Criteria that Qualify for Intervention by Community Relations Unit and Unit's Effectiveness in Addressing Neighbourly Disputes

10 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what criteria distinguishes a severe noise dispute qualifying for Community Relations Unit intervention; and (b) given that the one-year pilot in Tampines handled only five severe cases while not deploying noise sensors, what is the Ministry’s assessment of (i) the unit’s efficacy and (ii) whether its enforcement powers are operationally useful.

11 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development since the pilot launch of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) in April 2025 (a) how many cases have been resolved or closed by the CRU; and (b) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the effectiveness of the CRU in addressing severe neighbour disputes involving noise and hoarding.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Parliamentary Question Nos 10 and 11 on today’s Order Paper together please?

Mr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, my answer will also address similar questions filed for oral answer by Members Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Foo Cexiang, Dr Charlene Chen^{1, 2} and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin scheduled for the Sittings on 15, 16 and 17 October, and the questions filed for written answer by Members of Parliament Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Dr Charlene Chen^{3, 4} for the Sittings on 14, 15 and 16 October.

Sir, when neighbours engage in a dispute, our priority is to bring them together to understand each other’s perspectives and needs, and then, also try to find a mutually acceptable solution. It is neither desirable for our community spirit nor sustainable for Government to step in as a first response for all disputes between neighbours.

The Community Relations Unit (CRU) framework strikes a balance between Government stepping in to manage a dispute and leaving enough room for neighbours to settle disputes themselves. It is not a panacea for neighbour disputes and it is not a substitute for a strong foundation of positive community norms, good neighbourly relations and community dispute resolution options.

CRU has a range of investigatory and enforcement powers, including the power to install noise sensors. These noise sensors are used as a confirmatory tool, after CRU's initial investigations narrow down from which unit the noise nuisance might be coming from. In the five cases in the pilot town of Tampines that CRU has investigated since April this year, noise sensors were not required because either the noisemakers gave formal statements that confirmed they were the source of noise, or the source of noise was clear and unambiguous.

The CRU framework is a useful step forward but its implementation requires significant amounts of resources. Therefore, it is piloted in one town first, Tampines, focusing on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. We are reviewing this pilot carefully, to ensure our systems and processes are effective and we have resourced it correctly and sustainably before we extend the CRU services to other towns.

As Minister Edwin Tong and the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann explained in their Second Reading speeches in November 2024, CRU focuses on severe cases that frontline agencies, like the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Police, triage and escalate to it. These cases represent a small proportion of all disputes between neighbours. They can include cases where one neighbour is deliberately making excessive noise at unreasonable hours and/or over prolonged periods to cause suffering to surrounding neighbours and where prior mediation has not been successful.

Severe cases with a mental health nexus are another example. Of the three mental health-related cases CRU is dealing with, it has facilitated inpatient admission and treatment for one, and more consistent follow-up with the community for the other two.

The one case involving deliberate use of noise to disturb neighbours and not related to mental health has abated after joint intervention by CRU, the Police and the Town Council. CRU will continue to take on severe cases in Tampines that frontline agencies escalate to it.

As a deterrent and a last resort after exhausting all levers, CRU may refer the most severe and recalcitrant nuisance-makers to HDB, to consider compulsory acquisition of their flats. We will take this course of action only after due care and careful consideration.

For new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments since February 2023, HDB has increased the thickness of floor slabs to 200 millimetres. This has reduced inter-floor noise transmission by up to five decibels. For existing flats, the scope for major infrastructure changes is limited. Nevertheless, residents can practise simple steps to reduce inter-floor noise. They can for example, place rubber padding or "chair socks" on the legs of furniture. HDB will also continue to explore other possible solutions through research and development.

Overall, the average monthly volume of neighbour noise feedback in HDB estates, across Singapore, over the past five years has held steady at about 2,500. HDB does not otherwise track the number of disputes between neighbours in HDB flats, or the number of cases that escalated into physical altercations.

Ultimately, we need strong community bonds and strong community norms, so fewer disputes will arise. And where they do arise, parties involved are more likely to resolve their differences in an amicable and mutually acceptable manner, if these norms and practices are strong. This is an outcome worth working towards as a "we first" society.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): I have three supplementary questions for the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and two supplementary questions for the Ministry of National Development (MND).

