Neighbour Disputes: Legal Framework to Tackle Social Nuisances?

Law Minister Shanmugam says new norms needed when we live so close to each other 

by Neo Chai Chin, TODAY, 1 Sep 2012

As no satisfactory legal solution exists currently to deal with social nuisances that affect one's neighbours, new ways of dealing with such conduct should be considered, said Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam yesterday.

In a Facebook post, Mr Shanmugam spoke of a recurrent issue, when what is done in one Housing Board flat - such as singing and drumming while others are asleep - has an impact on others. "Most of such conduct is social nuisance, but not criminal, and there is not much the police can do," he wrote.

The police can only take action if it is criminal conduct, while residents turning to the civil courts "is not really feasible either", he noted.

"We probably need a legal framework, which sets out what we should avoid doing, when we live close to each other - because it unreasonably impacts on our neighbours - we need to develop new norms," said Mr Shanmugam. "The key is of course to identify what is unreasonable, because complainants can also be unreasonable. And there should be sanctions for such conduct which are easy to enforce."

Mr Shanmugam's post attracted over 60 "likes" and 40 comments in five hours. Some chipped in with instances of disturbance caused by their neighbours, some called for more understanding and others questioned if noise transmission in newer flats is higher than in older flats.

Members of Parliament (MPs) contacted by TODAY suggested coordinated enforcement by the authorities to tackle social nuisance and suggested fines or compulsory mediation, but felt jail-time for offenders would be too draconian. There is, however, no clear or easy way to halt unreasonable behaviour, MPs felt.

Mr Shanmugam's post came as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted in his National Day Rally speech on Sunday that Singaporeans seemed to be "getting less patient, less tolerant, less willing to compromise in order to get along". Mr Lee had cited examples like neighbours quarrelling over the washing of common corridors and noise, and called on Singaporeans to be "big-hearted".

Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin also recently recounted the case of a "recalcitrant and hostile" resident who bullied his neighbour downstairs by spitting, throwing water and oil, soiling her laundry and vandalising her letter box. He was served an eviction notice when he did not stop his anti-social behaviour.

SETTING NORMS AND DECIDING ON RESOLUTION METHODS

To determine if a legal framework is needed, a study on the prevalence of social nuisance could be done, and it could be part of the ongoing national conversation, suggested Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuan.

Sembawang MP Ellen Lee said standards for acceptable behaviour and misbehaviour would have to be established, because "you are dealing with people with different tolerance levels".

If there is indeed a legal framework - presumably enforced by the police - Ms Lee questioned if it would involve penal sanctions dealt with by the court, or if offences would be handled like traffic misdemeanours, with composition fines and demerit points.

A legal framework could provide some respite to the complainants, but could raise the expectation of it being enforced and create ill will among neighbours, she said.

Asked if town councils could draw up by-laws to address anti-social acts, Mr Lim - who is also Marine Parade Town Council chairman - felt this was outside their ambit of overseeing common areas. Mediation is the better option and the Law Ministry could give mediators power to issue orders to keep the peace, suggested Mr Lim.

Choa Chu Kang MP Zaqy Mohamad agreed that the mediation process now is hampered when one party refuses to cooperate, and said orders could be issued to all parties to ensure they come to the table.

Mr Zaqy also suggested having coordinated enforcement among multiple agencies. This could mean giving police or town council officers the power to enforce the law on behalf of the National Environment Agency when it comes to noise pollution, for instance.

Mr Zaqy, chairman of Choa Chu Kang Town Council, cautioned that any possible tougher regulation should not impinge on the freedom of the majority, especially within their own homes. Anti-social acts are by the "minority, but could inconvenience the majority", he said.

Be big-hearted, Lawrence Wong urges Singaporeans
By Phua Mei Pin, The Straits Times, 3 Sep 2012

MR LAWRENCE Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education and for Information, Communications and the Arts, yesterday shared some of his experiences in dealing with complaints between neighbours as he added his voice to the many calling for Singaporeans to be big-hearted.

In a Facebook post he put up at 3.15pm yesterday, Mr Wong said he had more than a few residents coming to see him over the past year with complaints about neighbours living above them throwing rubbish or cigarette ash from their windows.

"Sometimes, the residents assume that the culprits are foreigners.

"But when the grassroots leaders and I do a house visit, we find that the people accused of such behaviours are locals," he wrote.

What is worse, these locals usually deny they have done anything wrong.

He also said that some of his residents asked for closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to be installed to nab the wrongdoers.

The request is similar to a scheme by the National Environment Agency to plant such devices at 100 problem spots around the island, in response to increasing complaints about litterbugs.

But, wrote Mr Wong, "I don't think we want to live in HDB flats where there are CCTVs installed everywhere to monitor and enforce good behaviour".

In lieu of cameras, he called for bigger hearts: "It is up to us how we want to behave, and what kind of people we want to be."

He added: "We may be a small island, but let us demonstrate with our actions that we can be a people and a nation with a big heart!"

There has been much talk about graciousness since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised the subject at the National Day Rally last week. Mr Wong said that those comments have struck a chord with many.

And he is not the first minister to post on the matter.

His reflection comes two days after a Facebook post by Law Minister K. Shanmugam suggesting a legal framework for handling neighbours' spats over such issues as noise and cooking.

