthen our safeguards against foreign interference, which will be elaborated on by MHA during its Committee of Supply. Mr Chairman, foreign policy begins at home.”
The complete record
Every one of 775 lines we hold for Sim Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 16.
“Sir, Ms Jean See asked about the Tripartite Workgroup’s progress in fostering safer and more efficient last-mile deliveries for delivery personnel as well as residents. Over the past year, our Tripartite Workgroup has engaged over 2,000 stakeholders, from delivery personnel to developers. For greater awareness, URA will rove the exhibition on innovative last-mile delivery practices to heartland malls in the next few months. As the Workgroup continues to study more ways to improve last-mile deliveries, we encourage more stakeholders and residents to co-create solutions suited for different locations. Ms Joan Pereira raised on behalf of her residents the issue of disamenities in residential sky gardens. HDB will continue to work with the Member, Town Councils and NEA on various efforts to minimise disamenities to residents, while keeping communal spaces open and accessible for all. We urge everyone to be considerate in their use of communal spaces, including sky gardens. Ms Denise Phua asked about support for condominium living. Resources on best practices in estate management and support for dispute resolution are available, such as Strata Management Guides issued by BCA, industry-led accreditation schemes for Managing Agents as well as the Strata Titles Boards (STB) which mediate and hear disputes related to strata-titled properties. To the query by the Leader of the Opposition, the funds granted to each town by the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC), depends on three factors. First, the number of HDB flats in the town. Larger towns with more residents will be allocated more resources. Second, the number and value of projects submitted.”
“Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Jean See, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Denise Phua and the Leader of the Opposition, all spoke on this from the perspective of different stakeholder groups. Miss Cheryl Chan asked about spaces that allowed for intergenerational exchange, and for people with special needs. We actively partner the community in the design and upgrading of our neighbourhood spaces to ensure that they are inclusive to people of all age groups and capabilities. For example, under the Silver Upgrading Progamme (SUP), agencies will engage residents through a community walk, to identify gaps and seek their suggestions for improvement. This may include adding senior-friendly mobility enhancements like rest points and barrier-free access ramps along frequented routes, dementia-friendly features to improve wayfinding, as well as wheelchair-friendly therapeutic gardens and three-generational amenities to promote inter-generational interaction. In addition, we also work closely with community partners to ensure that seniors and the vulnerable are well supported if their flat has been chosen for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). Ms Nadia Samdin asked about this. For example, for SERS in Ang Mo Kio, every household is assigned a journey manager who proactively reaches out to provide relocation assistance especially to seniors. Seniors are guided throughout the entire SERS process from announcement to key collection and flat return. Where needed, journey managers work with other agencies such as People's Association (PA), Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and MSF. Households who would like to continue living close to their neighbours in the designated replacement site can do so by applying for their replacement flats under the Joint Selection Scheme.”
“To reach out to more people, including seniors who may not be active online, MND and HDB have publicised the budget meal initiative via mainstream media, including newspapers and radio channels, and will continue to explore ways to raise awareness on the availability of budget meals in HDB estates. We will continue with our plans to make budget meals available at even more locations. We are on track to onboard all HDB rental coffee shops to provide budget meals by 2026. Since December 2023, new buyers of privately-owned HDB coffee shops will need to offer budget meals once they have taken over the coffee shop. Eight coffee shops now provide budget meals in line with this requirement. From May 2025 onwards, when privately-owned coffeeshops in HDB estates renew their application to use the Outdoor Refreshment Area (ORA), HDB will also require these coffee shops to offer budget meals as one of the conditions for renewal. This will enable more residents to have access to affordable cooked food. While ensuring affordable cooked food options for Singaporeans, we do not wish to overburden our local food businesses, particularly stallholders running small or micro-businesses. To this end, we are studying two key moves. First, we are reviewing the Price-Quality Method (PQM) framework to increase the weightage of quality and take into account stall-level charges that prospective coffeeshop operators will impose on stallholders. Second, we are reviewing HDB’s rental renewal policy to deter overly high rental bids for HDB rental shops and coffeeshops, to ensure that stallholders can continue to operate sustainably. Details of these changes will be announced at a later date. Next, let me share on how we are enhancing the inclusiveness of our neighbourhoods.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts. I will speak on four areas: first, maintaining affordable cooked food options in the neighbourhood; second, making physical enhancements to our neighbourhoods to take care of the needs of more users; third, improving the delivery of municipal services; and lastly, resolving complex community challenges. Let me first update on our efforts to ensure affordable cooked food options in our estates. Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Henry Kwek will be pleased to hear that our Budget Meal initiative has made good progress since it was announced in March 2023. As of January 2025, more than 60% of 397 HDB rental coffeeshops and about 30% of 403 privately-owned HDB coffeeshops now offer budget meals. This means budget meals can now be found at many more heartland locations throughout the island. If we were to draw a radius of 400 metres or about five to 10 minutes walking distance around every coffeeshop offering budget meals, more than 80% of HDB flats would be covered. Credit goes to the collective efforts of the Community Development Councils, HDB and Enterprise Singapore for achieving this coverage. In particular, the agencies jointly encouraged nine coffeeshop chain operators to come onboard the Community Budget Meal initiative in July 2024. All these stalls offering budget meals can be found on the BudgetMealGoWhere portal, a collaboration between HDB and GovTech, that allows users to search for the nearest coffeeshop with budget meal options. Since its launch, the BudgetMealGoWhere portal has been well-received, and has recorded more than 450,000 unique visitors.”
“We also have technical assistance packages for members of the Forum of Small States, which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had mentioned, and fellow small island developing countries. Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Xie Yao Quan have asked about MFA’s consular assistance efforts. Sir, Singaporeans are at the heart of MFA’s work. Last year, MFA handled more than 4,000 consular cases and facilitated more than 2,000 Documents of Identity for Singaporeans. Our Missions around the world extended assistance under difficult circumstances, for example, during the severe flooding in Hainan and the earthquake in Vanuatu. Last year, we saw a 54% increase in the number of e-registrants. We urge Singaporeans to continue to e-register with us. We have improved the e-register platform. We have also leveraged technology to help us deliver consular assistance more quickly and effectively. Ms Poh Li San, Ms Joan Pereira, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Gerald Giam have asked how we were engaging Singaporeans on foreign policy issues. Sir, a strong, united society is the foundation for Singapore’s success. Foreign policy begins at home. By introducing foreign policy concepts early, we empower young Singaporeans to have an interest in Singapore’s approach to global issues. Even when views diverge, respectful dialogue is key. We aim to make foreign policy understandable, including through social media, and this is on top of the talks and dialogues that we already do. A shared sense of responsibility and vision ensures that we can face global challenges with confidence and cohesion.”
“Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the various Members for filing cuts about MFA's engagement with like-minded partners, and I believe these have been addressed in Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Minister Mohamad Maliki's earlier speeches. Mr Chairman, please allow me to address the questions on safeguarding Singapore's interest on the international stage, our capacity building efforts, consular assistance and MFA's engagement of Singaporeans. Ms Poh Li San and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how Singapore stays ahead in emerging areas and why we nominated Ambassador Rena Lee for the ICJ candidature. We remain actively engaged on emerging issues at multilateral fora like the UN. Given the current geopolitical environment, it is critical that Singapore contributes to the advancement of international law through deeds. Ambassador Rena Lee is well-qualified, with extensive experience in a wide range of international domains. This is the first time Singapore has nominated someone for this position since we joined the UN. Elections will be keenly contested, but we will do our best to support Ambassador Lee as we believe she will contribute significantly to the ICJ. Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Desmond Choo have asked about Singapore’s capacity-building efforts. Supporting human resource development of fellow developing countries through the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) remains MFA’s priority. Over the past 33 years, SCP has trained more than 155,000 officials from more than 180 countries, territories and intergovernmental organisations. Over 50,000 officials were trained in our Singapore Cooperation Centres in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar. We are committed to do more for Timor-Leste under the SCP, to help them prepare to join ASEAN.”
“We need to stay vigilant and navigate with care, in order to seize new opportunities in fast-changing circumstances while mitigating risks.”
“The preparations we have made in the past are now clearly of practical value and will serve us in good stead as we seek progress against headwinds. I have mentioned earlier that we have built up the capability to defend ourselves, as well as the resources for a rainy day. We have also invested in building up our national identity and maintaining domestic cohesion. Changes in the external environment will present new challenges to our society. Singaporeans may have different views on global developments, and we may be subject to hostile information campaigns aimed at influencing domestic opinion. We have prepared for these eventualities by putting in laws and regulations, as well as national education. We must be vigilant to prevent social fragmentation or polarisation and ensure that social cohesion is not compromised. We can and should continue to leverage our good reputation as a consistent, reliable and trusted partner, to strengthen our links with more countries, and work with like-minded countries bilaterally and multilaterally to uphold and shape global rules and frameworks. Following many years of tending the garden, Singapore enjoys frequent interactions and benefits from substantive collaboration with major powers and major economies, including the US, China, Europe and India. We maintain friendly and close-knit collaboration with immediate neighbours, including Malaysia and Indonesia; and uphold ASEAN centrality in our engagement of the region. In a "might makes right" world, we should all the more broaden our network of friends and deepen our positive collaboration with like-minded countries. Madam Chair, the world is now a more dangerous place. It is the rainy day we have prepared for – perhaps a long rainy season.”
“This means painful choices and immense pressure for many countries. For example, some allies of the US that had depended on American security guarantees are now grappling with cutting expenditure elsewhere to raise spending on defence. Singapore has always been an ardent supporter of international law. But we have also believed in self-sufficiency in defence. We have never relied on others to take care of our security. Ever since independence, we have had National Service and consistently spent between 3% to 6% of GDP on defence. We have invested fully in our own security. If anything, the global situation validates our prudent approach. A few days ago, some Opposition Members were questioning the Government's budgeting approach in this House, suggesting that the presence of Budget surpluses equates excessive taxation. In today’s world, many countries are at risk of not having enough resources to secure themselves. Which country would complain of having surpluses? Third, how should Singapore navigate the current global situation? Over the past 60 years, Singapore has made significant achievements in our development. Despite our small size and lack of natural resources, we have developed into a trusted partner and regional hub by virtue of our good business environment and sound rule of law. Nevertheless, even in the face of such uncertainty and an increasinglyfragmented world order, Singapore is not helpless. We have always believed in "preparing umbrellas before it rains". While our development has benefited from a relatively stable and harmonious international environment, we have never counted on long-lasting favourable external conditions.”
“Second, the implications of war and peace on Singapore. Over the past three years, two major conflicts – the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East – have seen the loss of countless lives. The conflict in the Middle East in particular has resulted in a humanitarian disaster that tugs at the heartstrings of many Singaporeans. The Russian-Ukraine war has exacerbated energy and food price hikes and caused long-term impacts on inflation and business costs. The Middle East situation, particularly developments in the Red Sea had impacted global shipping costs. It is therefore understandable that businesspeople in our Chinese community hope for these wars to end and for business costs to moderate. Alas, peace seems more remote than ever before. Recent events have signified major shifts in geopolitics, with possibly unbridgeable differences emerging between the US and Europe on how to end the Ukraine war, and indeed, the global security architecture. Prospects for Ukraine have become even more grim. Even as we prepare for continued turbulence in the world, these changes have profound implications for Singapore. Singapore has consistently called for an expeditious end to the war between Russia and Ukraine and for both sides to find comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter. The idea that military aggression can force a country to compromise on its sovereignty and political independence would set a dangerous precedent for countries worldwide, particularly small countries. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the weakening of international norms and the rise of the law of the jungle, or "might is right". The price of national autonomy and self-determination has increased significantly.”
“Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Europeans and Americans responded forcefully to defend Ukraine and isolate Russia. But the US joining Russia in voting against a UN resolution sponsored by Europe and Ukraine on 24 February, identifying Russia as the aggressor, as well as the recent live video showing the argument between the US and Ukraine Presidents on 28 February has dramatically underlined a fundamental change in US policy and cast doubts over its commitment to its NATO allies. Even those who felt relatively unperturbed 2 weeks ago may start to feel uneasy. Are these hopes realistic? Let me share some views from MFA's perspective. First, the impact of global developments on Singapore. International trade tensions are escalating. The US has announced tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, which in turn have signalled retaliatory measures. Risks of a global trade war have increased. Singapore has not been targeted directly for now but will certainly be affected. Increased tariffs will reshape global supply chains and impact the volume and patterns of world trade. This will certainly affect Singapore, as an international port heavily dependent on transhipments. Beyond trade and tariffs, our economic model will also face serious challenges. Despite being a small country without natural resources or a hinterland, a stable rules-based international trading system has enabled Singapore to create prosperity through pursuing an open economic policy. The consensus and trust underpinning the rules-based international trading system is now fraying. A clear instance is how technology has become a focal point for strategic contestation between the big powers. This means we have to work harder to secure opportunities for prosperity and success.”
“[Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During the Lunar New Year period, I attended many "loh-hei" events. At such functions, we would usually chat about current affairs. This year, there were many topics of discussion concerning global developments, including China-US relations, political changes in Europe, and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. The hottest topic was the US Presidential election and subsequent developments. On the whole, the Chinese community shared fairly positive assessments of Trump 2.0. I believe this is because many active members of Chinese community groups are businesspeople, who believe the current President to be pro-business. Some also admire his unconventional political style and relentless pace of change. The Chinese community leaders I had met agreed that all was not quite well with the world, but did not display much anxiety. Of course, people did notice that the raising of tariffs has become a new normal. The US, which had long been the main advocate for freer trade has changed its stance, and now employs tariffs and non-tariff barriers in pursuit of economic and non-economic objectives. Even then, because Singapore was not a direct target of these tariffs, my friends in the Chinese community expressed hope that Singapore would not be too affected by the global situation, including possible trade wars. There were two other hopes: First, that the war in Ukraine would end soon, leading to more stable energy and food prices globally. Second, that no matter what, the world would need a place like Singapore. These conversations took place about two weeks ago. Since then, more drastic changes have taken place on the world stage. Major geopolitical shifts are afoot.”
