CRU NOT A PANACEA FOR NEIGHBOUR DISPUTES
At Tuesday’s sitting, MPs asked for numbers related to neighbour disputes, including how many compulsory Community Mediation Centre (CMC) attendances were directed through the various channels for each of the last three years, and how many cases of disputes between neighbours had escalated to violence resulting in injuries and fatalities.
MP Kenneth Tiong (WP-Aljunied) asked what distinguished a severe noise dispute qualifying for CRU intervention, while MP Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (WP-Sengkang) asked for the total number of cases resolved or closed by the CRU.
Both asked for an assessment on the efficacy of the unit.
The CRU, announced in August last year, can investigate and take action in severe cases of neighbour disputes involving noise and hoarding. It is part of enhancements to the Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF), which was set up in 2014 to help with neighbour disputes.
Mr Tan said that the CRU framework strikes a balance between the 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 is not a substitute for a strong foundation of positive community norms, and also good neighbourly relations and community dispute resolution options,” he added.
As part of its investigatory and enforcement powers, the CRU has the ability to deploy noise sensors, however these were not required in the five cases investigated in Tampines.
As a “last resort” after exhausting other levers, the CRU may refer the most severe and recalcitrant nuisance-makers to HDB, to consider compulsory acquisition of their flats, said Mr Tan.
“Overall, the average monthly volume of neighbour disputes 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,” Mr Tan said.
He later replied to a question by MP Gerald Giam (WP-Aljunied) to say that there have been 160 items of feedback related to neighbour disputes per month in Tampines since April this year.
Mr Murali told parliament that from November 2024 to August 2025, about 1,300 neighbour disputes were registered with the CMC for voluntary mediation.
In about 50 per cent of these cases, one party did not respond. In another 20 per cent of the cases, at least one party declined outright, Mr Murali said.
From 2022 to 2024, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) and the Magistrates’ Court referred around 90 and 80 cases respectively to the CMC for court-mandated mediation.
He noted generally that most cases should be addressed through mediation or by the CRU.
For the remaining “intransigent cases”, affected residents can consider the CDRT as a last resort, Mr Murali said. The CDRT is a specialised court that hears cases involving neighbour disputes.
In response to MP Elysa Chen (PAP-Bishan-Toa Payoh)’s query about CDRT’s caseload, Mr Murali said that the top three categories of CDRT disputes for the last five years were claims for excessive noise, excessive vibration, and littering.
Between 2020 and 2024, a total of 1,031 CDRT claims were filed. About 65 per cent, or two out of three claims, involved excessive noise.
Of these claims, the CDRT issued 233 CDRT orders, and dismissed or struck off 145 cases. Another 651 claims were withdrawn or discontinued.
The CDRT made 26 enforcement orders, comprising 24 special directions and two exclusion orders.
A special direction is a direction by the CDRT to a party to comply with an order made against them within a specified time.
If the party fails to comply, they may be guilty of an offence and jailed or fined.
An exclusion order is a court order for a party to be kept out of their residence. If the party fails to comply with the exclusion order, he or she may be guilty of an offence and may be fined or jailed.
