Content

32 Citizen                       16 Authority
31 News                         15 Question
30 Dissent                      14 Comment
29 Ombudsman               13 Encounter
28 Overview                     12 Ethics
27 Committee                  11 Public
26 President                    10 Civics
25 Integrity                       09 Discovery
24 Proving                        08 Record
23 Behaviour                     07 Plea
22 Reason                        06 Prospect
21 Evidence                      05 Pervasive Case
20 Quote                          04 Neighbour
19 Case                           03 Officers
18 Justice                        02 Short Version
17 Petition                       01 Report

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Citizen

1. Who is to say the noise from the neighbour would not cause the owner to have a nervous breakdown? Especially when he is targeted.

2. Nature of the noise at times are loud, sharp and heavy; types of sound are ramble, knock, thump and others; and, in connection with their work, a noisy drainpipe. Noise is through the day including early morning and late at night. Workers are seen, and there is collaboration with officers.

3. It has been going on for years despite complaints to the authorities. In fact the complaints is cause for the officers to force the owner out of his flat. They could not be disciplined because of their connection, and the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour is part of their strategy.

4. Noise may be reduced for a time after the owner had seen a MP or when he posted in his blog, but there has been no let up in their work. Noise is reduced considerably after he wrote to the President in Sep 11 just after the presidential election. The email to the President is the seventh post counting back or five periods of observation.

5. To a casual observer the noise may have seemed acceptable for two weeks after the Administrative Service dinner referred to in the previous post, but the noise has increased. Over the next four weeks some days are better and others worse. Better, because noise is muffled and less frequent. Worse, where ramble, knock, thump, drag, and drain are heard clearly and frequent. Previously rest day and public holiday were usually worse but, of the five public holidays last week, the two at Labour Day were worse and the three after at Vesak were better. They would maintain a level, start up, reduce for a time being when asked, but not stop, having persisted coming to five years now. The administration in government may not have sufficiently deterred them.

6. It is unconscionable to allow the neighbour to carry on. For a long time noise was undisguised, which forced the owner to leave his flat. The owner went to see his MPs about ten times then wrote a blog. When facts were line up including actions by insiders, it showed the neighbour and officers collaborated. These were listed and explained under various contexts. Yet the problem is not resolve. The neighbour continues with their work because HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) is in a position to use his influence, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watches out for them.

7. Thump and ramble could only be from machine-tools, and the noise for hours each day could only be from a trade. It was not that they were not found out, rather the owner was blocked from bringing the case forward. Why the authorities have not taken action has been shown in a letter and two emails to the President.

8. The owner also wrote to the Police, PSC, MND and HDB; and he informed through his blog the media, companies, people he found in the government directory and, where he could find their email addresses, citizens in general. He did it after seeing his MPs many times over a year.

9. It may seems the administration in government is overly legalistic by being silent, but it implies more. The connections between the officers, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, and the neighbour are telling. If there were nothing, the authorities would have said so and put a stop to an issue the owner had brought up many times to support his case. Silence means not disclosing, which muddles the issue, shields the officers, and allows the neighbour to go on.

10. When rules make no allowance for how it is to be used, there is no justice and equality. It is not neutrality either. In the case, HBO answered all letters MPs wrote to HDB even after it was made clear to him it was intended for HDB, and HDB gave no direction nor conducted investigation.

11. In any case the government should respond. Impartial conduct, standard procedure, and authority of the state are values that would apply. Until the owner wrote to the President after the presidential election, he was like a hostage having to cope with the noise as best as he could.

12. Democracy is supposed to create the conditions where ordinary citizens could find their voice. There is no freedom when its citizens would not speak up against wrongdoing because they have reservation about speaking up.

13. Citizenship Richard Bellamy, A Very Short Introduction series

Now any reasonably stable and efficient political framework, even one presided by a ruthless tyrant, will provide us some of these benefits. For example, think of the increased uncertainty and insecurity suffered by many Iraqi citizens as a result of the lack of an effective political order following the toppling of Saddam Hussein. However, those possessing no great wealth, power, or influence – the vast majority of people in other words – will not be satisfied with just any framework. They will want one that applies to all – including the government- and treats everyone impartially and as equals, no matter how rich or important they may be. In particular, they will want its provisions to provide a just basis for all to enjoy the freedom to purse their lives as they choose on equal terms with everyone else, and in so far as is compatible with their having a reasonable amount of personal security through the maintenance of an appropriate degree of social and political stability. And a necessary, if not always a sufficient, condition for ensuring the laws and policies of a political community possess these characteristics is that the country is a working electoral democracy and that citizens participate in making it so. Apart from anything else, political involvement helps citizens shape what this framework should look like. People are likely to disagree about what equality, freedom, and security involve and the best policies to support them in given circumstances. Democracy offers the potential for citizens to debate these issues on roughly equal terms and to come to some appreciation of each other’s views and interests. It also promotes government that is responsible to their evolving concerns and changing conditions by giving politicians an incentive to rule in ways that reflect and advance not their own interests but those of most citizens.

Above all, the appeal of a society of civic equals who share in fashioning their collective life remains a powerful one. Citizenship informs and gives effect to central features of our social morality. It underlies our whole sense of self-worth, affecting in the process the ways one treat others and are treated by them. It stands behind the commitment to rights and the appreciation of cultural diversity that are among the central moral achievements of the late 20th and 21th centuries. It has become fashionable to try and detach these effects of citizenship from any involvement in politics or democracy. What I hope to have shown in this book is that that is not possible. Citizenship and democratic politics stand and fall together. To seek to divorce the two undermines not just the possibility of political citizenship, but the values associated with the very idea of citizenship itself. The reinvigoration of citizenship, therefore, depends on revitalizing rather than diminishing political participation and with it the sense of belonging and the commitment to rights that are its prime benefits.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: News

The Straits Times of 28 Mar 12.

 

Govt must not shy away from hard decisions: DPM

Engagement is part of policy process but there are trade-offs, he says

 

Mr Teo, who is also the Minister in charge of the Civil Service, Coordinating Minister for National Security, and Home Affairs Minister, was speaking at the Administrative Service dinner during which 74 Administrative Service officers received their promotion certificates.

 

Rather than grapple with whether to do more or less, Government should “focus on doing the right things, and doing these things right”, he said.

 

But the greater challenge as Mr Teo saw it was in performing these roles in the right way. This called for civil servants to take a long-term perspective, and ensure whole-of-Government coherence when complex issues no longer fell within neat domains.

 

Public service standing ‘hurt by recent events’

Individual failings must not lead to systemic lapses: Civil service head

 

The Head of the civil service said at the annual Administrative Service dinner, “It makes some wonder if the public service and the values we esponse are being eroded. There are officers who have felt let down by these episodes. I share the same disappointment.”

 

Mr Peter Ong, who is also Permanent Secretary for Finance and for Special Duties in the Prime Minister’s Office said of recent cases of cheating by officers and others being investigated for alleged misconduct. He was probably referring to an on-going investigation into alleged misconduct by the former Chiefs of Singapore Civil Defence Force and Central Narcotics Bureau; and the jailing of two Singapore Land Authority senior executives for cheating government agencies of more than $12 million.

 

Mr Ong also spoke of changes in public expectations, observing that from 2007 to last year, feedback to government feedback unit Reach and to the Land Transport Authority increased by 200 per cent.

 

When feedback relates to issues that do not fall neatly into any one agency’s work, officers must “deal with the public’s immediate needs first and then sort out inter-agency issues backend.”