“In hoarding cases where residents are worried about potential fire safety and when these cases are alerted to HDB, we will work together with our partner agencies, in this case, SCDF, to make an assessment to see whether, for instance, a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice can be issued. This is one of the regulatory levers that are already at the disposal of the agencies collectively and this is something that can be activated in cases that are warranted. We do not have to wait for the CRU to be set up for this. And I also thank Mr Dennis Tan for his support of the CRU and indeed, once it is in operation, we will seek to be as quick as possible in gaining experience from its operation and to scale up, because that is the eventual intention.”
“And I think this is one area that NEAT looks forward to working together with grassroots on, especially those who have had some positive experience in helping hoarders, so that we can develop and strengthen future processes in dealing with such cases. On mental health, we have a number of organisations with experience in this area, who are also part of NEAT. This includes the Agency for Integrated Care, which oversees CREST. It includes IMH as well as the Ministry of Social and Family Development, and also some of our social service agencies who also have capacities in dealing with mental health-related cases. We look forward to these organisations helping to put together their best practices and also reaching out to grassroots volunteers like those in Ms Ng Ling Ling's constituency. In terms of the training, our HDB officers as well as other frontline agencies' officers are given basic training to identify potential mental health cases and to understand how to refer them to specialised assistance as well.”
“My colleagues and I are saddened by the fire that Ms Ng Ling Ling has mentioned and the fatalities that it has caused. I understand that investigations into the cause of the fire have not yet officially concluded, so while I am not able to comment on the specifics of this case, I understand the gist of what Ms Ng Ling Ling is asking about. I would like to say that there is a very positive role for grassroots and community volunteers to play in partnering the agencies in addressing suspected hoarding cases. First of all, in quite a number of the cases that we see, the hoarding behaviour may not be reported by either the hoarder or the family members themselves. Sometimes, they can be quite elusive, and if neighbours observe something and report it, I think this helps to get the information to the agencies. I have also mentioned that with the amendments to the CDRA, we now would have an additional pathway to compel decluttering where other regulatory levers are not successful and where other efforts to persuade have failed. With the grassroots, we feel that not only are they able to provide some timely information to the agencies, but I think in terms of helping to create a more holistic approach in addressing the underlying needs of the hoarder and the family, they can be very helpful. We see, sometimes, that the underlying cause could be related to social isolation. It could be related to loneliness. It could also be because the person actually does not have any other daily routine. And the kind of befriending and activities that volunteers may be able to come in to help give structure would be helpful.”
“This is a measure of last resort, premised on public interest, after existing regulatory levers from frontline agencies have been exhausted and the hoarder has failed to comply with a previous CDRT order to declutter. The CRU aims to begin operations from the second quarter of 2025. The underlying motivations and support networks of hoarders and their families vary from case to case. There is no one-size-fits-all solution and enforcement is only one of several measures. A whole-of-society approach is needed to address hoarding in a more holistic and sustainable manner. This is why the public, people and private sector came together over the past year or so, to form an Alliance for Action to manage hoarding, termed the New Environment Action Team (NEAT). Through this platform, members can learn from and tap each other's strengths so that collectively, as an ecosystem, we identify cases early and provide more well-rounded support to hoarders and relief to their neighbours in a sustainable manner.”
“Sir, generally, the Government does not interfere in how residents upkeep their homes, unless their actions pose health, safety or other risks to themselves or their neighbours. At the same time, we recognise that residents have legitimate expectations that their living environment is clean, safe and orderly. The need to balance these two considerations guide our whole-of-Government approach towards the management of in-unit hoarding. That is why on receiving public feedback about in-unit hoarding, Housing and Development Board (HDB) officers visiting the unit concerned need to seek the hoarder and/or his family’s consent to inspect the premises. This often entails repeat engagements, as well as coordination with other frontline agencies who might already be working with the household on other issues, and with whom the hoarder and family have already built up a certain level of trust. All these take time. Where there is significant fire risk, HDB coordinates with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to use its regulatory powers where needed. For example, SCDF may order the owner to cease hoarding flammable items, such as fuel. Despite these efforts, there are cases where hoarders refuse to grant access for inspections or cooperate in decluttering efforts. The hoarding may also recur, as habits do not change so quickly. To address such situations, the Government recently amended the Community Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA) to allow the Director-General of the pilot Community Relations Unit (CRU) to apply to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) to declutter the hoarder's unit.”
“Not only do we want to raise awareness of the budget meals, but we also want to give recognition and generate interest so that more may visit these coffee shops and bring business to all stallholders. In closing, Sir, although HDB coffee shops are regulated differently from hawker centres, we share the same commitment as MSE and NEA to maintain policies that deliver affordable food while being mindful of sustainable businesses and livelihoods. Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Motion.”
“This website now includes listings of recommendations from the public, submitted through the Great Budget Meal Hunt, a related initiative which we launched earlier this year to crowdsource recommendations of budget meals in HDB coffee shops. In the past six months, 126 privately-owned HDB coffee shops have also started offering budget meals and drinks. We call these community budget meals. Stalls in privately-owned HDB coffee shops that have voluntarily committed to provide budget meals will display the community budget meal decal in red and blue. More than 440 rental and privately-owned coffee shops are providing more than 1,100 budget meals island wide. This means that, on average, you can find budget meal options at one in two HDB coffee shops. We are on track to have all 374 rental HDB coffee shops offer budget meals by 2026 and will continue to engage other operators of privately-owned coffee shops to come on board. HDB supports budget meal providers in several ways. First, for existing HDB rental coffee shop operators, we provide a 5% rent rebate for the first year of tenancy renewal to help them adjust to the new requirements of providing four budget food dishes and two budget drinks. The rebate starts as soon as the new requirements are in place and operators are required to pass on the rental discount to participating stall operators. We will intervene if stallholders tell us this did not happen. Also, at the same time, HDB has kept stable the rent it has been collecting from its coffee shops. Over the last five years, HDB did not increase the rent for 97% of HDB-owned coffee shops at renewal. We also stepped up efforts to raise publicity for these coffee shop operators and stalls.”
“This move coincided with a period of rising food and energy prices and sustained inflation caused by disruptions following the war in Ukraine and extreme weather. We know that consumers view coffee shop prices as an everyday expenditure and are sensitive to across-the-board price increases. Hence, budget meals became relevant not just to lower-income groups but to everyone who cared about cost of living. We are glad that the initiative has helped more families to stretch their household budget. At the same time, we are mindful of the need to strike a balance between residents' needs for affordable food options and the operators' and stallholders' business sustainability. Unlike what Mr Leong Mun Wai has asserted, we do not require every stall in an HDB-owned coffee shop to offer budget meals. Generally, an operator of an HDB rental coffee shop is required to provide four to six budget meals. This requirement can be met by different stalls in the coffee shop and it is also possible for there to be stalls within an HDB-owned coffee shop that do not participate in offering budget meals. Operators and stallholders have the flexibility to propose the budget meals that they wish to offer during the tender or tenancy renewal process and are at liberty to determine the prices of all other meals that they offer. We are constantly engaging the industry and monitoring feedback from consumers as well as feedback from operators and stallholders and we are prepared to make adjustments to the scheme where necessary. Last year, HDB and GovTech worked together to launch the BudgetMealGoWhere website to help residents locate HDB coffee shops offering budget meals more easily and conveniently.”
