But it was even more depressing to continue to hear from others concerned that such issues have not been given the right treatment, even though so many Singaporeans live in HDB flats (Leaving feuding neighbours to sort out issue may not be best approach, by Mr Lee Teck Chuan, Jan 14; New process needed to tackle neighbour disputes quickly, by Dr George Wong Seow Choon, Jan 13; and Disappointed that hands appear tied in dealing with noisy neighbours, by Mr Daniel Tan Jia Hao, Jan 11).
Many Singaporeans have expressed their dissatisfaction that Mr Daniel See had to endure such a long period of distress just to try to have some peace for his family in his own house.
Many cannot even contemplate the long struggle to finally obtain an Exclusion Order - which happens to have no bite - from the authorities.
One wonders what has really gone wrong with the whole process. A law-abiding citizen, who chose to take a civil approach, ends up getting frustrated with red tape.
Who should be held accountable for making life in an HDB flat safe and sound; is it the HDB, the town council, the MP, government agencies or the courts?
It is a waste of time and effort for each individual flat owner to sort out his own complaint. There needs to be a coordinated ministry effort to deal with such issues.
Matthew Quah Chin Kau (Dr)
ST Forum, 16 Jan 2020
* 'Neighbours from hell' move out, ending years of dispute
Outcome of 2 high-profile cases shows issues are resolved only when either party leaves
By Joyce Lim, Senior Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 1 Mar 2020
A couple from Bukit Panjang who were temporarily barred from their home by the court for disturbing their neighbour have sold their flat.
Meanwhile, a housewife in Punggol, whose alleged harassment forced six households out last year, has also found a buyer for her home and moved out about two weeks ago.
The latest developments in these two high-profile cases mean that years of neighbour disputes in both HDB blocks have finally come to an end.
But it also underscored what observers say: That despite measures to mediate between squabbling neighbours, the issue often can be resolved only when either party gives up and moves out.
In both cases, the two households were accused by their neighbours of creating a din. When contacted, they did not respond to queries. It is not clear where they relocated to.
In January, The Sunday Times reported that for the first time, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) under the State Courts had issued an Exclusion Order.
It barred a couple from their flat for a month after they were found to have breached an earlier court order to stop disturbing their neighbour in the unit above.
The CDRT had ordered that Madam Iwa, who is known by only one name, and Mr Low Bok Siong be excluded from their three-room flat in Pending Road from Jan 6 to Feb 6.
The couple lived in the flat with their two adult children. The Sunday Times understands that the flat was sold last month.
Their neighbour Daniel See, 29, an e-commerce manager, said: "It will be a great relief for me and my family if they are moving out, as this means that our nightmare will come to an end. However, I hope that this does not mean that they can run away from the consequences of their irresponsible conduct over the past two years."
Mr See's quarrel with his neighbours began in 2017. Both parties called the police to complain of noise made by the other and eventually took their dispute to court a year later.
The tribunal issued a Consent Order after both parties agreed not to cause excessive noise. However, the couple did not comply and the tribunal further granted a Special Direction to Mr See last October, ordering the couple to do so.
Even then, said Mr See, the noise continued and got even louder and more frequent, which led him to apply for an Exclusion Order to evict his neighbours. They did not leave, and loud music continued to be blasted even at night.
"I called the police more than 60 times, and they told me that they were unable to act on this situation and advised me to take the matter back to court," said Mr See.
The neighbours have yet to pay him court-ordered costs covering Mr See's court fees, transport and installation of cameras to prove his case.
They "have continued with their behaviour with impunity", said Mr See.
Meanwhile, at an HDB block in Punggol Central, some residents gathered for a mini celebration on Feb 21 after the woman they dubbed "neighbour from hell" moved out.
The housewife was accused of splashing oil at her neighbours' doors, playing loud music and stomping on the floor in the wee hours of the morning.
One resident even claimed the housewife left a bloody pig's ear on a shoe rack outside her flat.
Multiple police reports were made. Feeling helpless when told by the authorities what the housewife did was not an arrestable offence, six families subsequently sold their flats.
Mr Rodney Wee, 67, a private-hire driver who was living in the unit beside the housewife, moved out in September 2018. He had previously made a police report against the housewife for splashing oil at his door.
"They (police) didn't do anything. They just told me to install a camera. Because of her, I needed to install a camera? From that moment, I knew I had to sell my flat," said Mr Wee, who has been living in a rental room after he sold his flat.
"I hope the authorities will listen to the complaints and the sufferings of the residents. And not just go through the motion by asking us to install cameras. I am very disappointed. I was forced to sell my flat because of her."
Another resident, who wanted to be known only as Mr Jhala, 58, a retiree, said: "Six neighbours moved out, six new neighbours came in, nothing changed.
"For the past seven years, we have gotten used to her noise. Now this peace feels abnormal."
Outcome of 2 high-profile cases shows issues are resolved only when either party leaves
By Joyce Lim, Senior Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 1 Mar 2020
A couple from Bukit Panjang who were temporarily barred from their home by the court for disturbing their neighbour have sold their flat.
