A woman complained about the din made by her neighbours downstairs when they sang karaoke.

They hit back by leaving their main door and windows open, and hurling vulgarities at the woman and her family. Early this year, the woman filed a claim with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) – one of almost 80 made from October last year, when it opened, to July 31.

The tribunals, which are given powers to resolve disputes between neighbours under the Community Disputes Resolution Act passed last year, received more than 930 inquiries in the same period.

These statistics were revealed yesterday by the State Courts, which oversees the tribunals, in conjunction with its first seminar on resolving community disputes. Some 300 people from government agencies and community groups attended the event.

Neighbours ‘from hell’ smoke, barbecue in common corridor

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

Stomp

As in the case of the woman and her karaoke-singing neighbours, nearly 70 of the cases included complaints about excessive noise.

Other pet peeves are littering and interfering with movable property, each forming about a quarter of the cases. There may be more than one cause of dispute for each claim.

In the case of the woman, an order was issued to the other family to close all windows and doors completely when using the karaoke machine. They were not to use the machine when her children were having examinations, if told of the exam periods.

Both parties were also not to stare at each other or make abusive comments and sounds if they met.

Before the tribunals were introduced, people turned to the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) if they could not settle disputes on their own or even with the help of grassroots leaders. But there is little the authorities can do if the neighbours do not want to make up. Some do not even turn up. The no-show rate at the CMC was about 60 per cent.

The tribunals, which have jurisdiction on claims of up to $20,000, has more teeth. For unresolved disputes, the judge may order a hearing, in which he can make certain orders, like getting a neighbour to pay damages or apologise.

Still, while the tribunals do not conduct mediation, a State Courts spokesman said parties are “strongly encouraged” to go for mediation voluntarily before filing a claim.

Those who inquire with the tribunals will be referred to a free consultation to understand court processes and consider alternatives to resolution. Even when a claim has been filed, parties may be ordered to go through mediation.

Hard life for members of hoarding family

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The New Paper, Shin Min Daily News

MPs told The Straits Times that spats between residents are common.

Said Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin: “There are often several sides to an issue, and it does take time to find solutions. Sometimes, we are not able to achieve a positive outcome.”

Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad added: “Mediation has a certain weakness to it. You can’t force parties to attend it.”

Nee Soon GRC MP Lee Bee Wah said: “It is neither practical nor desirable for most disputes to go to the CDRT. I hope most cases can continue to be resolved with compromise and consideration, with the grassroots leaders’ help.”

This article was first published on September 24, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

The Great Singapore Sale (GSS) got a new official card, a longer sales period and a more specific target audience – tourists from China. Still, it did not get shoppers to spend more.

Now, its organiser, the Singapore Retailers Association (SRA), has said it is reassessing the direction of the 23-year-old sale and plans to discuss with the tourism authority if there is even a point in continuing it.

This comes after three consecutive years of decline in retail sales during the GSS period, which took place from June 3 to Aug 14 this year.

Latest official statistics show that in July, retail sales excluding motor vehicles fell 3 per cent, compared with the same month last year. This follows a similar dip in June’s figure, which was 3 per cent lower than last year’s.

To be fair to the SRA – and as pointed out by experts – the slowing economy and weaker consumer sentiments were likely key factors in this year’s poor showing.

An obvious solution? Give steeper discounts, as suggested by some readers. But this would eat into retailers’ profits and would not be sustainable for their businesses in the long run.

Experts and shoppers have raised other ideas on how to revive the excitement for the annual sale, from holding it twice a year – one for tourists, one for locals – to lowering charges for excess baggage at the airport.

Straits Times readers said the event could also tie in with the annual F1 race, feature a mascot, and have a “pasar malam” or night-market atmosphere.

But is a revamp enough to save the GSS, and the retail industry, when fundamental problems persist?

Experts have pointed out problems with Singapore’s shopping environment, such as a lack of differentiation in malls, which mostly carry similar brands and food-and-beverage offerings.

Perhaps retailers, too, should reassess how they can stand out from their competitors and attract shoppers – whether the GSS continues or not.

mellinjm@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on September 24, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

They slapped their maid, pinched her mouth, jabbed her foot with a metal prong and even used the back of a knife to hit her hand. Whenever the bruises showed, the maid, who was left scarred and with a permanent disability in her left ear, was forced to wear a face mask.

Yesterday, the abusers, a 65-year- old woman and her daughter, were jailed for hurting the maid.