“The Government continuously pays attention to ground concerns about cost of living and recognise the need for our heartland coffee shops to maintain some lower-priced meals and drinks to cater to those who may not be able to spend as much on cooked food. This includes lower-wage workers and retirees. This would have been hard to achieve if we had continued to leave things entirely to market forces. The Government, therefore, needed to intervene, but in a measured way that takes business sustainability into account. To strike this balance, the Ministry of National Development and HDB proactively put in place the "Budget Meal" initiative in 2018. Budget meals are full meals that are priced affordably, as compared to the average price of meals sold at nearby eating places. Typically, they are priced at $3.50 and below. Since 2018, all new HDB rental coffee shops that are tendered out to operators must provide budget meals. This is done under the Price Quality Method tender framework, also known as the PQM tender framework. Under this framework, operators were required to provide six budget meals as well as a budget drink. I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Louis Chua for affirming the PQM method. I wish to clarify that HDB does not, as Mr Leong Mun Wai had suggested, require coffee shops to offer budget meals below market prices. The prices should be affordable, compared to surrounding options, but we do not require them to be lower. Having gained some experience with implementing budget meals at new HDB rental coffee shops, in April 2023, HDB extended the budget meal requirement to rental coffee shops that are up for tenancy renewal.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. The main subject of our discussion today is hawker centres and my colleague Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will be setting out the Government's approach to hawker centres. However, some speakers, including Mr Leong Mun Wai, made reference to the "Budget Meal" schemes in HDB coffee shops. Also, we know that HDB coffee shops are often mentioned together with hawker centres, although they are regulated differently. So, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points. Sir, like hawker centres, coffee shops in our HDB heartlands are integral to Singaporeans' daily lives. They are important social nodes in the community and provide a variety of cooked food options at similar price points to hawker centres. HDB plans for the provision of coffee shops and other commercial amenities in new HDB developments carefully to ensure that HDB residents have convenient access to cooked food options and other daily needs. Most residents have access to commercial facilities, such as shops, food courts or coffee shops, within 400 metres of their homes, or an approximately five- to 10-minute walk. By planning for a good supply of coffee shops and other F&B options in every HDB town and estate, we ensure that residents have options to choose from. The competition will also help to moderate cooked food prices overall. Having said that, over the years, as wages rise, more consumers can afford and are prepared to pay for higher-end meal options and operators have, therefore, responded to these trends. We have seen coffee shop menu items change, expand and increase in price points over time.”
“Sir, first of all, we will work as quickly as possible with the local working committees which need to be set up in order to effect the ROS. From my understanding, quite a few local working committees have already been set up, including in Mr Ang Wei Neng's area. We also seek the advisors' support for encouraging the local merchant associations to work closely with us because their inputs are important. As for costs, I have mentioned that we will continue to monitor the situation and see if any review is required, although, for now, the plan is to keep to the budget. Also, in terms of the Member's question about what happens if the merchants do not pay, in 2023, we amended the Housing and Development Act because of some policy changes under ROS. One of the changes that we have made is to empower HDB to collect the arrears or to collect the amount for the upgrading from shop owners who did not pay and to treat it as a form of arrears. This is something that the merchant associations would welcome because, in the past, it was the merchant associations who had to collect from these shop owners.”
“Sir, 11 Neighbourhood Centres have been selected for upgrading of common areas under Batch 8 of the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) Scheme. HDB has informed the relevant Town Councils and merchants' associations of the selected sites in March this year. In 2023, we had increased the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) co-payment share for the main ROS upgrading cost from 70% to 85% to reduce the co-payment borne by shop owners from 20% to 5%. We also introduced additional funding support for optional works at the shopfront. There are currently no plans to change the ROS budget. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation and refine our schemes as needed.”
“I do want to assure Members, however, that we will do so as quickly as we can because we understand and we know how important this issue is to so many of our Members as well as the communities they represent. Sir, I have addressed questions on the CRU and Part 2A. Let me reiterate that the enhancements are not intended to supplant community-driven solutions. An over-reliance on CRU intervention can erode the essence of our community spirit over time, something which Dr Syed Harun very eloquently talked about. The CRU's role is to tackle the severe noise and hoarding neighbourly disputes that are out there, where prior attempts at amicable resolutions have been exhausted and where there is serious disamenity to the community. The vast majority of cases can and should be addressed through better dialogue between neighbours and community self-help. This is the case today and will continue to be the case after the establishment and roll-out of the CRU.”
“There have also been questions about whether the CRU can provide 24/7 response or response late in the night. I would like to first clarify on Mr Alex Yam's query about hours. The CRU will not attend immediately to cases reported after hours, because neighbour noise or hoarding disputes are not usually emergencies that require immediate intervention. CRU will, on the next working day, process cases that were received after hours the day before and arrange to visit the affected parties as soon as practicable. From the cases we have been studying, the key to eventual relief and resolution to serious and long-standing noise disputes is not so much having officers appear on the scene right after a report has been made. Rather, the key lies in moving more cases through the mediation and CDRT processes, and investigations leading to the issuance of formal warnings, abatement orders and if necessary, MTOs. And these can be achieved without operating a 24/7 response unit. We also leverage on technology in the form of noise sensors, which Members have shown a lot of interest in, to reduce the need for human officers on stakeout to catch noise as it occurs. We know that Members are eager for us to do more and scale faster. We seek your patience for us to pilot the CRU model and review it carefully to ensure that our processes are effective and that manpower needs for expansion of coverage are sized correctly. We hope to commence pilot operations in the first half of 2025. After this Bill is passed, we will continue working on the subsidiary legislation and firm up operational processes.”
“Given the complexity of the issue and the impact of hoarding on the individual, as well as the individual's neighbours, a whole-of-society approach is needed to address the issue in a more holistic and sustainable manner. This entails Government, social agencies, community groups, grassroots organisations and the private sector coming together to learn from and tap on each other's strengths and capabilities. In general, advisories to declutter are issued to the hoarder by frontline agencies and Town Councils. This is an existing practice by the Agencies for Hoarding Cases. To be clear, grassroots advisers and MPs are not considered to be a person exercising a public official function under these amendments. This would refer to statutory office holders in agencies, such as the Director-General of Public Health. Sir, Mr Derrick Goh asked how the success of the pilot would be assessed and the criteria to determine whether the CRU is to be scaled up nationally. He also asked how feedback from stakeholders in the pilot region will be incorporated. Sir, we intend to track the extent to which the CRU's intervention helps resolve cases and reduce the recurrence of neighbour noise disputes and hoarding. We also intend to track the extent to which the early issuance of Mediation Directions by frontline officers is effective in encouraging neighbours to attend mediation at the CMC. Agencies will continue to refine the qualitative and quantitative data points that they track to evaluate the effectiveness of the CRU model. We will also carefully consider feedback from frontline agencies and stakeholders in the pilot town. Several Members asked about the scope of CRU model and pilot. In short, Members have urged us to do more, scale faster.”
