Forum: When mediation fails, neighbours need to be protected from escalating disputes
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
I was saddened to read about the death following a dispute between neighbours at Block 55 Lengkok Bahru (Man, 59, dies after fight between neighbours in Lengkok Bahru; one person arrested, July 21). According to reports, residents described a longstanding feud.
The incident raises an important question: Are our current law enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms adequately equipped to prevent neighbour conflicts from spiralling out of control?
I, too, had an episode with a neighbour in 2025.
Within the first week of our moving into the condominium, the police visited our home four times after the next-door neighbour complained about “excessive noise”.
Our children were simply practising the piano at around 3pm. Each attending officer concluded that we had done nothing wrong. We even installed additional soundproofing, but the complaints continued.
After I warned the neighbour that repeated unfounded police reports could amount to harassment, the complaints shifted to our condominium’s security team.
Matters later escalated. Loud, disturbing sounds were played late at night or when our children practised on the piano. When we sought police assistance, we were told that our neighbour was entitled to play music and that we could only continue filing police reports.
The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals was not a practical solution either. Mediation was a prerequisite before a claim could be filed, but our neighbour repeatedly failed to attend. Pursuing civil action under the Protection from Harassment Act would have been lengthy, expensive and unlikely to restore a workable living relationship.
What surprised us most was discovering that several adjacent households had experienced similar treatment over the previous two years. One by one, they gave in. Eventually, we did the same, forfeiting three months’ rent simply to restore peace for our family.
Cases leading to death may be rare, but they may also obscure the many neighbour disputes that never reach the headlines, with victims giving up or tolerating the persistent distress.
Perhaps it is time to review whether our current framework gives law enforcement and the courts sufficient flexibility to distinguish genuine neighbourhood disagreements from persistent patterns of intimidation.
Earlier intervention in such cases could protect law-abiding residents, reduce repeated demands on police resources and, in the most serious situations, prevent seemingly minor disputes from becoming irreversible tragedies.
Goh Jong Mun