 

2. As usual, the owner reads between the lines whether the speeches fit his case.

 

3. There were evasions. After trying to call up the branch office, the owner called the OIC (Officer-in-Charge) who said the office did not receive his second letter. The owner then went to the office with a handwritten copy, asked for an acknowledgment, and insisted on a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office). The acknowledgment was a signed photocopy of the letter but two lines were missing from a page. The lines pointed to OIC having an arrangement with the neighbour. During the meeting with HBO and OIC, HBO asked the owner whether he knew of a recent transfer of the neighbour’s flat to throw him off. The transfer was likely to be in ’99 just after an eviction, which was about nine years ago and not a recent event.

 

4. At the first Meet-the-People Session (MPS), the owner handed over a letter to the interviewer who pointed to HBO in the letter when asked what he would do since no MP was present, and he gave his name as that of his brother when asked. His brother who lived in the same block of flat as the owner was later shown to be in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.

 

5. The owner wrote to the MP and met him at the second MPS. He said he would attach the owner’s letters to HDB. HBO’s reply was not to refer to the issues raised but that the owner may engaged his solicitors.

 

6. The owner went to see the MPs about ten times that involved HBO himself, his officers, community centre members, residents committee members, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour but each time HBO replied for the owner to seek assistance elsewhere. Later, the owner blogged and he wrote directly to the police, higher authorities and the President.

 

7. The collaboration between the officers and neighbour is likely to continue since no overt action is taken.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Dissent

11 Feb 2012

President
Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823

Dear Sir,

Officers Colluded With Neighbour

1. I wrote to the President on 1 Feb 10 and 15 Sep 11, each time the President’s Office referred me to the police. Despite stating the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watched out for the neighbour, the police still posed the problem as only between the neighbour and myself. I also wrote to PSC and HDB since they are directly responsible for the officers. They did not give a reply.

2. The case has features of whistleblowing. I would not have noticed the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour if someone in the same flat had not stopped the neighbour many years earlier, and someone sent me a bcc between HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and Residents Committee chairman that indicated they met in the flat across the neighbour. At a Meet-the-People Session one Community Centre member introduced me to another who lived at my block of flat to talk about the noise, and two other meetings with the latter indicated he had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.

3.It seemed a plan was underway when loud noise for a number of days signalled the start of work in ’07. I wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office about a maid who was only removed at the same time a poster appeared on the noticeboard at my block.The poster showed a maid at a coffeeshop saying she was only allowed to work at the address she was registered in. Someone other than the Branch Office took action a number of months after my complaint and indicated by putting up the poster.

4. Because I complained, the neighbour together with the officers retaliated with noise to force me to leave my flat. In the meantime the officers kept their silence on issues raised in the complaint and waited for me to slip up. They would, however, repeatedly referred me to the Community Mediation Centre where, if they succeeded, would confine and leave me without an audience.

5. King (1999) stipulated that variation in organizational structure would have a direct impact on organizational dissent, particularly whistleblowing. He postulated that in centralized-vertical-bureaucratic organization where dissent is met with retaliation or ignored, fewer channels exist for expressing dissent and employees believe they can exercise little influence. As a result employees tend to express dissent externally. Conversely, in hybrid structure, where decision-making is decentralized among business units while administrative functions remain centralized, communication and exchange of information flows without difficulty between divisions and upper management. King stipulated that in these arrangements, dissent should be expressed internally within organization.

Accordingly, we can see that dissent may be ineffectual and risky, fundamental to participation, key to shaping organizational culture, reflective of organizational discourse, or instrumental to identity enactment.

Dissent in OrganizationJeffery Kassing (2011), Pg 132 and 70.

6. Cabinet Office may have taken a step in the direction when PM announced after the general election that Ministers would have a free hand to think and reshape policies.

7. The neighbour is able to continue over the years because of backing from the officers. It allows the neighbour to carry on as usual even though the motive of the officers and neighbour were known and shown to be early on. Admitting the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour is an evidence is embarrassing. If not, where is the justice?

8. At the moment light knock, low rambling and muffled thump are heard although the noise is less than in the period covered by the previous post. The general reduction over the last four peiods covered may be seen as a concession by the neighbour. They use their flat as a work place rather than as a space to live in, but over the years there was nothing to stop them.

9. My complaint comes down to HBO who has influential connection within the administration so that dissent against his wrongdoing is risky.

10. The President may be unaware. In the reply two weeks after I wrote to the President an officer referred me to the relevant authorities without giving his name. It was followed by a reply from a police officer from SPF Customer Relation Branch who referred me to Bedok Police Division. Another two weeks later, another police officer from SPF Customer Relation Branch, instead of Bedok Police Division, replied. He stated the matter had been adequately addressed before, which would be the investigation by Neighbourhood Police Centre that did not investigate the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. (It reminded me of a police officer who, in reply to my email to the Commissioner of Police, stated HDB had investigated thoroughly the matter and there was no unnecessary noise nor misuse of flat in Sep ’09.) Bedok Police Division did not reply because they were aware of the issue the first time I wrote to the President. The officer from the President Office and the second police officer who replied may have took over the case in that my email never reached the President.11. I hope the President takes a serious view of my situation of many years as the underlying cause have not been addressed.

Regards,

hh

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Ombudsman

1. The Straits Times printed “a national ombudsman” under a reply from Mr Tony Tan Keng Yam during the presidential election. He says ombudsman is an established method when citizen is wronged. Mr Tony Tan is now the President.

2. There are two types of ombudsman. The first is an external official who investigates citizens complaints against the government. He is empowered to adjudicate matters as a sort of arbitrator.

3. The second type is one who mediates agreeable settlements between aggrieved parties. It is non-adjudicative.

4. In the owner’s case PSC and HDB could investigate. Defining principles such as neutrality and type of resources differ from the first type of ombudsman, but all three takes action to investigate.

5. Community Mediation Centre, which mediates between citizens, is the second type of ombudsman. It is not appropriate in this case because officers are involved.

6. The President could show the way. As Head of State he is impartial and works toward a solution. His moral authority comes from being elected by the people, from appointing government nominees to key posts and from other duties. He could be the voice of the people when wrongdoing is not rectify.

7. The following questions need asking:

  a) Who accounts for the-people-in-the-flat-across-the neighbour?

  b) After the Police was informed, why did not they investigate?

  c) PSC and HDB are official channels of complaint, what keep them from giving a reply?

8. Once again after the previous posting some muffling of noise and, overall, there is less noise. It is heard early in the morning, morning, afternoon, night and, at times, past midnight. It could be single or a number of noises in the morning and late at night to over many hours of noise in the afternoon. The noises are knock, ramble, thump, drag and, in connection with their work, a noisy drainpipe.

9. The neighbour is in a business, they work the day long everyday. That is where insiders and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour come in: insiders knew and stopped the neighbour before, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was stationed to protect the neighbour from insiders. Though it would not have been permitted, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed on for over three years and still do.

10. There is no doubt the situation just described exists, and why MPs and others have supported. An outline this is so is the previous post Overview.

11. In a real manner the owner is forced by constant noise to leave. Being unable to work or take a nap, the continuing noise is a stress.