“As mentioned earlier, we take this measure premised on public interest and it is to be used after other regulatory levers have been exhausted, and when efforts by agencies and community partners to obtain the hoarder's cooperation to declutter have failed. We know that hoarding affects not only the hoarder, but also their neighbours. Examples where hoarding may constitute unreasonable interference include situations where there are excessive smells or pests. This can have a severe impact on neighbours and affect the enjoyment of their homes, even if it does not cross the thresholds for agencies, such as NEA, to take enforcement action on. The DG can only apply for a forced decluttering order after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to his neighbour, advisories to declutter have been issued to the hoarder and the CDRT ordered the hoarder to declutter, but the hoarder refused to comply with the Court order. Where the hoarder has a suspected mental health condition, CROs will work with mental health professionals from relevant agencies and community partners to refer such cases for the appropriate mental health assessment and support. If the hoarder with the suspected mental health issues refuses assistance or assessment, affected residents can file a CDRT claim and apply to the CDRT for an MTO. If necessary, the DG of CRU can also apply to the CDRT to seek mandatory treatment for the hoarder after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to his neighbour. The MTO process, which Minister Edwin Tong has explained in his opening speech, will apply. Sir, as I have mentioned, when it comes to hoarding, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.”
“Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana asked for details and examples on the decluttering order to address severe hoarding cases. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether there is any recourse for hoarders when faced with a CRU application for a decluttering order. He also asked if it is possible for hoarders to be directed to undergo psychiatric treatment. And Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Ministry could consider integrating mental health support into interventions for hoarding cases, while Dr Syed Harun asked for more info on the state of serious hoarding cases in Singapore. Sir, as at 2023, some 602 cases were on the HMCG's radar, with 254 cases seeing some improvement in the situation. Over the years, there has been a clear growth trend in the number of hoarding cases and the causes can be complex. Earlier in my opening speech, I talked about grief, trauma, it could be loss, it could be psychological pain. There could also be mental health conditions involved, but not always. And addressing hoarding behaviour in a sustainable, long-term manner would usually have to involve some very thorough understanding of what the person is trying to balance or address, through keeping items that most people would deem are of very little value. This may also have to involve a change in the person's routines and also a shift in the person's daily focus. I think Members would agree that this is not easy to do, even for very highly trained personnel. So, we do not view decluttering as an end in itself. We also acknowledge that entering a person's home to remove their property is highly intrusive, so the decision to do so is not taken lightly.”
“Our approach is: first, to address disturbances in the neighbourhood in a timely manner, to maintain a peaceful living environment for all; and second, to support persons with mental health conditions to get the help they need. This means to facilitate the assessment, confirmation and treatment of the mental health condition. We will approach these cases with care and sensitivity, and manage them differently from other cases. CRU officers will be trained to identify persons with mental health needs. When they come across such cases, they will bring in professionals from agencies, such as the AIC to assist. CRU officers will seek to understand the unique challenges faced by these individuals and their caregivers, and work with mental health professionals to refer them for the support needed, even as we address disturbances to the community. Hopefully, with treatment, the resident's condition will improve and the disamenity to the community will be reduced. As for persons with special needs, very often, these cases call for empathy, encouragement and support, in addition to finding workable solutions. Where the noises create significant impact, despite neighbours making allowances for it and cannot be easily reduced, CRU may need the help of social service agencies, in addition to the person's family members or caregivers, to develop appropriate solutions. These may, for example, involve changes to the person's daily routine and care arrangements. We hope that initiatives, such as MSF's upcoming Enabled Living Programme pilot, can help more persons with disabilities and special needs live and thrive within the community. Several Members spoke about the approach for hoarding cases and the decluttering order.”
“Sir, we are mindful that disturbances caused to neighbours may be unintentional and that it is important to address the root causes of disruptive behaviours. For example, there was a case that involved frequent slamming of a front door and gate at a HDB flat which affected neighbours. It turned out that there was marital strain between the couple living in the flat. One party was slamming the door and gate to show displeasure towards the other. So, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) officers were brought in to encourage the couple to try marital counselling. Going forward, CRU will take a holistic approach to resolving disputes, including bringing in other public agencies and stakeholders with the relevant expertise or referring cases to them, when needed. Members spoke about the approach for cases involving persons with mental health conditions or special needs. For instance, Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the initial mental health assessments involving persons with mental health conditions will be carried out. And Mr Alex Yam asked on how CROs would handle interactions with persons with mental health conditions or special needs. I will address the question in the context of how CRU will approach these cases while Minister Edwin Tong will address questions on CDRT MTOs. We are cognisant of the need to approach such cases sensitively. At the same time, we also recognise that persistent noise disturbances can be very disruptive and take a toll on the health and well-being of the wider community too – something which several Members have also spoken about.”
“Members would know that compulsory acquisition is already being done in serious cases, where flat owners breach HDB rules. It stands to reason that in an extreme case where a HDB flat owner persistently and egregiously disturbs the peace of his neighbours despite all measures, such as abatement orders, that compulsory acquisition be also made available as a consequence of last resort. As with all compulsory acquisition cases, safeguards will be in place. To the question raised by Ms Sylvia Lim and other Members, we do not intend to implement compulsory acquisition of flats where mental health conditions or special needs are involved. I should add that I will speak a little bit more about such cases later. To Ms Hazel Poa's question relating to cases where the root of the issue may lie in a lack of understanding of the law, let me reassure Members that our interactions with residents, both verbal and written, will be conducted in plain and simple language, including in the vernacular, where necessary. This is to ensure that our intentions and the implications of the residents' actions are made clear to them. To Mr Darryl David's suggestion, we recognise that there are no simple solutions in this complex issue. As far as possible, CRU will focus on addressing the underlying cause for the noise nuisance. And to Ms Hazel Poa's query on compensation, HDB's prevailing compensation framework will apply to the compulsory acquisition of flats which are undertaken pursuant to the amendments under clause 36 of this Bill. Next, Mr Derrick Goh asked about how CRU would collaborate with other agencies and professionals to diagnose and address the underlying root causes of behaviours, such as social or psychological root causes.”
“When they do need to exercise such powers of entry and seizure, they can do so when pre-conditions have been met and there are also statutory safeguards in place. For example, under section 13I subsection 1, para m, CROs may only enter a unit to install noise sensors with the consent of the owner or occupier of the unit. So, I hope this addresses the concerns that Mr Dennis Tan had raised in the course of his speech. Under section 13L, CROs may only enter a unit to seize items if: a written warning was previously issued to the individual; and that written warning was not complied with, and an abatement order was issued; and the abatement order was not complied with; and at least two written warnings were issued to the individual to comply with the abatement order. The DG must also approve the CRO's request to enter a resident's home. As Members will see, the individual would have been given ample warnings and chances to comply with, and if the individual still does not comply and continues to cause severe noise disturbance to the community, then the CRU will have the necessary powers to intervene and to put a stop to the noise. Some Members spoke about the compulsory acquisition of flats and had some questions. Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Alex Yam asked about the criteria for compulsory acquisition of flats for nuisance makers, and Ms Poa also asked on the number of expected cases and how the Government will ensure that the measure is exercised fairly and only as a last resort. Mr Darryl David suggested preventing nuisance makers from relocating to another estate until the authorities are certain that they will not cause further nuisance, so that a problem is not transferred from one estate to another. Sir, we do not take compulsory acquisition of flats lightly.”