Neighbourly rows can't be settled by law: Experts
Hard to define bad behaviour; public education may be better, they say
By Feng Zengkun, The Straits Times, 10 Sep 2012

SPELLING out bad behaviour could encourage more graciousness but a legal system to handle spats between neighbours could be too restrictive, difficult to enforce and may even backfire.

This is the view of MPs, sociologists and lawyers reacting to an idea mooted recently by Law Minister K. Shanmugam for some form of legal framework to deal with such disputes.

In a Facebook post, he said tolerance of bad behaviour such as being noisy is lower now but there is no "satisfactory legal solution". He noted that most of the bad behaviour is not criminal, so there is little the police can do.

"The second approach is for the residents to go to the civil courts, which is not really feasible either," he said.

Currently, neighbours can also settle disputes at community mediation centres, but the process is voluntary unless ordered by a magistrate.

The centres handled 593 spats last year, up from 498 in 2010.

In his post, Mr Shanmugam said the legal framework could set out what neighbours should avoid doing, identify what is unreasonable behaviour and include penalties which are easy to enforce.

Several MPs told The Straits Times that spelling out bad behaviour could boost ties among neighbours, who would be more conscious of, say, not throwing cigarette butts out of windows.

But the MPs, lawyers and sociologists said a legal system to resolve spats may not work.

Dr Lily Neo, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, said many quarrels are subjective. "One person may think he's just closing the door, but his neighbour may think he's slamming it," she added.

One set of specific regulations may also be too restrictive as different housing blocks, floors and even flats could have different circumstances and tolerance levels, she said.

Disputes between neighbours make up at least two to three out of every 80 to 90 cases at her meet-the-people sessions.

Mr Michael Palmer, MP for Punggol East and Speaker of Parliament, said the accusations are often hard to prove.

"Let's say your neighbour wants to irritate you and bounces a ball for five minutes at midnight and at 1am. How do you prove that in court? Also, how do you prove that that is excessive noise?"

He said involving the law could lead to more bad blood between neighbours. "If a person gets fined, he may want to get revenge and will look for ways to make a complaint against his neighbour."

Mr Palmer, who said there are five to 10 disputes within his constituency at any time, said a legal system may be necessary to resolve extreme cases but it should be used only as a last resort, after public education and mediation.

Mr Alvin Yeo, MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC, suggested making mediation compulsory in some cases. "Currently, one party can choose not to go to mediation. The process may not work if it's voluntary," he said.

He added that if a legal framework is devised, it must have steps to give people the chance to remedy the situation. "It could go from a notice to a warning, a fine and ultimately, eviction. But it must not be one strike and you're out," he said.

Sociologist Mathew Mathews, from the Institute of Policy Studies, suggested a consensus- building exercise for residents to establish norms. "Once established, there needs to be appropriate public education and sufficient signage to inform communities of what is acceptable," he said.

Lawyer Bernard Doray, 60, said officers from the Housing Board, town council, grassroots organisations and residents are better equipped to settle disputes.

He noted that a set of rules may be a good start to find common ground but, in the end, "it's the kampung spirit of give- and-take which we have to encourage and revive".

Meanwhile, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, has filed a question for this week's parliamentary sitting on whether HDB and relevant agencies need more resources and powers to resolve these disputes.

Healing rifts with a bit of warmth

Editorial, The Straits Times, 12 Sep 2012

LAW Minister K. Shanmugam's conversation starter on ways to deal with friction among neighbours ought to be seen in context. This is only another signpost on the long haul to attaining the hallmarks of an accommodating, gracious society, after more basic needs have been met. It is what political leaders through the years have set the people as a challenge. Singaporeans can debate where the nation is in that regard, but it would be overdoing it to tar whole swathes of society. Boorish behaviour in HDB estates and landed neighbourhoods over noise, pets, car parking and such are more exceptions than the rule. The infamous Everitt Road saga in Joo Chiat involving several families and lawsuits was an extreme example.

Mr Shanmugam made the observation that people appear to be less tolerant of bad behaviour. This arguably is more worrying, as it could suggest that an educated, fairly worldly people are regressing in attributes of civility that make for pleasant interaction. His suggestion of a legal approach to censure unacceptable conduct has drawn comments from lawyers, MPs, sociologists and grassroots leaders who feel conduct that is non-criminal in nature should not be regulated this way. Persuasion and public education should be attempted first, of course. Legislation ought to be a last resort.

It is better that communities, spearheaded by town councils or residents' organisations, set the parameters of proper behaviour that emphasise peace-making over confrontation. If these are accepted, they can form the basis for resolution of niggling disagreements. The goal is to settle disputes one-on-one or through a third party before they get out of hand.

A voluntary community mediation mechanism already exists. It can be supplemented with the participation of respected community leaders. HDB precincts have grassroots organisations. Condominium dwellers have recourse to the management committee to resolve complaints.

Private landed estates are the hardest nut to crack. In the absence of a residents' committee, there is no commonly accepted forum for contact on neighbourhood issues. These places are where disputes over car parking and washing have often led to ugly scenes. Even if no rules have been laid down for common areas, residents owe it to themselves to be considerate to one another. They should make friends of immediate neighbours as a matter of habit. Street parties or kampung-style barbecues, the equivalent of HDB block parties, can do wonders in dissolving latent hostility. That would make living in private estates all the more pleasant, adding warmth of communal ties to their neighbourhoods.