Take responsibility for settling disputes
Play
The suggestion of compulsory mediation for warring neighbours unable to resolve their differences signals the difficulty faced by community peacemakers caught between a rock and a hard place. When neighbours are overwhelmed by a need to put someone in the
Certainly, it makes good sense to encourage contending parties to resolve neighbourhood spats by themselves, failing which they could be asked to approach a Community Mediation Centre. But since this step is voluntary, people can choose not to do so, weakening the dispute resolution framework. The numbers cause discomfiture: 30 per cent of cases handled by the centre have not been resolved successfully.
This is where the element of compulsion envisaged in the proposed scheme will possess a deterrent effect. Those who disobey orders given after mediation may be prosecuted. Of course, prosecution should be the last resort because it will leave an aftertaste that will continue to embitter relations between the quarrelling parties. Indeed, the mechanism itself should be used sparingly and only after other avenues have been exhausted. If not, a vexatious neighbour might abuse the process to haul others up needlessly for mandatory sessions. The bar should be set high, with referral to compulsory mediation being reserved for intractable cases. If egregiously abusive behaviour by one side attracts a backlash from the other and leads to an escalation that corrodes the social environment, it would be unwise to let it continue.
If a new government tribunal for mandatory mediation is set up, it should have sufficient powers to make it a viable authority. Perhaps it can also play a part in articulating and codifying evolving norms of conduct supported by fair-minded Singaporeans to moderate unseemly behaviour. However, if the tribunal is viewed as an opportune arena to do battle and shame someone else, then the parade of irksome cases will make a sorry spectacle.
The success of the proposed measures will hinge on how neighbourhoods concern themselves with “community interests guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others”, as philosopher Noam Chomsky put it. Then, all spats between residents will be viewed with regret and generate the best efforts of grassroots leaders to settle matters in a friendly way for the good of everyone.
The less work for the tribunal, the better.