“In addition, a number of them have experience in law enforcement. They will also undergo training by the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to identify and support persons with mental health needs. ACROs are Auxiliary Police Officers, or APOs. They are qualified security personnel who have undergone basic APO training and have at least one year of experience in carrying out auxiliary police activities around Singapore. They will also be trained by the CRU to perform their roles as ACROs. The ACROs are meant to accompany and assist CROs in the discharge of their functions and to provide physical security. To this end, they will have a narrower set of powers, under section 13J. For example, both CROs and ACROs may verbally advise persons to stop certain acts that are causing excessive noise. Both may also take statements from affected parties. However, only CROs can issue written warnings under section 13I(1). ACROs will also be paired with CROs at all times. Mr Louis Ng also asked about the equipment that may be provided to CROs and ACROs to carry out their duties. CROs and ACROs will be provided with equipment to carry out their roles, such as tablet computers and body-worn cameras. As mentioned, they can also be authorised to deploy noise sensors. Mr Alex Yam also asked about how residents would identify CROs and ACROs. They will be issued with an authority card and officers must identify themselves in the course of duty. Members of the public can also verify the identity of the officers via the MND website. As far as practicable, CROs and ACROs will investigate and enforce against severe cases without entering the unit or seizing items.”
“This is in line with prevailing Government data security policies and guidelines, such as the Public Sector Governance Act and Government Instruction Manuals. In the event that the Police requests for the noise sensor data for law-and-order reasons, CRU will be obliged under the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC, to provide whatever raw or processed data that is available at the point of request to the Police to aid their work. It is in the public interest for the Police to have access to such data. The Police must be able to pursue all available information and leads to bring perpetrators of crime to justice and to protect public safety and security. In this connection, Mr Dennis Tan had suggested the use of sensor data before mediation. Our thinking is this: mediation works well when both parties are willing to talk with one another and this involves some acknowledgement that there is noise being made. Whereas sensors would come in more useful in cases where, perhaps, one party may acknowledge that there is noise but the other party denies it. In such cases, the sensors will help us make a more objective measurement. I should also address Mr Dennis Tan's concerns. Yes, we are sourcing for sufficient units of noise sensors so that CRU can carry out its work effectively and without the parties being involved in cases having to wait too long. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the setup of the CRU and how the CROs and the ACROs will be trained to handle cases sensitively and bring in additional professional help when needed. The CRU currently comprises 15 full-time dedicated public officers trained in investigation and basic mediation.”
“With regard to Ms Ng Ling Ling's concerns about the privacy of a genuine complainant, because CRU deals with protracted, severe cases escalated by HDB and other frontline agencies, the nuisance maker and the complainant would, usually, already be known to each other. Nonetheless, if there are law and order risks, frontline agencies, CRU and the Police will closely coordinate and monitor the case and CRU will refer the case to the Police, if necessary. Genuine complainants who are concerned about harassment may also seek remedies from the Protection from Harassment Court. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Alex Yam asked how CRU would use noise sensors responsibly. As I mentioned in my opening speech, safeguards have been proposed. First, if noise sensors are deployed within residents' homes, this will be done only with consent. They are intended to support CRO's initial investigation. For example, to ascertain the timing, direction and intensity of the noise nuisance. Second, the actual sounds picked up by the sensor will not be available to our officers. Raw data picked up by the sensors will be expunged once it is processed. Only processed data, which is, charts and tables that show the direction, timing and intensity of the noise events, will be retained for the purposes of CRU's investigation and any subsequent Court proceedings. Operationally, we are looking at having all raw data being processed automatically within 48 hours. As I have mentioned earlier, the processing will be done in Singapore-based servers that only a very small number of authorised MND officers and vendor personnel can access, with all access and activities logged.”
“Later, Mr A admitted to retaliating to the noise he perceived to be coming from Mr B and Mr A's family member staying in the same unit corroborated that Mr A was, in fact, the nuisance maker. HDB officers also observed items in Mr A's home that may have been used to cause the noise nuisance. And yet, Mr A continues to write in to allege the same noise nuisance against Mr B. For such cases, section 13K gives the CRU discretion not to investigate or take further action. If Mr A persists in his frivolous and vexatious allegations, the DG may direct Mr A not to further make such unfounded complaints. Failure to comply will be an offence. These powers are important safeguards to avoid residents being subjected to unnecessary investigations for unmeritorious complaints and preserves the CRU's resources for worthy cases. To Mr Darryl David's question about the bar for CRU to intervene, and Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Hazel Poa's questions on the dismissal of complaints not made in good faith, I would like to assure Members that all cases escalated to CRU will be carefully assessed. CRU has been developing, in partnership with the relevant agencies, a framework for severe neighbour noise cases to be escalated for assessment and follow-up. In general, a case will be considered severe if the noise persists over a period of time, say, several weeks or more and causes distress to neighbours despite attempts by the neighbours to resolve the issue between themselves and assistance by frontline officers. Cases will be closed or dismissed only after the relevant assessment has been done.”
“CROs and ACROs will be empowered to investigate cases that are escalated to the CRU, so that the root causes of neighbour noise disputes may be uncovered, the parties concerned are brought together to address these root causes and, where necessary, the appropriate action is applied and/or support given, as the case may be, to the correct party. To assess whether the noise is causing unreasonable interference, CRU will consider various factors, such as the loudness or intensity of the noise; the time of occurrence and the duration; what is reasonably expected to be tolerated in ordinary daily living; the impact of the noise on the neighbours; and whether the noise is caused intentionally, recklessly or negligently. To Mr Mark Lee's question on introducing sound thresholds or time-based guidelines, we do not intend to do so at this time. This is because it is not straightforward to set across-the-board thresholds for noise and apply them in all situations. For example, the ambient baseline differs in different neighbourhoods and at different times of day; and the same noise made during the day, when most people are up and about would impact differently than if it were made in the middle of the night, when most people are resting. CRU will exercise these powers with due regard to the severity of the noise disturbance. Let me illustrate with an actual case that agencies have encountered in the past to show how CRU will handle such a case going forward. Mr A sent multiple complaints over several months to HDB about noise from his neighbour living upstairs, Mr B. HDB officers engaged Mr B as well as surrounding neighbours. The surrounding neighbours said that they did not hear any noise nuisance from the alleged unit and instead pointed to Mr A's unit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I am heartened by the keen interest that many Members have shown in this topic as well as the strong encouragement that Members have offered to our fledgling team of officers who will be forming the CRU. Members' candid sharing of cases from their own wards is greatly appreciated and will inform our approach as we roll out the CRU pilot. Let me address the questions that have been raised on Part 2A relating to CRU. Minister Edwin Tong will address the questions on the overall community disputes framework, mediation and CDRT. Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Faisal Manap, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have raised some questions with regard to who constitute the CROs and ACROs, and also whether their services are chargeable. Sir, CROs and ACROs will be full-time officers because CRU serves a public function with enforcement powers. We do not intend to appoint volunteers, such as grassroots leaders, to serve as CROs and ACROs. But for avoidance of doubt, CROs and ACROs can, of course, like public officers, choose to volunteer in their own time, as long as it does not clash with their public duties. Also, CRU services to the public and the deployment of sensors that have been authorised by CRU are free of charge. Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Darryl David, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked for clarifications regarding the CRU's powers. In proposing the CRU's powers, we have incorporated feedback from public consultations and various stakeholder engagements.”