Housewife Anpalaki Muniandy Marimuthu was convicted of six charges of hurting Ms Sriyatun, 27, and imprisoned for 16 months. Her daughter, 43-year-old warehouse supervisor Jayasheela Jayaraman, was found guilty of three charges, sentenced to 12 months’ jail and ordered to pay $840 in compensation.

The duo are appealing.

District Judge Jasvender Kaur said there was a clear pattern of abuse each time the victim had done a wrong. She said Ms Sriyatun has a “cauliflower ear”, a permanent disability, due to both women slapping her left ear.

Jayasheela first slapped Ms Sriyatun on the ear as the maid had not carried her employer’s shoes into the family’s Bendemeer Road flat one evening in 2012. She slapped the maid’s hand when she tried to cover her ear as a result of the pain. Later that night, she slapped the maid’s hand again when the latter was massaging her ear.

The Indonesian woman, who has a six-year-old son, testified that the pair pinched her swollen ear before it healed, and that it hardened.

Read also: ‘Maids are not their slaves’

Some time in 2013, Jayasheela grabbed her breast, squeezed and twisted it for being slow in her work.

On Oct 24 that year, a day before Ms Sriyatun decided to flee, Jayasheela dragged her into the bedroom, demanding to know why she had disturbed her then seven- year-old son. She pinched the corner of the maid’s mouth and knocked her head twice with her hand. The assault caused her mouth to bleed and left a 2cm teeth imprint over her inner upper lip.

The court heard Anpalaki hurt Ms Sriyatun with household objects on a few occasions. Once, in November 2012, she jabbed the maid’s foot with the sharp base of an aluminium prong for taking her son’s shoes into the unit while she was praying. The maid’s foot bled profusely and she was left with a 2cm scar.

In another incident in 2013, Anpalaki used the back of a kitchen knife to hit the maid’s left hand and a rolling pin to hit both her hands a few times. She also used a wooden prong to hit her thighs.

When police visited the family’s unit on Oct 25, 2013, they saw Ms Sriyatun wearing a face mask and shower cap. She said that whenever she was hit by either of them or had an injury, she was made to wear the mask.

Deputy Public Prosecutor James Chew said the maid felt so mentally tortured that she tried to kill herself. “The fact that the accused persons had egregiously abused their authority and exploited the vulnerability of the victim is a significant aggravating factor that warrants a strong deterrent sentence,” he said.

The maximum penalty for causing hurt to a domestic worker is three years’ jail and a $7,500 fine per charge.

This article was first published on September 24, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

The passion in the public discussion on the proposed changes to the elected presidency is palpable. This is not surprising as the issues involve multiracialism and meritocracy, which are core principles that Singapore upholds as a society.

Next month, the Government will table a Bill that encompasses changes to the elected presidency. Parliament will debate the Bill during its second reading in November.

How should policymakers and the public approach the discussions in the next two months? Here are my suggestions on ways to make a positive difference in the discourse:

PERCEPTIONS

First, we must remember that perceptions matter. We need to recognise that issues relating to the elected presidency are complex because they are interrelated. A decision on an issue can lead to benefits and positive multiplier effects, or unintended negative consequences.

The fact (or perception) that many issues are intertwined makes it difficult to look at the issue through a single lens and to evaluate the arguments for or against a proposed change or position. Instead, we must understand that people’s views on the issues are likely to be affected by human psychological processes.

Discussions on the elected presidency are not just political or legal in nature, but are social and emotional as well. After all, the presidency is an institution that is meant to symbolise the unity of the nation. When an institution (and a person) is invested with such values and aspirations, it is not surprising that debate about changes to it can become heated.

Policymakers and citizens alike must thus realise that people may be unduly influenced by what is salient at the moment, such as a sound bite in the media. They may focus on the immediate past and imminent future, such as the previous presidential election and the next, rather than longer timeframes. They may also make inferences based on what the changes mean for specific individuals and concrete cases, rather than consider more abstract issues, such as how the changes will affect the system of governance or future changes in government.

And it is human to selectively seek out information and interpret it in a way to support preconceived ideas.

So for the public and policymakers alike, it is important to discuss issues frankly and keep an open mind.

Singaporeans – both the people and the Government – aspire to, and demand, a high standard of integrity in public and political service. This explains why one proposed change is for potential presidential candidates to have their character and reputation assessed more stringently by the Presidential Elections Committee. This proposal is based on the value of integrity. It complements the other proposals to raise the eligibility criteria relating to financial and executive management which, while relevant to technical competence and ability, may not predict integrity.

SOCIAL HARMONY

Second, social harmony must be kept paramount in discussions on the elected presidency. Social harmony has always been a shared value underlying Singapore’s efforts to address differences, especially when multiracial issues are involved. It should guide how changes to the elected presidency are reviewed and discussed, and how differences in views are expressed and managed.