For the MinLaw, I would respectfully disagree with the Ministry's view. Because for most of the residents who have appealed for compulsory mediation, and I have written two letters through the Member of Parliament (MP), generally, would the Senior Minister of State not agree that the MP is a sufficient gatekeeper of these compulsory mediation appeals to the Ministry?

Second, for residents outside of Tampines, how should they currently appeal for compulsory mediation? Should they appeal to HDB to come down to their units to see their circumstances for themselves?

Supplementary question three, there is widespread perception that the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) are quite toothless because, even if you get an injunction, getting an enforcement order seems to be quite difficult. And I quote a Mothership article of 2024, which reported a Bukit Panjang resident who got a CDRT injunction for their neighbour to stop smoking in June 2023, but found it, subsequently, difficult to get the evidence to get an enforcement order when her neighbour persisted in smoking.

For MND, the first supplementary question, so, the CRU has 15 staff members, has had five severe cases in six months. That means less than one case per month. And yet, there are about 2,500 noise cases per month, so generally, using the Tampines electors as a proxy for the number of cases, there should have been about 150 cases for Tampines. So, less than 1% of them have been deemed severe. My question is, what are the thresholds preventing CRU escalation and will MND publish the criteria so that residents and frontline officers know when a case is deemed severe?

Second supplementary question, if no sensors were deployed, what unique capability did CRU add beyond current procedures by HDB and the Police, which already mediate and investigate?

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I deal with hon Member Mr Tiong's three supplementary questions. I just want to make a clarification. I mentioned in my speech just now that Mr Tiong asked for the number of compulsory mediations for neighbour disputes at CMC for each of the last five years. Actually, he asked for three years. So, with that clarification, let me now deal with the supplementary questions.

The first point about whether the MP can be the gatekeeper. My response is to point out that as far as the issue of directing compulsory mediation is concerned, that has to be dealt with even-handedly and also, it involves two institutions: one, the judge, which is an independent branch of our Government; and the other one, is in relation to the public officers. So, we sited it with the public officers as far as compulsory mediation is concerned, so that anybody who is aggrieved, he may write or his MP may write to the public body concerned and then, they will look at it and see whether or not there is a need to issue a Mediation Direction (MD). Because when the MPs get information, they only hear one side of the story. It is very difficult to hear both sides of the story. But the public officers are able to do so. At the judiciary level, as I mentioned my speech, the judges have discretion to order mediation as well. So, cumulatively, we are able to deal with this matter, ensuring that mediation is really the main thrust of our approach or strategy to deal with neighbours' disputes.

The hon Member asked about compulsory mediation outside the Tampines project. Sir, this is really something which we are looking at and as was mentioned in the speeches made by myself and the Minister of State Alvin Tan, we are looking to complete the pilot, learn from the issues that have presented themselves and then, we certainly want to extend it to all parts of Singapore. I certainly remember the debate that happened in the last session of Parliament, where almost every Member asked that his constituency be volunteered for the extension after the pilot. So, it is a matter of resources. It will come.

I come to the last supplementary question, which is an assertion that the CDRT is toothless. I am just looking at it from the perspective of the legislative framework. The legislative framework allows for a person who breaches a special direction to be prosecuted and be convicted, and that must mean that there is some tooth to the action. It is really a matter of enforcement. And may I also add that, under the enhanced powers, the CDRT or the HDB has even the powers to evict a person from his house. In fact, there have been instances where respondents have been ordered to leave their homes for a period of 10 days and 14 days. So, these measures are certainly measures with serious outcomes.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member Kenneth Tiong for his questions. I think there are two parts to it: one is with regard to the efficacy of CRU and the expansion; and the second is whether CRU has special powers.

In this regard, Sir, I would also like to ask the Member if he can 100% guarantee that any of these suite of measures, including the CRU, can de-escalate a neighbour dispute, and then I will respond shortly.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: That is a strange question. Clearly, I think we cannot 100% guarantee de-escalation, but it will make sense at the margins.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, of course, that was a question in which we know the answer. Regardless of whatever we do, there is no 100% guarantee. You apply CDRT, CMC, or even to that regard, CRU, to any of these cases, it can help, it can also hinder, and in certain cases as well, it may even exacerbate the situation. So, there is no special power that CRU has and so, let us exercise reason.