12. In 22 May 09 Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said the government was on a lookout for bold and visionary leaders to raise the quality of public service. Later, PM said it was difficult to get leaders from the private sector into the public service due to different culture and mid-career change. The statement by Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service was made one to two weeks after the owner posted his complaint at civicadvocator.com

13. Thus the owner has no alternative, but calls on the President to help.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Overview

17 Nov 2011

Minister
Ministry of National Development
5 Maxwell Road #21-00 & #22-00
Tower Block MND Complex
Singapore 069110

Dear Sir,

Officers Colluded With Neighbour

1. PSC and HDB have not reply to my emails. I hope your Ministry could intervene as they have the responsibility.

2. The neighbour carries on a trade in the flat. I have seen other workers and believe they are part of a larger operation. Another was the eviction of an occupier from the flat and the flat subsequently transferred to the neighbour in ’99.

3. Insiders kept track. After a four-years interlude they stopped the neighbour from working the next four years until my complaint in ’07. It did not surprise me when officers stationed people in the flat across the neighbour a few days after I seek help at Meet-the-People Session. What is wrong is the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed to protect the neighbour and watch me. I have shown their influence extends to other government departments.

4. My complaint about the nature and duration of noise was ineffectual. The neighbour lives elsewhere. They and the workers take turn to work in the flat. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour monitors noise level and workers, and keeps watch over me and the people going around the place. It enables the neighbour to work through the day, seven days a week.

5. All in awareness and complicity. Early on the neighbour said to me what he said about a compromise did not happen, they use noise as threat and warning, officers were shown to undermine, the Residents Committee chairman said he would visit me only with officer, and the purpose of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour were shown by implication through a Community Centre member and the Neighbourhood Police Centre.

6. The proof is insiders who assist and relevant authorities do not respond. To the extent Ministers may have reviewed their options and considered in their policies more engagement with the people. Policies that allow dissent between divisions and upper management, and negative report in the media, would prevent the situation I am in from happening.

7. That there is corruption could be seen from the behaviour of the officers and their contacts. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour is an abuse of power. There is documentary evidence, and insiders could provide testimony.

8. It was inappropriate to refer to Community Mediation Centre, and the Police would consider the matter as only between the neighbour and me.

9. After I wrote to the President and posted it in the blog, there was an indirect reference on Teletext the same day and a meeting with the same old friend three days later. Noise was much reduced the next day after the meeting with the friend and for a time afterward, but the situation remains unchanged. Work is still heard each day, it has worsen on a number of days over the past few weeks, and the next owner would face the same problem.

10. The indirect reference above on 15 Sep 11 and 16 Sep 11 referred to a survey by IPS. It states the level of political cynic in Singapore is low compared to other countries, but is a cause for worry if it rises and people cannot trust politicians. PAP MPs say if people doubt their credibility and trustworthiness, it would be difficult to act in the interest of the country.

11. Mr Low Thia Khiang says in the first session of 12th Parliament his party’s MPs will scrutinise policies for any loopholes and gaps that may affect people adversely and will act as a voice for the people in the House. This may be related to my previous post.

12. At the onset, HDB could have disciplined the officers and enforced compliance of the neighbour. By stationing the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to protect the neighbour, the officers violate my rights as a citizen. The Police was informed, but they did not refer to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour in their correspondences to me. There is therefore a need for a neutral body to investigate.

Regards,

hh

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Committee

1. The owner refers to ethics committees. Public Service Commission (PSC), Presidential Council for Minority Rights, and Presidential Council for Religious Harmony are of similar nature. They consisted people from inside and outside government with public duties. The President’s office and the Attorney-General’s Chambers too have public duties. All represents fair-mindedness of the State.

2. Complaint Julian Baggini

The return to ethics. The overall thrust of my argument about the grievance culture is that it places law above ethics, and this leads to three bad consequences: responsibility being denied in some places and inappropriately ascribed in others…

What we cannot and should not have is a return to authority-based morality. Politically and socially this will not work, since the world has become far too pluralistic for any authority to hold sway in a sustainable way.

Moral philosophy has the potential to be a help or a hindrance in this regard, and the way the subject is usually taught, it looks more like a hindrance. Most people who study it are presented with a standard trio of moral frameworks: consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. On this view, consequentialists believe that actions are right or wrong solely in terms of whether they produce good or bad outcomes; deontologists believe that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences; and virtue theorists say that being good is not about following strict rules but about developing the moral character to make ethical choices. To give these caricatures a concrete example, consequentialists would say that whether torture is wrong depends on whether, in balance, it leads to more goods than harms; a deontologists would say that torture is wrong in itself; and a virtue theorist would say that torture is not something one can imagine a virtuous person doing, but who knows there may be exceptions.

However, there is another way of looking at moral philosophy which has more potential. Although there is no consensus as to which moral theory is the right one, there is a tacit acceptance of a common procedure for thinking through moral theories. This can be summed up as the view that moral discourse is a democratic, rational activity. It works by assessing the different reasons given for or against a particular course of action in a way that defers to no authority. This is the way in which ethics committees work: they do not require everyone involved to subscribe to the same fundamental theory of ethics. Rather, they demand that people effectively set these aside and offer only such reasons as can be assessed and judged by the common standards of rationality. It is democratic, not in the sense that it necessarily follows majority opinion, but in the sense that contributions to the debate are assessed on the merits of the arguments, not on the status of the person offering them.

3. The owner wrote to PSC, which administers the code of conduct, and to HDB, which has its rules and regulations. A principled approach is to reply, but there is none. Where an ethics committee comes to a decision from contributions based on fact-finding, the connection of the officers chooses the status quo of doing nothing. The questions that need asking: a) Does the neighbour carries on a trade in the flat? b) Do officers collude with the neighbour? c) Why are people station across the neighbour? d) Why do insiders assist the owner? e) Were there no reference of the case in the media, if only indirectly?

4. Mr Tan Kin Lian said he would form a personal Council before and during the presidential election. Someone wrote it was “glorified feedback”, and it was quoted by a Minister. But, in the owner’s case, it makes sense. A personal Council could assist the President in giving voice to the people when the system fail.

5. The owner wrote to the President last month, and noise has lowered and lessen. He appreciated it, however, the noise is not justifiable. Generally work is through the day, and there is the potential for increase noise.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: President

President
Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823

Dear Sir,

Officers Colluded With Neighbour

1. I wrote to the President and the Police the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevented independent inspection for noise in the neighbour’s flat on 1 Feb 10.

2. Bedok Police Division referring to my letter to the President and emails to the SPF Customer Relations Branch informed me they acknowledged my concerns raised and had since referred the matter to the relevent officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action.

3. Neighbourhood Police Centre tasked to investigate replied they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. Nonetheless, they paid the neighbour a visit and reminded them of the importance of exercising consideration and tolerance toward neighbour in Singapore’s high density living enironment. But they left out the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour specifically mentioned in my letter and emails. Instead a police officer visited me three times and talked to me over the phone. In the letter they also referred me to the Community Mediation Centre.

4. I blog over two years what goes on. I would refer one to the post Integrity at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com

5. Noise has been through the day. The rumble, knock, thump, drag, sharp and heavy sound are not noticably outside the neighbour’s flat but could be heard one level down inside my flat. It goes to show that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stationed over the years served more to protect the neighbour than to catch them. They prevented independent inspection at the neighbour’s flat and my flat. There is no mistake they have the influence.

6. Noise was lowered and muffled due to publicity generated from the post Behaviour published on 20 Jun 11. At the time the number of viewers double.

7. Loud sound and knock were a warning half an hour after a visit from a techical officer and the OIC (Officers-in-Charge), Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. The visit, three days after I published Integrity, was on 18 Aug 11.

8. From the neighbour’s viewpoint, they would not stop because they have dealing with officers. Their tactic has been to reduce noise for a time after a complaint. Such is the case for the month after the last posting. Noise is generally reduced, but rumble, knock, thump, heavy sound and dropping of bead are heard. Noises are over many hours each day.

