Concerns over privacy raised by MPs as law passed to better tackle severe neighbour disputes

SINGAPORE: Concerns over privacy and the well-being of those with mental health issues were among issues raised by Members of Parliament (MPs) as a law was passed on Tuesday (Nov 12) providing a new government unit the power to investigate severe neighbour noise disputes.
Under the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, the Community Relations Unit (CRU) will focus resources on severe neighbour noise cases that are causing “disamenity” to the community as well as severe hoarding cases, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong said earlier in the day.
In a debate lasting more than five hours, a total of 20 MPs spoke on the Bill, which was passed later with the full support of MPs and without further clarifications. 
As part of their powers, Community Relations Officers (CROs) will be able to deploy technology, such as noise sensors, to collect evidence on the direction, timing and intensity in the cases of noise disturbances. 
This is as current attempts by complainants to collect evidence through audio recordings – often through mobile phones – are often unable to pinpoint the intensity or direction of the noise, said Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann.
Recordings are also easily distorted or edited, and hence cannot be relied upon for official investigations or court proceedings, Ms Sim said. 
Speaking in parliament, MP Lim Biow Chuan (PAP-Mountbatten) urged authorities to assure residents that their privacy will be protected.
“If there is no such assurance that privacy will be protected, residents are unlikely to allow the noise sensors to be installed,” said Mr Lim.
Nominated MP Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim raised similar concerns. “The deployment of noise sensors within private dwellings raise questions about the balance between dispute resolution and the privacy rights of residents,” she said. 
LIkewise, MP Alex Yam (PAP-Marsiling-Yee Tee) said that there must be measures to ensure that the sensors do not “inadvertently record conversations or compromise residents’ privacy”.
In response, Ms Sim reiterated that safeguards have been proposed. If noise sensors are to be deployed within residents’ homes, it will be done only with consent, she said.
“They are intended to support CROs’ initial investigation. For example, to ascertain the timing, direction and intensity of the noise nuisance,” she explained.
Ms Sim added that the actual sounds picked up by the sensors will not be available to officers. 
“Raw data picked up by the sensors will be expunged once it is processed. Only processed data, which is charts and tables, that show the direction, timing, and intensity of the noise events will be retained for the purposes of CRU’s investigation and any subsequent court proceedings.”
The authorities are looking at having all raw data processed automatically within 48 hours in Singapore-based servers where only a “very small” number of authorised Ministry of National Development officers and vendor personnel can access, with all access and activities logged.
“In the event that the police request for the noise sensor data for law and order reasons, CRU will be obliged under the Criminal Procedure Code to provide whatever raw or processed data that is available at the point of request to the police to aid their work,” added Ms Sim.
“It is in the public interest for the police to have access to such data. The police must be able to pursue all available information and leads to bring perpetrators of crime to justice and to protect (the) public’s safety and security.”
Several MPs expressed concerns over the well-being and autonomy of individuals with mental health concerns.
Under the Bill, the Director-General of Community Relations will be able to make an application to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) to issue a Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) in the cases of individuals with mental health conditions. The CDRT can issue an MTO if it believes that the individual’s acts of unreasonable interference stem from an underlying psychiatric condition.
Mr Tong said earlier that an MTO was intended to address the root cause of an act. An MTO will be issued as a last resort, and the priority would still be to persuade residents to attend treatment voluntarily.
NMP Syed Harun Alhabsyi pointed out that this was the first time an MTO was being introduced as part of resolving community disputes. He noted how MTOs were used in court during sentencing, where an offender is mandated to seek psychiatric treatment.
He asked if the minister could share why it opted to include an MTO in community disputes, and how its application will differ from the courts. 
“If it is the case that the Community Relations Officer is already authorised, with or without consent, to remove items of public risk and concern … is this not sufficient to address and then resolve the community dispute, rather than adding on a (further order) for the person to be sentenced to mandatory treatment?” he asked. 
He suggested that an MTO may encroach into a person’s autonomy to decide on treatment, as there are individuals who choose not to be treated for a variety of reasons. 
Where an interference has been mitigated sufficiently, an individual should be given the right to decide whether he or she wants treatment, said Dr Syed Harun. 