Let us exercise reason to it and recognise that there is no tool that is perfect and recognise that we have a useful suite of tools that are available to us, thanks to the enhanced CDMF. And we are using those tools and we are using novel tools in the Tampines pilot with regard to the CRU as well as the MD, but there is no perfect tool in this regard. And so, there is no special power.

But what CRU does is help to be an intermediary, between voluntary mediation as well as enforcement. And that is what it is purporting to do. In the November 2024 Second Reading, I think, many Members of this House, from across both aisles, have naturally asked for the expansion of CRU beyond the Tampines pilot. I understand that and I am no exception. In fact, I think that was one of the biggest asks across.

Can I ask and can I also request for Members to understand this: that this is a pilot, we have done this for six months in Tampines and it is resource intensive. We are now only six months into this one-year pilot. There are five cases. And we will continue to take on severe cases in Tampines that are being floated to, or raised or triaged by the agencies. But I ask for some patience. We are studying this pilot very carefully, sizing it very carefully and where appropriate, we will expand this pilot.

At this point, I also wanted to remind Members in the Second Reading last year that Ms Sylvia Lim had also asked for the expansion of the CRU pilot, amongst many other Members in this House. But what is also very useful is that Members of this House also acknowledged two things. One, is that this is a multi-year effort by several Ministries and agencies, and I thank Members for duly acknowledging that. But the more important point is that Ms Sylvia Lim, while asking like many Members to expand the CRU pilot, she had also acknowledged the resource-intensive and challenging nature of the work. I quote Ms Lim, she said, "It is also clear that the enhanced CDMF will be a resource-intensive exercise requiring standby teams after office hours and active management of difficult cases by the new Director-General of Community Relations. The work will not be easy."

And I thought this is just useful for us. Give us some time. Let us study the pilot. We are working very hard on learning from the five cases that we have in Tampines. I have given, in my reply, the outcomes of these CRU cases in Tampines. And we are also looking at cases outside of Tampines, that some Members have also floated to us. Taken together, we are able to then look at how best to resource this and then extend it to beyond Tampines, when it is appropriate.

Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State and the Minister of State for their responses. I have three supplementary questions. One, as noise disturbances and hoarding in common areas remain among the most frequent neighbour disputes in HDB estates, would the Ministry consider reviewing and strengthening legislation and enforcement, including setting maximum permissible decibel levels or clearer hoarding thresholds, to address these issues more proactively?

Two, has the Ministry explore the use of predictive analytics or risk assessment tools to identify the high-risk neighbour disputes before they escalate?

And three, if so, what safeguards are in place to ensure there is fairness, transparency and privacy?

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the first part of the question posed by the hon Member, Dr Choo. She suggested whether the legislation can be reviewed further, to put specific noise levels. Certainly, that is something that we can consider. I would give her and hon Members an assurance that we are continually looking to see how we can strengthen the system, because we know how important this issue about ensuring neighbourliness and harmony in the community is.

But I think one must agree, the core point is that these issues must be dealt with in the community and the community must exercise self-moderation. That is really the principal point. We should not be directing cases to be dealt with at the CDRT as a first resort.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, with regard to Dr Choo's questions, I want to say that the severity of noise disturbances can vary, depending on ambient noise levels, and rather than just across the board decibel thresholds, CRU measures noise levels above the ambient.

I also wanted to assure Members and in fact, last year at the Second Reading, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had also assured Members, that there will be safeguards to protect residents' privacy in the deployment of noise sensors. I refer the Member to that speech.

Mr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin Malik.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for MND. Out of the five cases that CRU has taken, how many of those cases are considered resolved and how long did they take? Second question, when can we expect the Ministry to decide if the CRU can be expanded to other towns – will it be after the one-year period pilot?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member. I had mentioned earlier on, going into the details of the cases, there are five cases, I mentioned that of the three cases that CRU is dealing with is to facilitate inpatient admission and treatment for one, and more consistent follow-up in community for the other two. Senior Minister of State Murali had mentioned that the CRU had issued an MD for one, and then, I also mentioned in my main reply, please refer to that, that the one case involving the deliberate use of noise to disturb neighbours and not related to mental health, has abated after joint intervention by CRU, Police and Town Council.