9. From the my viewpoint, there is aspect of bullying. Justice has to be seen.

10. The problem is plain in a way. Insiders and MPs do their best to assist while residents community members and high officials stay by the sideline.

11. Is there someone or a committee able to take it up?

Regards,

hh

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Integrity

1. It is not possible to stop the neighbour with the same officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. A period of four years is a long time to assume the officers are correct when they said their investigations reveal no undue noise. During the same period the owner wrote to the MPs, and later in his blog, facts that could be ascertained but were not taken up.

2. Because the facts bear checking, the officers would not defend themselves or refute its conclusion.

3. Removal of the officers is the right thing to do because they collaborated with the neighbour. The owner pointed out many instances of wrongdoing on the part of HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and those he has influence over. He is not aboveboard. Removal would sever the connection between the officers and the neighbour, and send a clear signal to the neighbour.

4. The officers have broken the rules. They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour just days after the owner went to his first Meet-the-People Session. Considering what the officers and the neighbour were about back in ’98, it was likely there followed a force-entry at the neighbour’s flat and a break-in at the owner’s flat. They stay to monitor the situation and prevent anyone from assisting the owner. Noise is still heard at various times through the day showing work being carry out.

5. Part of a repertoire arrayed against the owner included noise to force him out of his flat and disabling his computer. The Java program made unworkable prevented him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks prevented him from working from his computer over extended period of time.

6. The statutory board, which is also responsible for discipline, could have taken action. They did not because HBO has connection.

7. There is the ethics Do no harm. There is a saying Corruption and waste are very serious crimes. The government should not risk its reputation.

8. It would be disappointing if the government is quiet. Loyalty to person or group has to be reasonable. Officers are citizens in government, if they shield one of their own above all else, the citizens at large are in trouble.

9. Head of the Singapore Civil Service, Mr Peter Ong, said good governance is an important ingredient in Singapore’s development. He added that tackling corruption with a mix of strong political will, legislation and enforcement was the state’s first priority in its initial years. He was launching a book titled “Virtuous Cycles: The Singapore Public Service and National Development” commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

UNDP said other countries could learn from Singapore’s example of civil service. These were reported on 24 Mar 11.

10. The owner hopes his case come up during the Presidential Election. The President appears to be one able to help. Being elected he has independence. Although he has only custodian power in specified areas and not executive power in policy matters, he is one to ask question of the government when he thinks there is failure. In principle he could defend values that are in the interest of the people. In all he is a citizen but one with much moral authority.

His view, if accepted, may be debated in Parliament.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Proving

1. Findings from an inquiry would solve a problem and provide a record. Insiders stopped the first owner in ’98. The flat was then transferred to the neighbour who was stopped by insiders again. Now, officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevent insiders from helping the owner. It is not right there is no inquiry into the events of such nature.

2. The owner spoke to the neighbour several times:

a) The owner went upstairs to the neighbour’s flat because of loud noise. A woman answered the door. When she said the husband was not in, the owner requested she informed the husband that the owner would like to meet him. One evening the neighbour approached the owner to ask where the noise was heard inside his flat so he could make adjustment. He asked the owner to compromise, but when the owner refused, he said their conversation never took place. This was much later because the owner remembered saying he could get his full name from HDB, and he replied the owner would not have asked him if he could. By then the owner had kept watch, knew who was in the neighbour’s flat and why, wrote two times to HDB Branch Office, and had a meeting with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO).

b) Another time the owner went to talk to the neighbour outside his flat. He denied there was noise coming from his flat and told the owner to get legal advice.

c) After the post Justice in Feb 11 the owner spoke to the neighbour in the lift on the way up. He said he did not understand what the owner was referring to and summed it up by giving the owner two options–either pursued it with HDB or engaged a lawyer.

3. The owner went to HDB Branch Office with a copy of his letter because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) confirmed his second letter was not received. After insisting on a meeting with HBO, the owner asked HBO for the name of the neighbour which he said he would allow it. During the exchange, HBO asked the owner whether he knew about a recent transfer of the neighbour’s flat.

4. The first instance where HBO allowed the name OIC refused when he visited the owner two days later. He had the name in his fact sheet and the owner reminded him he was at the meeting in which HBO allowed it. The second instance was intended to throw the owner off. HBO knew from the owner’s letters the owner saw a connection to the first owner in a complaint nine years ago. By saying the transfer was recent he hoped to distant any connection to the first owner.

5. To prove OIC gave the date of the transfer in ’98 from his fact sheet, and the owner saw the neighbour (husband and wife) a number of times when the flat was with the first owner. Thereafter the next occupier was with the flat for many years until he was evicted after the complaint.

6. The people sent to persuade the owner were in thrall to HBO:

a) OIC would not have said the neighbour’s wife was pregnant unless it was an appeal and, from the other instances when he called, the owner noted he knew what the neighbour was doing.

b) During a visit with OIC, an estates officer informed the owner their inspection of the neighbour’s flat found no machine-tools.

c) Another visit with officer from Neighbourhood Police Centre, Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the estates officer, OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour.

d) Yet another visit with OIC, an estates officer from HDB Hub said if there was an internal inquiry would the owner be satisfied.

In contrast when Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote that the owner would hear from HDB soon, the officer from HDB refrained. He did not want to appear to be helping when he knew he could not. It is to be noted the letter from the Town Council was written in conjunction with a letter from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service to by-pass HBO.

7. One could determine motive from event:

a) HBO arranged a house visit with Chairman of Residents Committee at the flat across the neighbour and asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner.

b) The Chairman visited the owner on that occasion during his term of office from Apr ’07 to Mar ’09. Two other times he spoke to the owner were at recyclables-for-food-program during his chairmanship for the second term from Apr ’09 to Mar ’11. During the visit in Oct ’08 the Chairman he said he would visit the owner again a month later but did not. At the recyclables-for-food-program in Dec ’09 the owner said other committee members could also visit him, the Chairman replied he would visit in the presence of officer. He is still the Chairman for the third term from Apr ’11 to Mar ’13 as seen from the name list on the notice board that replaced the name list of the first term just this month. (No name list for the second term was displayed.)

c) In the owner’s opinion there was admission against interest by a Community Centre member (CC member) who had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The owner met and spoke to him three times, two times at Meet-the-People Session and one time outside his flat. The details are in this blog.

d) The behaviour of officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour showed they communicated with the neighbour to undermine the owner. Together with officers in other government departments, the owner was blocked from access to help and forced to leave his flat.

8. Noise was used to warn or let the owner know. When HBO visited the flat across the neighbour, the owner heard increasingly intense knocking. HBO would have seen the owner in his study room from the flat across the neighbour, the bcc he sent to the Chairman showed he was there at the time. After the owner emailed the PM, which was followed immediately by a phone call from an old friend, he heard knocks spaced apart at regular interval just before his friend visited. After the owner spoke to the CC member outside his flat, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour when he switched off the light and went to bed. Since the owner has kept up his complaint, there were instances of loud noise and noise through the night.

9. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevents the neighbour from getting caught thereby allowing them to work. The owner observed that after a force-entry a deal was made with the neighbour so they could work the day long where an independent inspection at any one time would uncover workers, tools, and materials. Whoever staged it has the influence to carry it off and to justify the action and use of resource.

10. Officers could have demolished the owner’s argument or forced him to stop. They did not because of insiders. MPs, Ministers, Police and President may have also supported. There are firm bases for looking into the officers, the neighbour, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.