“We can encourage, we can help the person see reason for treatment and we can facilitate such a possibility, but to make it legally mandatory and enforceable is something rather different in my view.”
Likewise, Assoc Prof Razwana concurred that ordering an individual to undergo MTO was “a significant step” which required sensitive handling. 
She asked how the need for such treatment would be determined, and by whom. 
“It is crucial that any approach to mandatory treatment is balanced with the rights and wellbeing of the individual involved. We must ensure that the focus remains on resolution and rehabilitation, rather than stigmatisation,” said Assoc Prof Razwana. 
In reply, Mr Tong said that the authorities would facilitate assessment and treatment of an individual with psychiatric conditions in a consensual environment as far as possible.
He said: “Empowering the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals to make an MTO in civil proceedings with the constraints I had set out earlier allows the root cause of the issue to be tackled early on and upstream.”
“So we believe that if we can treat the root cause early on, upfront, without bringing the person through the criminal process and in the process, possibly stigmatising him and the family even more, then as far as we can, we should,” Mr Tong added. 
He also said that the enactment of an MTO framework outside of the criminal framework is not new, with similar frameworks existing under the Protection from Harassment Act and the Women’s Charter. 
In response to MP Patrick Tay’s (PAP-Pioneer) question on the duration of treatment under an MTO, Mr Tong said this would depend on the context and circumstances of each case, but it will not exceed 36 months. An appointed psychiatrist will recommend the duration based on his professional judgment as part of the report to the CDRT. 
MPs also raised questions over what kind of qualifications Community Relations Officers (CROs) will be required to have.
MP Dennis Tan (WP-Hougang) asked what is the training that is required to qualify as one.
He noted that the proposed section 13C allows the director-general to appoint three types of personnel to be CROs – police officers, public officers and an officer or statutory board employees.
“I find it odd that the criteria to be a CRO as listed in this Bill, is not by way of specified training or qualification but as long as a person (who) holds one of the appointments specified,” said Mr Tan.
“Certainly, there is a whole range of public employees doing a wide range of work from clerical, administrative to operations across different types of agencies. The criteria can be more clearly defined.”
To prevent individuals who face prejudice from being unfairly labelled as “nuisances”, Mr Tay asked if CROs will receive “culturally informed” training or training on how to approach individuals with mental health conditions with sensitivity.
In response, Ms Sim said that CRU (Community Relations Unit) currently comprises 15 “full-time dedicated” public officers trained in investigation and basic mediation. A number of them have experience in law enforcement and will undergo training to identify and support those with mental health needs.
“CROs and ACROs (Auxiliary Community Relations Officers) will be full-time public officers because CRU serves a public function with enforcement powers,” she added.
“We do not intend to appoint volunteers such as grassroots leaders to serve as CROs and ACROs. But for avoidance of doubt, CROs and ACROs can, of course, like other public officers choose to volunteer in their own time as long as it does not clash with their public duties.”
Earlier in the day, Ms Sim said that the CRU is aiming to begin pilot operations from the second quarter of 2025, starting with Tampines. 
Tampines was chosen due to its average caseload compared to other towns in Singapore, said Ms Sim. 
However, several MPs raised questions and concerns on whether the Bill can be expanded to operate beyond Tampines. 
Workers’ Party (WP) chair Sylvia Lim said that it is “somewhat disappointing” that the CRU will be activated in Tampines Town on a one-year pilot, and questioned when it could be rolled out to the rest of the country. 
“Is there a timeline for the CRU to be rolled out nationwide? I can think of a few chronic cases in my ward where the CRU could potentially make a big difference, and a wait of several years will be hard to explain,” Ms Lim said. 
Other MPs said that the CRU should go beyond noise and hoarding complaints, and also include other types of disputes such as disagreement over placing of articles outside homes, behavioral issues and smoking. 
WP’s vice chair Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap suggested that the Community Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA) should not just handle conflicts between housing units, but should include commercial units located in HDB blocks. 
He shared how several flat owners in his constituency have complained about a bakery on the ground floor affecting their quality of life due to heat, odours and early morning noise.
“This Act does not include situations where there is a dispute between a flat owner who is neighbour with the owner or tenant of a commercial unit in the same block within 100m of the place where the respondent’s residence is located.”