We are studying these, the way in which the CRU is managing these cases. And we see that there are some encouraging signs, but please just do give us some time to study this in detail – and also, cases outside of the pilot – so that we can better think about resourcing it. I think we discussed this in detail last year and I really ask for Members' patience in this. Work with us, we are serious about this, we are working hard on this and we will take all of the learnings very seriously, and your feedback into account.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you Senior Minister of State Murali also, on the affirmation of the importance of positive neighbourly relations. To improve the process, I wanted to ask whether the Ministry is studying ways to further simplify or digitise the evidence submission process for CDRT hearings, to make it more accessible for laypersons.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am obliged to hon Member, Ms Elysa Chen, for her positive remarks. Insofar as the point about assisting applicants in the CDRT process, certainly the Judiciary has leaned forward. As I mentioned in my speech, there is a website which provides very important information on how to collate evidence. And also, I would say the CRU has been formed. The legislative intent is also to assist applicants in certain cases by gathering evidence and that can be presented to the CDRT. Or in a very clear cut case, the CRU itself can issue abatement orders. So, collectively, this will assist the neighbour who is belabouring under some disamenities from his other neighbour.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.

Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, thank you. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State and the Minister of State for the clarifications. Mr Speaker, my grassroots leaders are really the true heroes on the ground in mediating neighbourly disputes. According to what I know from The Straits Times, 90% of neighbourly disputes are actually resolved at the grassroots level. They often work late into the night on their own time to preserve the harmony between neighbours and the community.

So, two supplementary questions. How can we enhance the ecosystem of support, including resources, so that our grassroots mediators can do their job and play this vital role, before formal escalation to the suite of measures that had been mentioned? And most importantly, given the anxiety over the murder in Yishun, how can we enhance the safety of our grassroots leaders so that they can do this work with peace of mind as they work deep into the night? Perhaps training for some pick-up of warning signs and maybe techniques to de-escalate more serious scenarios? I would like to hear from the Ministries.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am grateful to the hon Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging the heroes on the ground, the grassroots leaders. Indeed, that has also been my experience. They do it on their own time, dealing with disputes involving neighbours. And also, they take their own time to train themselves. They go through mediation courses as well. And as a result of which, a substantial number of neighbour disputes are being solved through them.

I would add, Sir, that, actually, there is also another aspect of what they do, which is really creating the goodwill through community activities, getting the neighbours to meet one another. This is something that we took for granted during the kampung days when our doors were always open. Here, the grassroots leaders come, make sure that neighbours meet one another through, say, block parties and other events for residents. And that is very helpful because with the relationship that is built, the neighbour who is originally thinking of complaining, may say, "Eh, wait a minute, I know his circumstances, I know his family well, maybe I will live with it". And that is the live-and-let-live attitude that we want to promote in the community.

As to the supplementary questions on supporting the grassroots leaders. Certainly, we are happy to lean forward to train suitable grassroots leaders for mediation training. Mediation is not an easy area for many of them because they may not be legally trained. So, we are certainly happy to see how we can train more. In fact, at the CMC level, we are also looking out for suitable candidates to increase our core of mediators. I think that that can certainly help. We can certainly continue to share best practices and that is one way to strengthen the competence of our grassroots leaders as mediators.

On the issue of the anxiety following the incident in Yishun, I would say this. If anyone feels threatened, then the first thing to do is to call the Police via 999. There is no doubt about that. Mediation is not suitable when there are signs of violence, threatened or actual. You should break off and then let the Police deal with it and that must be something ingrained in everybody's mind. And of course, sometimes we are dealing with evolving situations and there must be a constant assessment as to whether the line is crossed.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Member Ng Chee Meng for highlighting the tireless work of his volunteers. Even last night, I was also dealing with one case and my volunteer stayed late night, and I think many of us can attest to that as well. So, this is a shout out to many of the volunteers who work very hard to mediate and also to build the community bonds that are very important upstream.