11. The owner continues to write because noise has not stop. Work is carry out through the day from noise heard in the morning, afternoon and night. Knowing that officers collaborate with the neighbour and local Residents Committee members are not playing their part, it is clear to the owner the neighbour would continue. If there is to be policy changes, it would have to be made effective here.

12. Someone may have helped on 28 Jun 11. This followed the post Behaviour on officers’ intent to cover-up published a week earlier. Noise is down but work is day long. When this is passed, noise would be up again as has happened many times before.

13. On 13 May 11 after the General Election, Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said politicians were forced to admit they need to connect to people, and Public Service was forced to re-look at the way in which it formulated policies with respect to citizens.

14. On 18 May 11 PM announced his cabinet lineup. PM said it was a comprehensive reshuffle and Ministers would have a free hand to rethink and reshape policies.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Behaviour

1. No crime without intent. The converse is crime with intent to cover-up as in the case.

2. The neighbourhood police left out in their investigation the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour mentioned in the owner’s letters to the President and the Police.

3. Their letter stated they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence but reminded the neighbour to exercise consideration and tolerence. There was nothing on the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who watched out for the neighbour that caused the owner to write to the President and the Police in the first place.

4. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour has much significance. It implied they knew about the neighbour and were there to catch them. Once a deal was made with the neighbour their attention turned to the owner. Since moving into the flat after the owner’s first Meet-the-People Session in ’08, they remain there for more than three years now.

5. All letters from HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) was a pretence. His letters stated no excessive noise during their inspections and the owner may engage his solicitor if the noise persisted. He did not address any of the issue raised to MPs; in a bcc to the Residents Committee Chairman after their visit to the flat across the neighbour, he asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner; and after the owner’s email to PM he replied to a letter from the area’s MP, which he kept for two months, just to let the owner know he knew about the email.

6. To the owner it is a fact the neighbour works from their flat, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protects them, and HBO has considerable influence in the matter. Their behaviours show intent at cover-up. The government needs only check the background of the neighbour and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to understand.

7. Although noise is down, the neighbour continues with their work. Noise could be heard early in the morning, late at night, in the small hours, and most in the afternoon; noise is sharp or muffled; noises are rumble, knock, drag and thump. The causes: a) the flat is a place of work as the neighbour does not live-in, b) work is carried out around the clock, c) machine-tools are used, and d) the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour maintains a hold of the situation.

8. High officials could take down the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour since they are a problem not a solution. The owner heard much less noise when they were not around for two weeks from 5 Aug 10 to 18 Aug 10. The possibility of enforcement caused the neighbour to be cautious.

9. The owner is certain of cover-up from events since ’97. He kept faith with the system by going to HDB Branch Office, Meet-the-People Session, and writing up his observations. But there was no response from HDB or the Ministry of National Development. He also wrote to Public Service Commission and the post Petition was addressed to high officials.

10. It was somewhat of a relief the President and Ministers responded and insiders assisted although the problem is not solved. A characteristic of a bureaucratic organisation is that if they do not want to act they could find ways not to do it. It then depends on the top people to uphold good practice. Practice is the first part of a three-parts virtue. The other two are narration and tradition according to MacIntyre.

11. Insight. The term ‘political culture’ refers to an underlying set of values held by most people living in a particular country concerning political behaviour, one important aspect of which is the degree of trust which citizens have in their political leaders.

Alternative views concerning political culture. Liberal theorists suggest that a country’s political culture is fashioned by its unique historical development and is transmitted across the generations by a process termed ‘political socialization’. Agencies such as the family, schools, the media and political parties are responsible for instructing citizens in such beliefs and values.

Marxists, however, tend to view political culture as an artificial creation rather than the product of history. They view political culture as an ideological weapon through which society is indoctrinated to accept views which are in the interests of its dominant classes (defined as those who own the means of production).

Understand Politics (2010), Peter Joyce, Teach Yourself series.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Reason

1. The reason has been profit, money, and status. The neighbour has not stop a day since they began four years ago, arrangement between officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office and the neighbour had been made, and people at HDB did not response to letters from MPs and the owner.

2. How would one explain the presence of the people in the flat across the neighbour? One would deny there was ulterior purpose if it was possible. The people at HDB may have asked the neighbour to stop, but they only lowered the noise. There is no fear of enforcement since the people in the flat across the neighbour has the power to prevent inspection.

3. The people in the flat across the neighbour moved into the flat four days after the owner attended his first Meet-the-People Session (MPS) in ’08, and presently continues to monitor from the flat. Very likely a deal was made with the neighbour when they force-entered the neighbour’s flat. They may also have broken into the owner’s flat in search of letters the owner wrote to HDB, and anything else that might be of use against the owner. The owner’s assertions are make from observations. Should one read the previous post Evidence, there is enough indirect and circumstantial evidence to convince.

4. The owner’s case has been over thirteen years since ’98. If it comes to be known, there are others that were covered up. A small number in a population may not be felt, but it could happen to anyone.

5. Code of conducts prevents officers from straying. Finding direct evidence is not likely since dishonest officers will conceal their activities. If there is doubt about an officer, he should be removed to another position or suspended pending investigation. More so if an officer has substantial influence over others. Such is the case where the owner is forced to submit. Because insiders, MPs, Ministers, and President have assisted, the owner did not give up. He could continue to write into the details.

6. One may think the owner has an axe to grind. He may well have but anytime the noise stops, it ceases to be an issue. All he wanted is a fair hearing, and fairness to the next owner as he will be leaving. Loud and threatening noise was part, noise was reduced after PM mentioned government misbehaviour, and noise was further reduced after a post addressed to high officials. Lowered noise is a tactic just as they reduced noise for a time after each complaint to a MP. The knock, ramble, and thump continue to be heard, and the people in the flat across the neighbour watches out for them. HDB could carry out an independent inspection, but it did not because of HBO’s standing (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office’s standing). An abnormality.

7. So it have been a) information that the neighbour has a history of working in their flat seems to be of no use to the owner, b) HDB Branch Office’s replies have been their inspections found no excessive noise therefore no action could be taken, c) both HBO and the neighbour asked him to prove his case in court, d) HDB would not reply to letters from MPs and the owner, and e) people who knew about his situation were unable to help because of powerful influence at work.

8. The neighbour is determine. Noises heard are from machine-tools. Duration of work and workers seen showed they used the flat as a place of work. The people in the flat across the neighbour ensures that the neighbour working inside the flat is not heard outside the flat. The main reason, for which they have stayed since ’08, has been to prevent inspection by spotting any one who does. The owner wrote to practically everybody including the Ministry of National Development. An inquiry would have looked into the details and provided a record of what happened.

9. On 10 May 11 after the General Election there was a drop in noise. That the neighbour did not stopped has been the problem. What is to prevent them from continuing or starting up? Are the officers who were involved still around?

10. In individualism one looks out for oneself. There is limited government and it is for the strong. A community-based government, however, recognises its has both strong and weak members and looks at solution from a larger perspective. Therefore if the owner is telling the truth that officers colluded with the neighbour, they should be stopped from continuing, if not, the owner should be stopped from complaining. The community benefits in a long run.

11. At a General Election Rally on 3 May 11 PM said:

No government is perfect. We can have our best intentions, make our best efforts, but from time to time, mistakes will happen. We will make mistakes. We made a mistake when we let Mas Selamat run away. We made a mistake when Orchard Road got flooded. And there are other mistakes which we have made from time to time, and I’m sure occasionally will happen again – I hope not too often. But when it happens, then we should acknowledge it, we should apologize, take responsibility, put things right, if we have to discipline somebody we will do that, and we must learn from the lessons, and never make the same mistake again.

