If there’s one thing that Singaporeans have loved to do since the beginning of time, it’s complaining.
And it’s no different when it comes to disputes with neighbours, especially over noise issues.
Resident X barging in: Yah, how you expect us to sleep when my neighbour plays mahjong until 4 am every night?!
Case in point.
But now, it seems like those who love to complain but don’t want to confront their neighbours face-to-face might end up with punishments of their own instead.
Yup, the government might be introducing mandatory mediation sessions for cases such as disputes between neighbours that involve noise issues in the near future.
Based on the plan, another two types of cases will also require mandatory mediation.
This plan was revealed during the Ministry of Law’s budget debate.
Here’s why and which cases these apply to.
Cases that Mandatory Mediation Will be Applied to
Asides from noise issues, there are plans for two other types of cases to require mandatory mediation in due time as well.
They are:
- Disputes that have resurfaced after mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC)
- Disputes in which parties want to file a claim with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT)
According to the debate, this change is part of multiple other moves that the Ministry of Law has planned to better the community dispute management framework.
This will then promote the amicable and early resolution of disputes like these, especially since the number of quarrels between neighbours has been on the rise over the past few years.
Why Mediation Should be Compulsory
And here’s why the Ministry of Law believes that mediation should be compulsory.
“Mediation can preserve and often even strengthen the relationship between neighbours by providing them with a platform in the hands of a very good trained mediator to resolve the disputes amicably in very much a win-win fashion,” Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong explained.
Other Members of Parliaments (MPs), such as Mr Patrick Tay (Pioneer), also expressed support for making mediation compulsory.
However, other MPs pointed out that some residents are completely unreceptive to the idea of mediation and do not attend the sessions at all, even when they are required to respond to settlements or orders after their cases have been mediated or adjudicated by the CDRT.
Despite that, Mr Tong highlighted that statistics prove the effectiveness of mediation when it comes to allowing neighbours to reach a point of resolution.
According to him, 80% of disputes that CMC handles end up being resolved.
However, only 30% of neighbour-related disputes handled by CMC involve individuals who are willing to attend mediation sessions on their own accord and out of their own willingness.
This means that more people need to be prompted to take up mediation sessions in order to resolve their disputes more effectively.
Hence, with the high effectiveness of mediation, Mr Tong said that mandatory mediation sessions would allow individuals to have a higher chance of settling their disputes in a peaceful manner.
Penalties for Not Attending Mediation Sessions
As for what consequences individuals may face if they choose not to attend the mandatory mediation sessions, Mr Tong also provided a taster of what might happen.
Don’t worry; they’re definitely not going to throw you in jail for this lah.
Instead, failure to attend mandatory mediation sessions will mean that individuals will be unable to file a claim at the CDRT.
This will keep the community disputes that end up in court unnecessarily to a minimum.
The CMC will also be given the authority to hold mandatory remediation if specific issues in cases that they handle re-arise.
MPs to Help Encourage Residents to Attend Mediation Sessions
When speaking to the MPs in Parliament, Mr Tong also touched on MPs’ roles regarding this new mandatory mediation scheme.
In particular, he mentioned that MPs should encourage and recommend their residents to attend mediation sessions and should also tell them that mediation can be helpful even if they are initially not keen on it.
According to him, a good mediator will be able to help parties settle disputes even if the parties involved are unreceptive to the meditation process at first.
On another note, Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon GRC) brought up how he has received feedback from his residents that individuals often disregard mediation settlements and orders. He asked if other ways could make these settlements and orders more effective.
In response to that, Mr Tong said that a new mechanism would be introduced to allow settlement agreements by the CMC to be registered and enforced as CDRT orders in due time after the ministry has more time to observe the matter and set the criteria that cases need to meet for the mechanism to take effect.
Apart from that, multiple MPs also raised the issue of convenience and accessibility, particularly for residents who have to travel long distances just for mediation sessions.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) said that mediation sessions could be held at places near residents’ homes. At the same time, Mr Dennis Tan (Hougang) from the Workers’ Party mentioned that various processes, such as collecting evidence, can be simplified to increase convenience.
Mr Tong then recognised that distance might be a factor that discourages people from attending mediation sessions and shared that the CMC currently allows individuals to attend their mediation sessions at six satellite locations across the island.
These locations are at selected ServiceSG Centres and Community Clubs.
Additionally, two group representation constituencies (GRCs) have begun employing the use of online mediation for “suitable voluntary cases”.
While these avenues have been made available to increase efficiency and convenience in resolving disputes, the CDRT will still be open to handling challenging cases as a “last resort”.
According to Mr Tong, the ministry will also look into carrying out improvements to serve people better and minimise the difficulties they experience when they are trying to get through the various processes and procedures.
Lastly, “stronger measures” will also be implemented to ensure compliance regarding CDRT orders, and the ministry will also focus on how cases of nuisance involving individuals with underlying mental health conditions can be handled more appropriately.