“] The establishment of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) is an important step in resolving neighbourhood disputes and is a new initiative by the Government. To lay a solid foundation for the CRU, we have decided to pilot it in Tampines for one year. Through this smaller-scale implementation, we will firm up CRU's concept of operations before expanding it island-wide. The CRU serves several purposes. For neighbour noise disputes that can potentially be resolved through mediation, CROs can issue mediation directions to expedite the resolution process. For cases that cannot be resolved by mediation, CROs can investigate these cases and issue warnings, abatement orders, or apply for court-ordered MTOs. Evidence gathered by CROs through their investigations can be useful in the CDRT proceedings, saving manpower, resources and time. It is important to note that while the CRU plays a crucial role, it is not a panacea. Communication between neighbours is necessary and cannot be replaced. We must retain the community's ability to resolve disputes on their own. Guided by these principles, we plan to commence operations in the first half of 2025. After the Bill is passed, we will continue to draft subsidiary legislations and further refine our operational processes.”
“CRU would be alerted by HDB or other frontline officers handling the case. Our officers could: move the case towards mediation; make investigations leading to the issuance of warnings, abatement orders or even mandatory treatment orders down the line; or help to make eventual CDRT proceedings smoother with the evidence that they have collected. Ultimately, the CRU must not function as a first resort. It is intended to complement and not substitute the interlocking system of positive community norms, good neighbourly relations and amicable dispute resolution through friendly discussion and compromise. I also call on Members to continue supporting MSO's ongoing efforts with our partners and agencies to build pro-social norms that contribute towards harmonious living. These include: the MSO's "Love Our 'Hood" Youth Challenge for youths to transform their creative ideas into effective solutions to create a better living environment; and HDB's Singapore's Friendly Neighbourhood Award, where we recognise and celebrate the efforts of Singaporeans who have gone the extra mile to connect with and care for fellow residents. When we have strong community norms that value harmony and reinforce considerate behaviour in the neighbourhood, fewer cases of community disputes will arise. And where they do arise, involved parties will be more likely to resolve their differences through mediation without prompting. Which means less reliance on intervention through CRU or other agencies. This is an outcome worth working towards even though we know it takes effort and time. Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“If residents are unable to resolve the conflict by themselves, in many instances, they will reach out to GRLs and frontline agencies, such as the HDB, for assistance. By and large, GRLs and frontline agencies are able to resolve most cases through informal mediation. This should and will continue to be the case going forward. However, as mentioned by Minister Tong, we will give selected frontline responders an added tool of directed mediation, to bring neighbours together to discuss their differences. We hope this approach will help to bring even more cases to an amicable resolution. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. MND, MCCY and MinLaw consulted extensively on the enhancements to the CDMF and, in particular, the CRU framework. In the course of our consultations, many members of public expressed strong support for the CRU. Some have even asked when the CRU can come by their unit and conduct enforcement on their neighbour. So, let me end with a few points. We recognise that enforcement tears at the fabric of neighbourly relations and should be reserved only for serious cases. When neighbours are engaged in a dispute, our priority must always be to bring them together, to understand each other's perspectives, needs and interests, and to cooperate on a solution that is workable for all sides. It is neither desirable for community spirit nor sustainable for the Government to step in to resolve differences between neighbours all the time. I call on all Members to help us with this. When your resident comes to you and says that his next-door neighbour is making noise, please, advise him to speak to his neighbour first and encourage them to go for mediation. If these basic strategies do not work, then the case might be a severe or prolonged one.”
“The provision empowers the DG to apply to CDRT to declutter a residential unit, as a measure of last resort premised on public interest and only after existing regulatory levers from frontline agencies have been exhausted. This is necessary to protect public health and safety. The DG may apply to the CDRT for an order to address hoarding, under the new section 11A, after the CDRT has found the hoarder to be causing unreasonable interference to the hoarder's neighbour and the hoarder has failed to comply with the CDRT's order to declutter. If the order to address hoarding is granted by the CDRT, then 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 any other actions a specified by the Court. Let me address the CRU pilot. As Minister Edwin Tong mentioned, we will start the pilot within the HDB estate of Tampines Town. The concept of operations is also new. We will, therefore, need to test it, refine it and then test it again. This will be an iterative process. The pilot will allow us to assess how the model could be scaled up in a sustainable manner. Tampines was chosen, as it has an average caseload compared to other towns in Singapore, which will give us a representative setting in which to test the model. We have formed the initial team of officers, who are working on developing their operational procedures. We hope to begin operations from the second quarter of 2025. As part of the pilot, we will also look at directed mediation as an early lever, to arrest and resolve the dispute upstream, before they worsen. We hope that more disputes can be addressed early, between neighbours and with the help of agencies and grassroots leaders or GRLs, if needed.”
“The accumulation of clutter is also a potentially fatal fire hazard, as occupants may be unable to escape if a fire should break out. The pests and stench may prevent surrounding neighbours from the normal enjoyment of their own homes. The root causes of a hoarder’s behaviour are complex. They could be due to trauma, grief or underlying mental health conditions. Given the complexity of the issue and the hazards it causes, the Government has been taking an inter-agency approach to address the issue. There is a Hoarding Management Core Group, or HMCG, led by the MSO, to coordinate efforts across agencies to resolve protracted and severe hoarding cases. Agencies adopt a concerted approach combining enforcement efforts with community and social interventions. Together with community partners, we have made some progress in reducing the severity of many hoarding cases. However, some cases remain protracted and unresolved because it is difficult to gain hoarders' cooperation to declutter. Frontline officers face real tensions on the ground, in balancing between the person's right to choose how they want to upkeep their own home and their neighbours' enjoyment of their own residences. Officers often need to engage and persuade the hoarders repeatedly, to obtain their cooperation to declutter. Despite our best efforts, there are cases where hoarders refuse to cooperate. Even if their homes were successfully decluttered once, the clutter may recur as habits do not change quickly. To better address severe in-unit hoarding, clause 11 of the Bill inserts a new section 11A into the CDRA.”
