Oral answer by Ministry of National Development on Community Relations Unit
Oct 14, 2025
Question No. 507 (by Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat) and Question No. 593 (by Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik)
Question No. 507: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what criteria distinguishes a severe noise dispute qualifying for Community Relations Unit intervention; and (b) given that the one-year pilot in Tampines handled only five severe cases while not deploying noise sensors, what is the Ministry’s assessment of (i) the unit’s efficacy and (ii) whether its enforcement powers are operationally useful.
Question No. 593: To ask the Minister for National Development since the pilot launch of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) in April 2025 (a) how many cases have been resolved or closed by the CRU; and (b) what the Ministry’s assessment of the effectiveness of the CRU is in addressing severe neighbour disputes involving noise and hoarding.
Answer:
Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to take Questions 10 and 11 on today’s Order Paper together please? Sir, my answer will also address similar questions filed for Oral Answer by MPs Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Foo Cexiang, Dr Charlene Chen and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin scheduled for the sittings on 15, 16 and 17 October, and the questions filed for Written Answer by MPs Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Dr Charlene Chen for the sittings on 14, 15 and 16 October.
Sir, when neighbours engage in a dispute, our priority is to bring them together, to understand each other’s perspectives and needs, and then also, try to find a mutually acceptable solution. It is neither desirable for our community spirit, nor sustainable, for Government to step in as a first response for all disputes between neighbours.
The CRU framework strikes a balance between 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.
So the CRU has a range of investigatory and enforcement powers, including the power to install noise sensors. Now, these noise sensors are used as a confirmatory tool, after CRU’s initial investigations narrow down from which unit the noise nuisance might be coming from. In the five cases in the pilot town in Tampines the CRU has investigated since April this year, noise sensors were not required because either the noise-makers gave formal statements that confirmed they were the source of noise, or the source of noise was clear and unambiguous.
The CRU framework is a useful step forward but its implementation requires significant amounts of resources. Therefore, it is piloted in one town first, Tampines, focusing on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. And we are reviewing this pilot carefully, to ensure our systems and processes are effective and we have resourced it correctly and sustainably, before we extend CRU services to other towns.
As Minister Edwin Tong and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann explained in their Second Reading Speeches in Nov 2024, CRU focuses on severe cases that frontline agencies like HDB and the Police have triaged and escalated to it. Now these cases represent a small proportion of all disputes between neighbours. They can include cases where:
- One neighbour is deliberately making excessive noise at unreasonable hours and or over prolonged periods of time to cause suffering to surrounding neighbours and when prior mediation has not been successful
- Severe cases with a mental health nexus are another example
Of the three mental health-related cases CRU is dealing with, it has facilitated inpatient admission and treatment for one, and more consistent follow-up with the community for the other two.
The one case involving deliberate use of noise to disturb neighbours, and not related to mental health, has abated after joint intervention by CRU, Police and the Town Council. CRU will continue to take on severe cases in Tampines that frontline agencies escalate to it.
Now as a deterrent and a last resort after exhausting all levers, CRU may refer the most severe and recalcitrant nuisance-makers to HDB, to consider Compulsory Acquisition of their flats. Now we will take this course of action only after due care and careful consideration.
For new BTO developments since Feb 2023, HDB has increased the thickness of floor slabs to 200mm. This has reduced inter-floor noise transmission by up to 5dB. For existing flats, the scope for major infrastructure changes is limited. Nevertheless, residents can practise simple steps to reduce inter-floor noise. They can for example, place rubber padding or “chair socks” on the legs of furniture. HDB will also continue to explore other possible solutions through R&D.
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.
Ultimately, we need strong community bonds, strong community norms, so fewer disputes will arise. Where they do arise, parties involved are more likely to resolve their differences in an amicable and mutually acceptable manner, if these norms and practices are strong. This is an outcome worth working towards, as a we-first society.