The owner hopes PM was also referring to this case.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Evidence

1. The types of evidence pertaining to the case would be testimonial and documentary. The proofs are preponderance of evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. Evidences are generally indirect and circumstantial. Indirect evidences could be admission against interest, government records, and letters.

2. A list of evidence is as follows:

a) During a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and OIC (Officer-in-Charge), HBO agreed to give the name of the neighbour to the owner. But two days later when OIC visited the owner, he refused to give the neighbour’s name, which was in his fact sheet. Yet he voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour in another meeting. The meeting was with a police officer, a counsellor, an estates officer, and himself at the owner’s home after he wrote the people in the flat across the neighbour were watching out for the neighbour.

b) When the owner asked for an acknowledgment before the meeting with HBO, he was given a signed photocopy of his letter. Two lines in the letter that could implicate the OIC were missing. The letter also mentioned the maid who may not have registered at the flat and the eviction of an occupant, both crucial to the case.

c) HBO wrote to the owner in reply to a letter a MP wrote to HDB. The letter written on the owner’s behalf included letters the owner wrote to the MP who told him it would be attached. HBO did not address the issues raised, which included the maid and the eviction, but instead asked the owner to seek his own solution.

d) HBO’s letter was a clue he knew what the neighbour is doing. He wrote that the owner claimed work was conducted by unknown owner and the neighbour sublet the flat to unknown owner. The sentence made more sense when the words neighbour and unknown owner switched places. He had inadvertently used the term unknown owner, which correctly referred to the first owner of the flat who was never seen, to refer to the neighbour. He probably wanted the owner to say the unknown owner let out the flat to an occupant who sublet it to the neighbour. Anyway, the owner neither mentioned anything about sublet nor used the term unknown owner. He went on to write they were not able to establish there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat in his own words. Also by telling the owner at his office the transfer of the flat to the neighbour was a recent event, he hoped to avoid the connection between the eviction of the occupant and the tranfer of the flat to the neighbour nine years ago. He would have made up a story. What the owner did not say and what HBO did say would be owner’s words against his only.

e) From the letters the owner sent to the Branch Office, the dates of the letters could determine the occupant under the first owner and the maid under the neighbour were allowed to work in the flat for many months before insiders stopped them. There would be government records on the transfer of the flat to the neighbour sometime about Mar ’99 just after the eviction, and whether the maid was registered at the flat. The eviction of the occupant was a fact. The owner saw the occupant shifted out and an officer came to inform him. However, an officer wrote to the owner when he first posted in his blog there was no record of an eviction. The fact that insiders assisted the owner when it first began in ’98 and continue to do even now speaks volume.

f) After HBO wrote the letter in c) there was a broadcast over TV on preceived injustice that lasted the time it took for a voice-over and a display of an address that one could write to. Next, on the day the owner went to a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) to meet the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, he received a letter sent by HBO earlier but with a bcc to the Chairman, Residents Committee. The next time the owner met the Minister at another MPS was on the day he rebuked an official in Parliament. The events leading to the rebuke may have something to do with the case. When the owner emailed the PM the resemblance of name between the HBO and the official, he received an immediate phone call from a friend to visit him. Upon the friend’s visit HBO gave his reply to a letter from the area’s MP who wrote on behalf of the owner, which he kept for two months, to let the owner know he knew. It all indicates HBO has high standing and is difficult to take down.

g) HBO’s powerful and extensive connection could be seen over many instances:

i) They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour to monitor the owner and the neighbour. The details indicated a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in into the owner’s flat.

ii) HBO posted on the front page of a forum hosted by CNA after the owner said to a friend he would bring up his problem at a discussion site. Although the posting was on unrelated matter, it was a reminder to the owner not to publicise. As it happened he was thwarted many times.

iii) The owner’s computer was infected to prevent him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks stopped him from using the computer over extended period of time.

iv) HBO’s network of people included Community Centre members (CC members), Chairman of Residents Committee, the police, a counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and officers at government departments. CC members had tried to stop the owner on two occasions at MPS. They may have spoken to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service who turned the owner away and, at his last MPS, a CC member asked how many times he had seen the area’s MP and indicated he could expect noise after 10.00am. The owner was first introduced to the CC member on the matter of the people in the flat across the neighbour at a MPS. Sometime later the owner spoke to him outside his flat. That night just after the owner switched off the light before going to bed, a series of noise was heard from the neighbour. A clear indication the CC member informed the people in the flat across the neighbour who when they saw the light went off informed the neighbour to make the noise.

v) The Chairman was asked to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, a counsellor came to assess the owner for fault, a police officer urged the owner to consider mediation, and officers at HDB Hub referred the owner to the Branch Office knowing full well what was in his blog. One police officer wrote to him HDB had thoroughly investigated, another officer referred him to a directory of lawyers, and still others returned his email with the words spam or suspected spam inserted in the title.

vi) HDB did not response to letters from MPs instead HBO replied to the letters. Therefore the MP who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service wrote to Pasir Ris Town Council, which then wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB and cc to HBO that the letter from the Minister was enclosed for his information. At the next MPS the Minister asked the owner whether anyone visited him and he answered no one. This had to do with the people in the flat across the neighbour who would have spotted them during their visit. Such instances seemed to indicate HDB has washed their hands of HBO.

h) The bcc from HBO to Chairman indicated they were at the flat across the neighbour. Separately, the Chairman arranged to meet the Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. During the meeting the owner mentioned in passing the noise heard that morning and, before they left, asked them to visit him without the knowledge of the officers. The owner inferred they were asked to visit and not as the Chairman said they were on their round.

i) Because of the noise from the neighbour and the people in the flat across the neighbour who watched out for the neighbour, the owner wrote to the Police and the President. The Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was asked to investigate. In his reply to the owner, he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour. He stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence that referred to the neighbour only.

j) The people in the flat across the neighbour shifted in four days after the owner’s first MPS. He knew the flat was used to stop the neighbour about four years earlier. From the behaviour of the officers and those connected to the flat, the owner deduced they abetted the neighbour. He noticed workers, noise from machine-tools, and work was through the day including at times late at the night and very early in the morning. Some of the noises were similar to those made when the flat was with the first owner. On several occasions they used noise to intimidate the owner.

3) It will be four years come Jun 11 since the noise began. It will be two years come Aug 11 since the owner published it in his blog. The post Petition on Jan 11 was addressed to high officials with the result noise was reduced. The neighbour persisted because of the people in the flat across the neighbour and their influence.For the last four weeks noise was lowered but the knock, ramble and sometime thump prevented the owner from taking nap and concentrating on his work. As long as the owner is set up, it will be as if the neighbour is given licence to carry on. Future owner of his flat will face the same problem.

4) There are two different things to Government: the Ministers who represent general will and legislative capacity, and the high officials who represent executive power. As noted elsewhere, three Ministers responded in their own way through the media. Also, the Minister for National Development requested the owner to acknowledge receipt when he replied he would ask HDB to look into it in an email to the owner on 1 Feb 10. But HDB has been consistent in not responding precisely because they understood the problem. Would the Minister open an inquiry since the Ministry of National Development is the parent of HDB?

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Quote

1.  The owner showed officers collude with the neighbour and how the neighbour operates. Yet no one has stop them even as the government has control over the officers and access to information that the owner could only observe.

 

2.  Any mistake the owner made could be picked up as he went to extraordinary length in his blog. And he kept repeating key statements of fact.