Meanwhile, a housewife in Punggol, whose alleged harassment forced six households out last year, has also found a buyer for her home and moved out about two weeks ago.
The latest developments in these two high-profile cases mean that years of neighbour disputes in both HDB blocks have finally come to an end.
But it also underscored what observers say: That despite measures to mediate between squabbling neighbours, the issue often can be resolved only when either party gives up and moves out.
In both cases, the two households were accused by their neighbours of creating a din. When contacted, they did not respond to queries. It is not clear where they relocated to.
In January, The Sunday Times reported that for the first time, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) under the State Courts had issued an Exclusion Order.
It barred a couple from their flat for a month after they were found to have breached an earlier court order to stop disturbing their neighbour in the unit above.
The CDRT had ordered that Madam Iwa, who is known by only one name, and Mr Low Bok Siong be excluded from their three-room flat in Pending Road from Jan 6 to Feb 6.
The couple lived in the flat with their two adult children. The Sunday Times understands that the flat was sold last month.
Their neighbour Daniel See, 29, an e-commerce manager, said: "It will be a great relief for me and my family if they are moving out, as this means that our nightmare will come to an end. However, I hope that this does not mean that they can run away from the consequences of their irresponsible conduct over the past two years."
Mr See's quarrel with his neighbours began in 2017. Both parties called the police to complain of noise made by the other and eventually took their dispute to court a year later.
The tribunal issued a Consent Order after both parties agreed not to cause excessive noise. However, the couple did not comply and the tribunal further granted a Special Direction to Mr See last October, ordering the couple to do so.
Even then, said Mr See, the noise continued and got even louder and more frequent, which led him to apply for an Exclusion Order to evict his neighbours. They did not leave, and loud music continued to be blasted even at night.
"I called the police more than 60 times, and they told me that they were unable to act on this situation and advised me to take the matter back to court," said Mr See.
The neighbours have yet to pay him court-ordered costs covering Mr See's court fees, transport and installation of cameras to prove his case.
They "have continued with their behaviour with impunity", said Mr See.
Meanwhile, at an HDB block in Punggol Central, some residents gathered for a mini celebration on Feb 21 after the woman they dubbed "neighbour from hell" moved out.
The housewife was accused of splashing oil at her neighbours' doors, playing loud music and stomping on the floor in the wee hours of the morning.
One resident even claimed the housewife left a bloody pig's ear on a shoe rack outside her flat.
Multiple police reports were made. Feeling helpless when told by the authorities what the housewife did was not an arrestable offence, six families subsequently sold their flats.
Mr Rodney Wee, 67, a private-hire driver who was living in the unit beside the housewife, moved out in September 2018. He had previously made a police report against the housewife for splashing oil at his door.
"They (police) didn't do anything. They just told me to install a camera. Because of her, I needed to install a camera? From that moment, I knew I had to sell my flat," said Mr Wee, who has been living in a rental room after he sold his flat.
"I hope the authorities will listen to the complaints and the sufferings of the residents. And not just go through the motion by asking us to install cameras. I am very disappointed. I was forced to sell my flat because of her."
Another resident, who wanted to be known only as Mr Jhala, 58, a retiree, said: "Six neighbours moved out, six new neighbours came in, nothing changed.
"For the past seven years, we have gotten used to her noise. Now this peace feels abnormal."
** Framework being reviewed to tackle neighbour disputes
Media reports, Straits Times Forum letters will be taken into account: MinLaw, MCCY
By Joyce Lim, Senior Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 12 Apr 2020
A protracted dispute between two households in Bukit Panjang in which one party harassed another for two years will be considered when the authorities review measures to deal with conflicts between neighbours.
Recent media reports and letters to ST Forum will also be taken into account in the review of the framework for community dispute resolutions, which is done continually, said the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY).
Their joint reply was in response to a series of reports by The Straits Times regarding the long-drawn court process experienced by Mr Daniel See to stop the couple living below him from deliberately creating a racket to harass him.
The ministries said they had received feedback from Mr See himself, after his story was reported, and described his case as "unusual and unique", as the majority of cases are successfully resolved through the framework.
It also noted that parties who turn to the courts for resolution must be willing to comply with court processes and procedures.
This is something Mr See said his neighbours, who have breached three court orders, are clearly unwilling to do.
His quarrel with them began in 2017, when both parties accused each other of creating a noise disturbance. The police were called on multiple occasions and the dispute landed at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) a year later.
The tribunal issued a Consent Order after both parties agreed not to cause excessive noise in the form of stomping, hammering or loud drilling that would be a nuisance to each other.
When Mr See's neighbours - Madam Iwa, who goes by only one name and Mr Low Bok Siong - continued making a racket, he went back to the CDRT, which issued a Special Direction ordering them to comply with the consent order. However, they continued making noise.
In January, the 29-year-old e-commerce manager successfully obtained an Exclusion Order from the CDRT to evict his neighbours from their three-room Housing Board flat in Pending Road for a month. It was the first time such an order had been issued by the CDRT since it was convened in 2015.