If I may also just to suggest that Members, please continue to support the Municipal Services Office's (MSO's) ongoing work in this front. MSO has a Love Our 'Hood Youth Challenge, as well as HDB's Singapore's Friendly Neighbourhood Award. These are just some measures in which we can take all of these upstream. And I just wanted to also reflect that these upstream measures are complemented by what Senior Minister of State Murali and I had outlined today, a comprehensive suite of measures for the enhanced CDMF. They are not panaceas, but taken together, I think we can build that "we-first" society that we all aspire to.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim. Although you did not file a Parliamentary Question, since your name was quoted by Minister of State Tan, I will give you the floor.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State of MND. Earlier on, when he said that the CRU officers do not have special powers, I just wanted to understand what he meant by that. Because under the Act as we amended last year, they do have actually special powers, legal powers anyway, under the provisions of the Bill that we passed last year. For example, they can issue orders on the spot and so on, so I wonder whether he could clarify that point, what he meant by CRU officers do not have special powers.

The other question is that he quoted my speech earlier about the fact that, and of course I do recognise that the work is not going to be easy, but I did say, perhaps erroneously last year that the CRU had standby officers after office hours. I believe I was wrong on that point, because it was later clarified that the CRU does not work after office hours, so I would like him to clarify that on that point.

Mr Alvin Tan: Ms Sylvia Lim is right on that second point, so clarified.

On the first point about super powers. That was not my term. I think it was the Member Kenneth Tiong's term, special powers or super powers. So, the Member is absolutely right, there are a few. And I think in the Second Reading, it had already been mentioned under different sections: in section 13E, under section 13M. These are powers that the CRU have been afforded under the Bill which was passed last year.

So, I just wanted to clarify because I did not say special powers and that is why I wanted to make sure that it is very clear. That is why I asked the Member Kenneth Tiong about what he really meant by special powers. If he meant that it would be a special antidote or panacea to resolving this, then it is not. And I think we have agreed that the CRU would not be able to do that. That any intervention could help, it could also hinder.

So, I think just to clarify that exchange between me and Member Kenneth Tiong, that is what I meant. But Ms Lim is spot on, that there are powers afforded to the CRU as outlined by the Second Reading last year.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Thank you for the answers. My question is to MinLaw. I have two supplementary questions related to a particular step, which is the service and enforcement step of the process. You gave a lot of data on the number of cases, the number of resolutions. And I actually wanted to clarify if you had mentioned, maybe I missed it, was there data on the proportion or number of CDRT cases that are actually enforced? So, that is my first supplementary question, and I ask that because I hear from the ground that actually, that percentage can be fairly low.

And my second supplementary question related to that is under the current framework. I understand that the affected neighbour who initiated the CDRT is actually the one that is responsible for service and enforcement of the orders from CDRT and that would involve either going through the process server, or, as you said earlier, to make an application to the court. These, of course, can be quite intimidating to the average resident. So, my question is, will the Government consider shifting the responsibility for service of CDRT orders to a Government agency, and related to that, are CRU orders treated the same way? Do those also have to be served and enforced by the affected neighbours?

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member, Ms Mariam Jaafar, on the second question first. The issue of service of the CDRT order is really a judicial matter. And I take the hon Member's points and we will convey her feedback to the Judiciary as to the modes of service of CDRT orders that should be available to the successful litigant after the CDRT hearing.

Insofar as CRU orders are concerned, that is dealt with by the unit itself, so, that should not present an issue. And certainly, the framework is really to assist the resident. Because the CRU, through the enhanced legislative framework, is able to make the investigations and in a clear cut case, issue an abatement order. And thereafter, if it is not complied with, then, it can escalate and consider enforcement. As I mentioned just now, in response to the hon Member Mr Kenneth Tiong, there could be eviction orders and pursuant to which the person has to leave his house, or there could also be compulsory acquisition by HDB. So, these are all the measures that are available.

As to the steps to be taken to enforce, or rather the figures for enforcement, my apologies, I do not have the figures off-hand, but if the hon Member would like to file a Parliamentary Question, I can answer that specifically.

Mr Speaker: Okay, there are still many Members who wish to ask questions, so please keep your supplementary question as short as possible. Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker. Picking on some of the points that Senior Minister of State made, I understand that two thirds of the disputes relate to noise related matters and about 50% of people who are asked to go for voluntary mediation, do not do so. Another 20% refused it outright.

Taking these points, I would like to make a suggestion to MND, which I had actually raised in a previous Sitting five years ago, and that is a very simple solution for MND to set threshold levels on noise, educate the public on it and then take enforcement. I would respectfully suggest this solves several issues: it avoids the entire sway, the resources needed to decide each noise case, case-by-case in mediation, and then CDRU and then everywhere else.

