GSH Plaza Commercial Office For Sale at Raffles Place Dist 1 Prime Office New Launch with Grade A office features
If neighbours can't settle disputes, law will step in
Tribunal will determine unreasonable behaviour based on facts of each case
WHAT counts as unreasonable behaviour in longstanding disputes was a key concern raised by several MPs yesterday as they debated a law to resolve difficult arguments between neighbours. Parliament passed the Community Disputes Resolution Bill yesterday.
Under the Bill, residents can haul recalcitrant neighbours who have "unreasonably interfered with their enjoyment of their residence" to a tribunal specialising in community dispute resolution cases. Such unreasonable interference includes causing excessive noise, smell, smoke, light or vibration, and littering near or obstructing the neighbour's home. But what is unreasonable, or excessive?
Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC) recounted an unhappy pregnant resident's complaint that the constant smell of cigarette smoke from her neighbour living one level below her flat would affect her unborn child. She asked: "Smoking at home, what is wrong with that?
Does the Bill solve such a problem?" Added Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC): "There will always be clear cases, but there's also going to be a vast pool of very, very grey cases." Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong assured the House that the tribunal will determine what constitutes unreasonable and excessive behaviour "based on the facts of each case, using a commonsensical approach and the light of everyday experience".
"They will take into context our unique multiracial and multicultural context, in considering what is reasonable and excessive." Over the two-hour debate, 14 MPs spoke on issues from dealing with residents with mental illnesses to preventing vindictive neighbours from abusing the process.
The MPs, all of whom supported the Bill, said that turning to the tribunal should be a last resort. In reply, Mr Wong made it clear that the tribunal is, in fact, meant as the last resort to resolve difficult private disputes.
"Their first recourse should be for the individuals concerned to take responsibility of the issues, to speak to each other and to strive to resolve the issue amicably," he said. Should informal mediation be unsuccessful, the tribunal can order residents to attend mandatory mediation sessions at the Community Mediation Court.
Mr Wong said this feature of the Bill addresses some current limitations to mediation. About 60 per cent of residents do not show up for mediation, as it has not been compulsory, he added. Offensive acts cited in the Bill also include surveillance of, and trespassing on, a neighbour's home.
Offenders can be ordered to pay damages of up to $20,000, or apologise, for instance. Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East) said the Bill should "balance the respect for each individual's privacy in the sanctuary of their personal space, and the common interest of other residents living together in the community".
At least six MPs also asked how the tribunal would address residents with mental illnesses. Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade GRC) recounted a case of a resident who accused her neighbour of taking and producing drugs, and continued to press the authorities to charge her neighbour even after they had investigated and found the neighbour innocent.
Existing laws and procedures regarding mentally ill persons will continue to apply, said Mr Wong. If a neighbour suspected of mental illness breaches a community dispute order, the court can order his family member to enter into a bond with the condition that he goes for medical treatment.
Mr Patrick Tay (Nee Soon GRC) and Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam suggested ways to improve access to the tribunal. Mr Tay said it should accommodate dialect speakers, and Mrs Chiam suggested void decks could be mediation venues. The tribunal will take cases from the second half of this year.
charyong@sph.com.sg
By Charissa Yong
The Straits Times - Home
Published on Mar 14, 2015 1:02 AM
Additional reporting by Kok Xing Hui
邻里纠纷仲裁庭下半年开始审理
新的邻里纠纷解决法案昨天在国会三读通过。黄循财部长说，制定新法案有三大目标，包括提供法律途径对付非常顽固难缠的个案；通过调解取得和解继续是仲裁庭的关键角色；第三是借助有力的执法机制，对付死不悔改的反社会分子。
谢燕燕 报道
2015年03月14日
新的邻里纠纷解决法案昨天在国会三读通过，政府将在国家法院设立邻里纠纷仲裁庭，专门审理棘手难缠，甚至陷入僵局的邻里纠纷。
文化、社区及青年部长兼通讯及新闻部第二部长黄循财透露，新的邻里纠纷仲裁庭（Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals）预计能在今年下半年投入运作，开始审理邻里纠纷。
共有14名议员昨天在邻里纠纷解决法案（Community Disputes Resolution Bill）二读辩论时发言支持新法案，但也表达了一些疑虑，包括“无理滋扰”（unreasonable interference）如何定义，担心仲裁庭设下太多细微的案件先例，让大家活得很不自在等。
黄循财说，生活在人口密集的新加坡，邻居之间产生摩擦时有所闻，像噪音、气味，甚至是公共空间如走廊的使用，都可能是导因，导致邻居间关系恶化。
他说，调解可以帮助纠纷双方找到彼此能接受的解决方案，但调解有其局限，而愿意接受调解只是解决问题的第一步。虽然社区调解中心处理的案件中，70％能圆满化解，其余却没有解决。更重要的是，社区调解中心每年接到1500起邻里纠纷个案，当中900起的当事人根本不出席调解会，占了所有案件的60％。
黄循财说，制定新法案有三大目标，包括提供法律途径对付非常顽固难缠的个案；通过调解取得和解继续是仲裁庭的关键角色；第三是借助有力的执法机制，对付死不悔改的反社会分子。
新法案允许受害者以邻居的“无理滋扰”构成“侵权行为”，妨碍自己享受家居空间作为前提，对邻居提出告诉。黄循财说，仲裁庭将有权决定什么是“无理滋扰”，例如一个人不可能要求邻居的孩子不吵闹，但如果邻居的孩子深夜还在击鼓，而且天天如此，那就是“无理滋扰”。
仲裁庭可以命令答辩人赔偿受害者损失、发出禁止令要答辩人停止某种行为、向受害人道歉、或者发出其他命令等。黄循财说，为了不要过度严苛，滋扰邻居的一方有两次机会，如果屡次不服从庭令，才会严厉执法，面对罚款或狱刑。
遇到特别严重的滋扰事件，受害者还可以申请禁门令（Exclusion Order），把滋扰者逐出居所。
黄循财强调，到仲裁庭解决邻里纠纷是迫不得已的最后途径，仲裁庭只会审理已经尝试过各种调解途径的案件。如果其中一方有意调解，但另一方坚持不肯接受调解，仲裁庭也可勒令双方先接受强制性调解。
邻里纠纷仲裁庭将由地方法官主审案件，涉及纠纷的两造将在法官引导下陈词，也不公开审理。
黄循财说，仲裁庭审讯的费用将比一般民事诉讼便宜，因为程序相对简化，而且不允许律师参与，除非双方和仲裁庭都同意可以聘用律师。但是为了确保每人都能得到法律的公正对待，未成年者、年长者、不识字者、患有精神疾病或身体不适者能够由第三者代为陈词。
政府也会加强社区调解纠纷的能力。黄循财说，社区调解中心至今已训练600名基层领袖当非正式调解员，中心目前有162名社区调解员，当中65人是拥有九年至16年经验的特级调解员（Master Mediators）。
国会已经休会。
No comments:
Post a Comment