“The second noise scenario that CRU will focus on involves persons who may have mental health conditions. For example, let us consider a case where a resident who lives on his own has been shouting to himself for extended periods of time, even late at night. The surrounding neighbours inform CRU that the resident might have an underlying mental health condition, as suggested by his behaviour. For cases with mental health conditions, the aim will be to facilitate assessment, confirmation and treatment of the mental health condition. In this case, CROs will work with partner agencies, such as the Agency for Integrated Care, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and the Police, to facilitate assessment, confirmation and treatment of the underlying mental health condition. If all attempts to persuade the resident to voluntarily seek mental health treatment fail, then, as a last resort, the DG may make an application to the CDRT under the new section 17A. If the CDRT is satisfied that the resident has indeed engaged in acts of unreasonable interference and the CDRT has reason to believe that the resident is likely suffering from a psychiatric condition that is contributing to his behaviour, then the CDRT may exercise the mandatory treatment powers under the new section 12A. Sir, I have talked about severe neighbour noise cases, which will be the bulk of the cases managed by CRU. Let me now talk about our approach for severe hoarding cases. While the volume of cases is not high, it is an issue that not only causes dis-amenities, but also poses public health and safety risks. It affects not only the hoarder, but also surrounding neighbours. In severe hoarding cases, the home may be infested with pests due to rotting food.”
“Third, to prevent tampering, raw data that is collected by the sensors will be transmitted in real-time to Singapore-based servers for processing. Strict access controls will be placed on these servers and the raw data will be automatically expunged once it has been processed. Only processed data will be retained for the purposes of CRU's investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. This processed data will provide objective, untampered evidence on the direction, timing and intensity of the noise events above an ambient baseline. The actual sounds, including any conversations that were picked up by the sensor, will not be available to our officers. As a deterrent and an absolute last resort, for the most severe of cases that involve recalcitrant nuisance-makers, CRU may refer the matter to HDB after exhausting other levers, for HDB to consider compulsory acquisition. HDB has compulsory acquisition powers which have been used very sparingly. We recognise that it is a very severe action, which would affect not only the nuisance-maker but also the rest of the person's household. We will not take this course of action without due care and consideration. We may consider referring the case to HDB to consider compulsory acquisition if all other levers have failed to abate the nuisance and measures are required to protect the wider community. Therefore, clause 36 of the Bill amends section 63 of the Housing and Development Act to empower HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat. HDB may consider compulsory acquisition of the flats of severe and recalcitrant nuisance-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 CDRT exclusion order.”
“This addresses a gap today, where complainants attempt to collect evidence by making simple audio recordings, often on their mobile phones. These recordings are unable to tell us the intensity or direction of the noise disturbance. They can also easily be distorted upon playback or edited and therefore cannot be relied upon for official investigations or court proceedings. The deployment of noise sensors gives us a sensible alternative to deploying officers on long and possibly futile stakeouts. 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. In relation to the deployment of noise sensors, I would like to assure Members there will be safeguards to protect residents' privacy. These safeguards incorporate feedback from the public engagements that we have conducted. Let me elaborate. First, noise sensors will be deployed only after CROs, assisted by ACROs, have done initial investigations and narrowed down the unit where the noise might be coming from. Second, noise sensors will only be deployed with consent, as laid out under the new section 13I, subsection 1. So, if the sensor is to be installed in someone's home, then the owner or occupier of the home must grant consent. If the sensor is to be installed in the common areas, then CRU must seek consent from the managing agent of the common area. In the course of public consultations, some members of public suggested that CRU should be empowered to deploy noise sensors without obtaining consent, for example, within the home of a suspected noise-maker. We considered this carefully but decided that it is not necessary to take this step for now.”
“First, under the new section 13E, before exercising any power, CROs and ACROs must identify themselves by showing their official identification card. Members of the public will be able to go to an MND webpage, to verify that the person standing before them, is indeed from the CRU. Impersonation of a CRU officer will be a criminal offence under section 13Q. Next, under the new section 13I, CROs will have powers to take statements, photographs and recordings. They may also issue advisories and warnings. These are standard powers for public officers who perform enforcement functions. Advisories and warnings do not carry penalties. However, if they are not heeded, further enforcement action may be taken. CROs will also have powers to issue Mediation Directions under section 13M. Minister Edwin Tong explained this in detail earlier. Under section 13L, the DG can issue an abatement order to an individual, if he is satisfied that the individual is engaging in an act or omission that causes unreasonable interference. This is modelled on what countries such as the UK and Australia have done. An abatement order requires the recipient to stop any acts that are causing unreasonable interference to their neighbours. The recipient can also be required to take steps to ensure that other persons in the home, such as family members, stop the acts which are specified in the order. Failure to comply with an abatement order will be a criminal offence, punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both. CROs will also be empowered to leverage on technology to do their work. In particular, under sections 13I and 13J, CROs, assisted by ACROs, may deploy noise sensors to collect objective evidence on matters, such as the direction, timing and intensity of the noise nuisance.”
“Let us say there are two neighbours who live next to each other in Tampines town – Mr X and Mr Y. Mr X reports that Mr Y has been making intense banging noises from late night to early morning for the past 10 years. However, Mr X is unable to provide agencies with clear evidence that the noises are caused by Mr Y. According to Mr X, Mr Y tends to play a "cat and mouse" game. He stops banging when officers visit, but resumes banging right after officers leave. In such a case, CROs may exercise their powers under the new section 13I and take statements from Mr X, Mr Y and surrounding neighbours. They may also require Mr Y to attend interviews. If Mr X wishes for CROs to deploy noise sensors and the relevant Town Council agrees, CROs may also deploy noise sensors in Mr X's unit, as well as along the common corridor to collect objective evidence of the reported noise, to measure its intensity and triangulate where it is most likely to be coming from. Subsequently, if CROs are satisfied that Mr Y is indeed engaging in acts that are deliberately disrupting the peace of the neighbours throughout the day and night, then a written warning may be issued to Mr Y, which warns him to cease making the noise with immediate effect. If Mr Y persists with his actions, then the DG of Community Relations may issue an abatement order under the new section 13L and direct Mr Y to stop the noise. If Mr Y does not comply with the abatement order to stop, then that will be a criminal offence. The DG may also seize the item that Mr Y used to cause the noise. We will equip CRU officers with powers to carry out their tasks and also put in appropriate safeguards.”
“Mr Speaker, MND has been working closely with MCCY and MinLaw on the review of the CDMF. We will play two roles in supporting the enhanced CDMF. First, the Municipal Services Office (MSO) will host the dedicated unit to address severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. Second, HDB, which helps to manage neighbour noise disputes within HDB flats today, will pilot the early issuance of Mediation Directions by frontline officers. As the Minister-in-charge of MSO, I will therefore be speaking on Part 2A of the Bill which deals with the operationalisation of the Community Relations Unit, or CRU for short, and allows Community Relations Officers and officers appointed by the Minister to issue Mediation Directions. The CRU will comprise the Director-General (DG) as well as other authorised officers to be appointed by the Minister, and the Community Relations Officers and Auxiliary Community Relations Officers appointed by the DG, or CROs and ACROs for short. I will speak on the types of cases CRU will take on, the powers this Bill will equip it with, how it will intervene and the safeguards we will put in place. I will also share an update on our plans to pilot the CRU, starting in Tampines. I will then speak about the issuance of Mediation Directions by frontline officers, which HDB will pilot, also starting in Tampines. Minister Edwin Tong earlier stated that the CRU will focus only on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. The two main archetypes of severe noise cases that CRU will focus on are: one, severe and prolonged cases, where noise is being used to cause suffering to the surrounding neighbours; and two, cases where the acts that cause noise could be due to an underlying mental health condition. Take the first scenario.”