Instead, with a clear benchmark and enforcement, the first point of contact for most people is to call the Police. There are guidelines, they can enforce, or a suitable MND officer can enforce. I would be grateful for MND's consideration on this.

Mr Alvin Tan: I responded to that similar question. And MND will take this into consideration.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, can I just ask the Minister of State, how many neighbour dispute cases have been reported in Tampines HDB Town since April 2025? I asked this in my original Parliamentary Question.

Given that the CRU pilot has taken on only five cases in the six months since it started, is this the rate of referrals that can be expected for a typical HDB town? And if the CRU which has greater expertise in handling neighbour disputes, if it never gets referred cases, how would it be able to achieve any significant success?

And lastly, for the Senior Minister of State for Law, can he confirm that the plans are for grassroots leaders or grassroots advisers to issue mandatory mediation orders? Because if it is grassroots advisers, then I believe all, but 10 of the grassroots advisers in Singapore are also MPs, which will present the same problems as the Senior Minister of State mentioned in his response to Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I do not have the numbers for Tampines, but the trend that I mentioned earlier in my reply, about the average monthly volume of neighbour noise feedback in HDB estates, across Singapore, over the past five years, which has held steady at 2,500. The trend is similar in Tampines town. Please let me get back to the Member on those numbers.

The Member mentioned earlier on about whether we could have expanded it and what are the measures that we can take? Correct? Can the Member just repeat his question, please?

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I am referring to the expansion within a town. So, Tampines town had six months to run this pilot, but it is taken on only five cases so far. Is this the rate of referrals that we can expect moving forward, when it is expanded to other towns?

Mr Alvin Tan: So, I think, it is, I mean, inherent in that question is also a very important question that we want to ask. How many referral cases do we want to have and how many serious cases we want to have? And I think, the Member would agree with me that we would ideally have less cases. Ideally. I mean, you would because at the upstream you would have addressed them – but let me respond to this.

The fact is that we are looking at all of these five cases. We have seen some encouraging signs within all of these different five cases that the CRU has already addressed and we are studying these very carefully for us to see what we can do.

I also want to take this opportunity to say that the CRU officers – I mean earlier on, the Member Kenneth Tiong, also mentioned that you have how many different officers, and then why are there just five cases?

My officers at the CRU have worked very hard on these cases. They have devoted time. And as the Member would appreciate, these are very complicated cases and that is exactly why these are severe cases that have been referred to by HDB and the Police. If they are normal cases that are easily managed in the community or in CMC or other measures, then they would not have been.

So, I wanted to just make the point that ideally, we would address many of these cases upstream, but where there are severe cases downstream, that is where the pilot has shown us some ways to deal with it, in concert with and augmented by, the suite of CDMF measures that are already there.

I really wanted to thank my public officers, because in this regard, they have worked incredibly hard and spent incredible amount of time in the five cases in Tampines. And I have mentioned to them that we are open to taking on even more cases, severe cases, to be precise, that have been escalated to us by Police and HDB.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, in response to the hon Member, Mr Giam's question, I would like to clarify that there are absolutely no plans to vest with grassroots leaders or advisers the power to issue MDs. As I have explained in my speech, these powers are to be vested in public officers.

Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question for the Minister of State. Understand there are considerations to extend the CRU framework beyond Tampines to other towns, if the pilot is successful. I just want to seek clarification, whether this plan also includes private estates like condominiums and private apartments, because I am not just concerned about my HDB residents, I am also concerned about my private estate residents.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I have a majority of private residents in my constituency as well. The pilot is meant to inform. We are focused on Tampines town now as a pilot and after getting all of the feedback and all of the learnings from it, the plan is to extend it to other towns, including where there are private estates.

Mr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to the Minister of State for MND. I understand HDB will consider compulsory acquisition of flats by severe and recalcitrant nuisance makers. The constant distress caused by noise transmission is a root cause of many disputes that escalate, including pickleball. And I am glad to hear that new BTO developments now feature increased floor slab thickness.

To ensure we address the structural root issue, can the Minister of State clarify whether they will commit to immediately implementing a mandatory logging and tracking system, and with which agency, to monitor all dispute cases that are reported to involve threats of physical violence in order to identify and flag these recalcitrant offenders, or even consider providing equipment like industrial grade sound monitoring for rental?