That, too, was ignored by the couple, so Mr See proceeded to file a Magistrate's Complaint against them for the breach.
Last month, the police completed their investigations into the Magistrate's Complaint, and said that after consulting the Attorney-General's Chambers, they had issued a 12-month conditional warning to Madam Iwa on March 18 for breaching the Exclusion Order.
She was also warned for voluntarily causing hurt to Mr See's father. No action was taken against Mr Low, said the police.
"If Madam Iwa re-offends within this 12-month period, she may be prosecuted for the offences she has been warned for and for any new offences committed," the spokesman added.
Mr See is unhappy with this outcome and said his experience shows the "current system is clearly inadequate and largely toothless" as his neighbours seem to be off the hook for breaching three court orders.
In response, the ministries also said a conditional warning meant Mr See's neighbours can be prosecuted if they do not observe the conditions of the warning.
Prosecution and conviction can lead to a fine of up to $5,000 or jail of up to three months, or both. Alternatively, one can be held in contempt of court and fined up to $20,000 or jailed up to 12 months, or both.
A State Courts spokesman told The Sunday Times no one has yet been prosecuted for breaching a court order that involves a community dispute.
Mr See said his neighbours continue to make hammering sounds and play loud music. "Life continues to be a nightmare," he said.
In their reply, the ministries emphasised mediation, such as through the Community Mediation Centre, as an effective way to resolve differences amicably between neighbours. Mr See said mediation did not work in his case.
In 2017, the HDB received 3,493 instances of feedback regarding disputes between neighbours. Between 2017 and 2019, the CDRT handled 164 spats between neighbours, with excessive noise cited as one of the causes of dispute.
Media reports, Straits Times Forum letters will be taken into account: MinLaw, MCCY
By Joyce Lim, Senior Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 12 Apr 2020
A protracted dispute between two households in Bukit Panjang in which one party harassed another for two years will be considered when the authorities review measures to deal with conflicts between neighbours.
Recent media reports and letters to ST Forum will also be taken into account in the review of the framework for community dispute resolutions, which is done continually, said the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY).
Their joint reply was in response to a series of reports by The Straits Times regarding the long-drawn court process experienced by Mr Daniel See to stop the couple living below him from deliberately creating a racket to harass him.
The ministries said they had received feedback from Mr See himself, after his story was reported, and described his case as "unusual and unique", as the majority of cases are successfully resolved through the framework.
It also noted that parties who turn to the courts for resolution must be willing to comply with court processes and procedures.
This is something Mr See said his neighbours, who have breached three court orders, are clearly unwilling to do.
His quarrel with them began in 2017, when both parties accused each other of creating a noise disturbance. The police were called on multiple occasions and the dispute landed at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) a year later.
The tribunal issued a Consent Order after both parties agreed not to cause excessive noise in the form of stomping, hammering or loud drilling that would be a nuisance to each other.
When Mr See's neighbours - Madam Iwa, who goes by only one name and Mr Low Bok Siong - continued making a racket, he went back to the CDRT, which issued a Special Direction ordering them to comply with the consent order. However, they continued making noise.
In January, the 29-year-old e-commerce manager successfully obtained an Exclusion Order from the CDRT to evict his neighbours from their three-room Housing Board flat in Pending Road for a month. It was the first time such an order had been issued by the CDRT since it was convened in 2015.
That, too, was ignored by the couple, so Mr See proceeded to file a Magistrate's Complaint against them for the breach.
Last month, the police completed their investigations into the Magistrate's Complaint, and said that after consulting the Attorney-General's Chambers, they had issued a 12-month conditional warning to Madam Iwa on March 18 for breaching the Exclusion Order.
She was also warned for voluntarily causing hurt to Mr See's father. No action was taken against Mr Low, said the police.
"If Madam Iwa re-offends within this 12-month period, she may be prosecuted for the offences she has been warned for and for any new offences committed," the spokesman added.
Mr See is unhappy with this outcome and said his experience shows the "current system is clearly inadequate and largely toothless" as his neighbours seem to be off the hook for breaching three court orders.
In response, the ministries also said a conditional warning meant Mr See's neighbours can be prosecuted if they do not observe the conditions of the warning.
Prosecution and conviction can lead to a fine of up to $5,000 or jail of up to three months, or both. Alternatively, one can be held in contempt of court and fined up to $20,000 or jailed up to 12 months, or both.
A State Courts spokesman told The Sunday Times no one has yet been prosecuted for breaching a court order that involves a community dispute.
Mr See said his neighbours continue to make hammering sounds and play loud music. "Life continues to be a nightmare," he said.
In their reply, the ministries emphasised mediation, such as through the Community Mediation Centre, as an effective way to resolve differences amicably between neighbours. Mr See said mediation did not work in his case.
In 2017, the HDB received 3,493 instances of feedback regarding disputes between neighbours. Between 2017 and 2019, the CDRT handled 164 spats between neighbours, with excessive noise cited as one of the causes of dispute.
No comments:
Post a Comment