 

3.  A number of days after the post Case was published on 01 Mar 11 noise went up for about a week, then down and the owner’s computer that was under attacked was back to normal. On 25 Mar 11 his computer was targeted again. These were co-ordinated. Noise from the neighbour continues to be heard each day. They are making use of the flat for their works as the family do not live there.  

 

4.  The whistleblowing policy for civil service and statutorys board announced in parliament on 28 Feb 11 enables insiders who present evidence to be protected from exposing themselves. But this should be secondary to a formal inquiry. Having one would show the authority is serious, and allow people to come forward.

 

5.  The quotes selected here are of particular relevance to the case:

 

 

a)  In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a poltical and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such government. When however the relationship of government to the moral community is put in question both by the changed nature of government and the lack of moral consensus in the society, it becomes difficult any longer to have any clear, simple and teachable conception of patriotism. Loyalty to my country, to my community — which remains unalterably a central virtue — becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me.

 

Just as this understanding of the displacement of patriotism must not be confused with the liberal critique of moral particularity, so this necessary distancing of the moral self from the government of mordern states must not be confused with any anarchist critique of the state. Nothing in my argument suggests, let alone implies, any good grounds for rejecting certain forms of government as necessary and legitimate; what the argument does entail is that the modern state is not such a form of government. It must have been clear from earlier parts of my argument that the tradition of the virtues is at variance with the central features of the modern economic order and more especially its individualism, its acquisitiveness and its elevation of the values of the market to a central social place. It now becomes clear that it also involves a rejection of the modern political order. This does not mean that there are not many tasks only to be performed in and through government which still require performing: the rule of law, so far as it is possible in a modern state, has to be vindicated, injustice and unwarranted suffering have to be dealt with, generosity has to be exercised, and liberty has to be defended, in ways that are sometimes only possible through the use of governmental institutions. But each particular task, each particular responsibility has to be evaluated on its own merits. Modern systematic politics, whether liberal, conservative, radical or socialist, simply has to be rejected from a standpoint that owes genuine allegiance to the tradition of the virtues; for modern politics itself expresses in its institutional forms a systematic rejection of that tradition.

 

After Virtue (2008), Page 254–255, Alasdair MacIntyre

 

 

b)  For Aristotle, the purpose of politics is not to set up a framework of rights that is neutral among ends. It is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character. It’s about learning how to live a good life. The purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop their distinctive capacities and virtues–to deliberate about the common good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a whole.

[A]ny polis which is truly so called, and is not merely one in name, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise, a political association sinks into a mere alliance…Otherwise, too, law becomes a mere covenant…”a guarantor of men’s rights against one another”–instead of being, as it should be, a rule of life such as will make the members of a polis good and just.

 

For Aristotle, this is the primary purpose of law–to cultivate the habits that lead to good character. “Legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one. It makes no small difference…whether we form habits of one kind or of another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference.”

  

Justice:What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009), Michael J. Sandel.

 

 

c)  So how is it possible to acknowledge the moral weight of community while still giving scope to human freedom?

 

Alasdair MacIntyre offers a powerful answer to this question. As an alternative to the voluntarist conception of the person, MacIntyre advances a narrative conception. Human beings are storytelling beings. We live our lives as narrative quests. “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’”

The contrast with the narrative view of the self is clear. For the story of my life is always embedded in the story of those communities from which I derive my identity. I am born with a past; and to try to cut myself off that past, in the individualist mode, is to deform my present relationships.

 

They can’t be captured by an ethic of consent. That is, in part, what gives these claims their moral force. They draw on our encumbrances. They reflect our nature as storytelling beings, as situated selves.

 

Justice:What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009), Michael J. Sandel.

 

 

d)  First, Confucian humanism places great responsibility on the shoulders of the individual person and regards it as the ruler’s responsibility to teach individuals how to be essentially self-governing: “Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them by law and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety (li), and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right.” At the same time, 
Confucianism would reject the notion of the human person as an individual, if by this term one means to suggest the presence of a free and autonomous self.

 

Confucian Political Ethics, Daniel A. Bell.

 

 

e)  Appearance. In Plato’s Republic Glaucon presents a challenge between the perfectly unjust man and the perfectly just man. The unjust man is truly unjust but has the skills and resources he needs for a prosperous life and to get away with his misdeeds while maintaining a reputation for justice. The perfectly just man is the exact opposite–he has nothing but his justice and a false reputation for being unjust. The challenge given to Socrates is to prove that the life of the just man is preferable even under the stated conditions.

 

What Don’t You Know?, Michael C. LaBossiere.

( The excerpt from Republic could be found in Philosophy 101, Stanley Rosen.)

 

 

f)  Led by degrees, people will agree not only that men ought to abstain from doing evil but also that they ought to prevent evil from being done and even to alleviate it when it is done, at least as far as they can without inconvenience to themselves. I am not now examining how far this inconvenience can go. Yet it will still be doubted, perhaps, that one is obligated to secure the good of another, even when this can be done without difficulty. Someone may say, “I am not obligated to help you achieve. Each for himself, God for all.” But let me again suggest an intermediate case. A great good comes to you, but an obstacle arises, and I can remove that obstacle without pain. Would you not think it right to ask me to do so and to remind me that I would ask it of you if I were in a similar plight? If you grant this point, as you can hardly help doing, how can you refuse the only remaining request, that is, to procure a great good for me when you can do this without inconvenience of any kind to yourself and without being able to offer any reason for not doing it except a simple, ”I do not want to”? You could make me happy, and you refuse to do so. I complain, and you would complain in the same circumstances; therefore, I complain with justice.

 

(Paragraph from Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.)

 

Philosophy 101, Stanley Rosen.

 

 

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Case

 

1.  The neighbour is not the main problem because they could be stopped. It is the officers who perpetuate it.

  

2.  In trying to cover up a long relationship, their behaviours made that clear to the owner. The role of the people in the flat across the neighbour to prevent inspection at the neighbour’s flat is a case in point. The owner has supported his claim, but there has been no reply from the authorities.

  

3.  Through no fault of his, the owner has been subjected to noise each day. It restarted in Jun ’07, and noise was reduced in Apr ’10 after PM mentioned “government misbehaviour”. After the post Petition in Jan ’11, there was a further reduction in noise. However in the first week after the next post Justice, there were huge thump and sharp noise. It stopped the second week, but the usual knock, thump and rumble continued through the day. About the third week after a contractor told him repair was carried out on the floor of the neighbour’s unit, a different set of noise was heard. They have reduced the amount and level of noise so that their works would continue–the huge thump, loud knock and rumble, still there, are muffled.

  

4.  Higher authority could have intervened because there are much less noise now. Knock and muffled noise are heard in early morning and the rest of the day. The authority should not stop here, what counts is why the neighbour is doing it.

 

5.  Except for the change there is no real solution. The officers and neighbour have an interest to see the owner forced out of his flat. He writes a blog about them and, to show who is in charge, they had used noise to let him know.

 

6.  The first time the owner went to see the area’s MP, HDB may have investigated but prevented from taking action. The owner could see the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was feeling the heat when he asked the owner to allow him to check for noise in his flat, which was refused. An officer, who called the owner over the phone, had also replaced OIC for a time.