My second question is, given the limited scope for major infrastructure changes in existing flats, will the Ministry consider exploring subsidised soundproofing improvements or technology, as a specific upgrade option under future Home Improvement Programmes for blocks that have high persistent record of noise related disputes?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Cai Yinzhou for his questions. For the first one, on the mandatory logging and tracking system, and then the second one on the subsidised soundproofing. These require, again, resources, as well as careful learning. And I think pilots, even beyond Tampines, we will look into these and then, if relevant or appropriate, we will consider them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question is directed to MinLaw and it is about inter-agency coordination. When neighbour disputes turn violent, how do we better capture the warning signs, such as, repeated Police calls, past mediation cases, Town Council's complaints? And can the Ministry work with the Police, HDB, Town Council and MOH, perhaps to set up an early warning system so that when multiple reports come in from various agencies about the same household, agencies can act decisively before tensions boil over? And is the current data sharing between CMC, CDRT, the Singapore Police Force really robust enough to flag dangers early?

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am indebted to the hon Member Mr Yip for his thoughtful suggestion. Certainly, I am aware that there is a level of cooperation between the agencies. I think he is looking towards a proper framework so that we can better detect cases which may become violent. It is certainly something that we can consider.

Sir, while I am on my feet, may I also state that my colleagues have given me the statistics for the enforcement orders, a question that hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar asked for. In the past five years, there are 24 Special Directions issued and two Exclusion Orders issued.

Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.

Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): First of all, I would like to thank the HDB officers for all their help. I think they have been putting in a lot of effort to help resolve some of these dispute cases. And I am very thankful that HDB has also chosen Tampines to pilot the CRU. I just have one question for MND's consideration.

I think a lot of the focus has been on the mental health of the neighbours that have potentially been causing a lot of these nuisances. But I also have cases where the mental health of the neighbours on the receiving end have been very badly affected. And I wonder if this could be a consideration, in terms of the severity criteria for MND to step in and activate CRU.

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Dr Chen for her supplementary question. I mentioned earlier on some of the criteria that we had and how the CRU takes on some of these cases. I also mentioned earlier on about severe cases with regard to a mental health nexus, as well as prolonged and unreasonable interference. There are also in the Second Reading, some details about what criteria we are looking at. But as I mentioned earlier on, let us look at the cases, let us study the pilot which is, again, only six months old, and then, take in your feedback and apply as appropriate.

I also wanted to get back to Member Gerald Giam on his question about Tampines. Since April 2025, there has been about 160 neighbour noise feedback per month in Tampines.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan, last supplementary question.

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Speaker, I just have a question for the Senior Minister of State. I heard in his reply that MinLaw is planning to work with HDB and MND to refer more cases for directed mediation. So, if the Senior Minister of State could share in more concrete detail how the Ministry plans to get more cases referred for directed mediation, because I do agree with the Senior Minister of State that this must be one of the centres of gravity for the CDMF framework going forward.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Mr Xie, can I say that quite clearly not all cases, as I mentioned in my speech, are cases which should go for formal mediation. The idea, and I would take the opportunity to reiterate our framework, is to settle the bulk of disputes in the community itself. That is really using the resources that the hon Member Mr Ng Chee Meng said – our grassroots leaders and community leaders. So, that is the bulwark of the cases that we would have to deal with.

Beyond that, there needs to be an assessment made by the public officers, HDB and CRU, to see whether or not these are the cases where it may make sense for the issuance of the formal MD. So, again, one has to look at the context. In a situation where the CRU is of the view that the case is made out straightaway, it is a straightforward case made out, it may not even bother the residents to go for mediation. They can issue an abatement order. So, that is not necessary for them to go through the entire process.

And in situations where they feel that there are no troublesome signs like threats of violence and all that, that is the situation where the legislative policy contemplates the issuance of the MD. And I guess as we gather more experience from the pilot, we will finetune the protocols and make sure that the aim behind this CDMF, which is really to ensure that our community self-moderates when it comes to the dealing of disputes, ensures that as far as possible, we do not invoke the formal processes, which also includes MD, so that neighbours not only can live and let live, but also continue on in the spirit that we would want to see.