For the public and policymakers, social harmony should be a key consideration when they decide, if and when, to advocate a position, support a policy option or implement it. This is most relevant when there are reasons to believe that the positions or policy options have a risk of negatively affecting race relations and social cohesion.

Threats to cohesion occur when policies or public actions send signals – sometimes unintentionally – that one race is assumed inferior or unfairly advantaged as compared to another.

This leads to intergroup suspicion, tension and misunderstanding. There may also be negative individual or community effects on beliefs about perceived efficacy and self or public image. All these may eventually result in conflict, or civic and political disengagement.

When the shared value of social harmony is salient, individuals, groups and policymakers have a common and constructive basis to discuss issues of individualism versus collectivism, and group versus national interests.

Social harmony is especially relevant when discussing the need for a reserved election for a particular race and how the “hiatus-triggered” provision is consistent with Singapore’s multiracialism and meritocratic ideals, or not.

Racial communities in Singapore have been living in harmony and in a way that is consistent with both multiracialism and meritocracy simultaneously. This precious societal asset that enables social cohesion must be preserved.

Like interpersonal trust and trust in government, social cohesion is difficult to build but easy to lose, and, once lost, is difficult to restore. We should appreciate why people are anxious about the proposal to reserve an election for a race if no person of that race has been president after five continuous terms, and encourage honest discussions and seriously consider how the reserved election compares with alternative options.

In this way, people from all communities can be assured and will express their concerns honestly. Sensitive issues that need to be surfaced will not be self-suppressed out of fear of alleged racism.

FAIRNESS

Third, we must understand that people will assess the proposed elected presidency changes according to whether they think the changes are fair. As I wrote in a previous article, people perceive fairness on four dimensions: outcomes, processes, performance and access to opportunities.

Changes to the elected presidency will be seen by citizens as fair if:

It results in an outcome where capable candidates with integrity are deemed eligible to contest, and the contest produces a president with capability and integrity.

If the process to determine eligible candidates has clear and objective criteria, and they are consistently applied.

If citizens can see that those who perform well are rewarded, based on objective assessment.

If citizens can see that everyone eligible has equal access to the contest. The consideration here is whether the access is unduly decreased, or increased, because of group membership or societal situations beyond the individual’s control, and independent of effort and true potential.

In other words, people will assess the proposed changes to the elected presidency based on whether they provide an objective means of evaluating a potential candidate, and whether they think the changes hobble some individuals while privileging others.

MOVING FORWARD

Bearing in mind that feelings and perceptions matter, that people want processes to be fair, and social harmony is paramount, how should the parliamentary debate and public discussion proceed?

If social harmony is paramount, then we must make sure that political scapegoating and squabbles do not dominate the discourse.

Such rhetoric may be entertaining but the impact can be adverse. It will not only create confusion but also cause cynicism. It can even divide Singapore society and threaten the cohesion built up over the years.

Everyone contributing to the discussion should be constructive. The following are some concrete steps that can shed light in the heat of passionate debate.

Get the facts right and make them clear. Verify claims. Identify false beliefs, and dispel myths and misinformation. Explicate and emphasise the facts. Start by reading the government White Paper.

Distinguish between laws and values. What is not illegal and what can be passed as laws may not always coincide with what is acceptable by people socially or psychologically, or what they consider morally right or fair.

See things from another’s perspective because feelings and perceptions matter. Find out from the various communities what is important or acceptable to them, what they think, how they feel and when they would or would not do something. Ask to find out their concerns and circumstances. Never just assume and attribute.

When making judgments on potential policy outcomes and the psychological impact on people, distinguish between theory and practice. When something is theoretically possible, consider the extent to which it is practically plausible. Good science, context-sensitivity and representative feedback from the people are critical here.

Frankly discuss implications of policy options and consider how likely they are to achieve the intended national goals or result in unintended negative consequences. In the light of new information or circumstances, have the intellectual honesty and political courage to change one’s current position.

If all parties take a constructive approach when considering the proposed changes to the elected presidency, it is possible to evolve a system of governance that benefits Singapore and Singaporeans.

A look at the presidents of Singapore

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The Straits Times, Zawiyah Salleh, New Nation, Wee Kim Wee, The Business Times, The New Paper, The Ong family, Lianhe Zaobao

stopinion@sph.com.sg

-The writer is director of the Behavioural Sciences Institute, Lee Kuan Yew Fellow and professor of psychology at the Singapore Management University.

This article was first published on September 24, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.