 

7.  It started with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO), when he wrote to the owner on things he did not say and on what the neighbour was not. That was followed by the TV broadcast on perceived injustice probably directed at the owner, then he received the bcc from HBO to Residents Committee Chairman, some time later Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB but no one came, and Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service rebuked an official in parliament the same day he met the owner at a Meet-the-People Session. The chain of events could have been stopped at HBO. But he was not taken to task because of his standing. His network supported him, and letters to HDB he took to reply. Similarly letters to the President, Police, and Public Service Commission had no effect. No one seemed to be responsible for HBO.

 

8.  An inquiry is required. It is necessary because events happened over many years, many people are involved, and there is cover-up. It is a duty given that insiders have assisted.

 

 

9.  The truth in the facts is as follows:

 

a)  The first owner transferred the flat to the present owner after an eviction to continue with their works. The date of tranfer was some time before 17 Apr 99 when a contractor, who did some renovation in the flat, slipped a note on noise from their works to the owner. The owner wrote his complaint to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office on 8 Dec 98, 11 Jan 99 and 10 Mar 99 and, after the eviction, wrote to HDB Feedback Unit on 21 Mar 99. Although an officer later wrote no eviction was ever conducted, there remains the date of the tranfer, letters from the owner, replies from an estates officer at the Branch Office, and names of officers the owner wrote to nine years ago to show the event did take place. Besides, the owner saw the occupier shifted out of the flat and a techical officer came to inform him of the eviction.

 

b)  The dates of the complaint from Dec 98 to Mar 99 was a period of three months during which the occupier continued with his work. During this period the estates officer and the techical officer visited the owner. The estates officer said she had an idea what the neighbour was doing though she was not saying. After the eviction of the occupier, who was an illegal occupant, the techical officer visited the owner to inform him and to inquire what the owner did to cause the eviction. 

 

c)  Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) did not stop the maid mentioned in two letters to the Branch Office. HDB would have in their record whether the maid was an occupant of the flat. Officers also visited the flat, but four months passed before someone else stopped the maid. An indication given to the owner earlier let him to notice noise stopped at the same time the maid was not seen. Later, he wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to check whether a maid was with the neighbour. It could be that the maid was not employ by the neighbour or, if she was, her registered place of work was at another address. It goes to show the maid and the flat were used for their works.

 

d)  As officers protected the neighbour, insiders assisted the owner. An insider had stopped the neighbour for four years before they restarted works. This time round the officers stationed people in the flat across across the neighbour to spot anyone who dare goes to the owner’s flat or the neighbour’s flat. It was necessary because the neighbour works through the day with change of workers, and the officers have the influence to prevent anyone from assisting the owner.

 

e)  The owner wrote to the President about the people in the flat across the neighbour, and the Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was tasked with the investigation. In his reply he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour, and may have considered it an internal matter.

 

f)  The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) refused to give the name of the neighbour to the owner although he was at the meeting when HBO agreed. Obviously he needed to protect the neighbour or to cover his trail. Details showing the neighbour operates a business and officers are involved were described.

 

g)  The HBO’s doings are detailed. The issue is at the least clear to Ministers, MPs, Community Centre members, Residents Committee members, personnel from HDB, Police, and insiders. That many people knew, and yet not set right, is an injustice writ large.

 

h)  Foods for thought.  W. D. Ross classified duties into six major kinds: of fidelity (which includes truth-telling), of not causing harm (which includes not killing), of doing good, of justice, of gratitude, and of reparation. He insists that the determination of which duty takes precedence over another is only revealed to us by reasoning through the particulars of the concrete situation. In the owner’s case think from the standpoint of insiders, HDB, People’s Association, high officials and Ministers, which of the six kinds take precedence. Choose one kind for each without repeating your choice, and see how it goes.

 

i)  Immanuel Kant claims your ability to rule your life should be respected even if you might hurt yourself and others in the process. His respect for your person is as if you will your punishment when you make the wrong choice. In other words, you take responsiblility for it. Since ’07 when OIC and a man, who did want to be identified, visited the owner and neighbour, they colluded with the neighbour to allow them to carry on with their works. They were not faulted the whole time because HBO has powerful connection, which he uses to abet the neighbour.

 

j)  The two quotes above are from Understanding Ethics, David Bruce Ingram and Jennifer A. Parks, The Complete Idiot’s Guide.

 

 

Accompanying Email

 

 

Dear Mr, Mrs, Ms and Mdm,

 

Open Letter To HDB

 

The post Case is of a person who knows noises from the neighbour are from the working of a trade, and the people in the flat across the neighbour with connection to officers prevent anyone from inspecting the neighbour’s flat.

 

He hopes you will give your opinion on the case. Agreement and disagreement would be discussed, and a position reached. If it happened, it would be a community effort.

 

He needs the help, having done all he could do.

 

You could start with any items, the previous post Justice has a summary of the main events.

 

Give your opinion at Civic Advocator. Google the site and look for his post under Housing, Activism, Forum, or search under HDB. Linked address to the site could also be found at the end of the post Officers, Neighbour, Prevasive Case, or Prospect, in his blog.

 

His blog is at http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4135734356197297920&postID=6965642906205147735 and http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4135734356197297920&postID=6965642906205147735

 

(The blogs could be google by name; at the name complainproper, each post is listed separately. Please forward this email if you think it would help.) 

 

 

Regards,

hh

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Justice

1.  Researchers have examined many cultures and traditions to find the virtues believed to be essential for living well. This proved impossible–but the following six kept turning up: justice, humaneness, temperance, wisdom, courage and transcendence. The odd one out is transcendence as they acknowledged it is not strictly a virtue in the sense of requiring specific behaviour.

 

2.  Psychologists have found no one ever learns to tolerate excessive noise.

 

3.  The above are taken from page 67 and 57 of The Age Of Absurdity by Michael Foley.

  

4.  The neighbour is able to continue with their works because of Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO). Everything stays in place as no proper investigation has been conducted, and the neighbour can be assured there is no enforcement.

 

5.  The long-time relation between the neighbour and officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office is a disadvantage to the owner and future owner of his flat. Since HDB would not consider facts lay out on the neighbour, officers, and people in the flat across the neighbour, it is for high officials to take it up.

 

6.  Despite the owner having wrote to the MPs, HDB, PSC, Police and President, it has been to no avail. Insiders and MPs assisted, Ministers urged, but the situation continues to be a problem. The officers, who are behind it all along, should not be allowed to affect the integrity of the government.

 

7.  After the last post, noise has lessen considerably but muffled rumble and thump, knock and other noises from works carried out could be heard. It is still an annoyance over the day, including early morning and at night.

 

8.  On 26 Jan 11 an estates officer from HDB Hub, and Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and fellow officer from the Branch Office, visited the owner. The estates officer asked if an internal inquiry was conducted would the owner accept its findings. She also said the neighbour will be carrying out works in the flat and not to mistake it for the noise he complained about. Presumably permit for works are issued from the Branch Office, and all things considered, it occurs to the owner it could be inimical.

 

 

9.  A summary of main events to date:

 

a) The owner wrote two letters to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office, and had a meeting with HBO and the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). HBO said there was a recent tranfer of the neighbour’s flat when it should be nine years ago. The owner asked for an acknowledgment and received a signed photocopy of his letter, which was with two lines missing that referred to the OIC.

 

b) The maid mentioned in his two letters was allowed to continue for four months until someone other than officers from the Branch Office stopped her. A similar event with the first owner took place when the occupier was allowed to continue for three months before he was evicted. In the first, the maid was not at her registered place of work and, in the second, the occupier was an illegal occupant.

 

c) The owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower whether the maid was with the neighbour. He wanted to show the neighbour used the maid for their works, and they did not live in the flat but lived at the place where the maid was registered.

 

d) At the owner’s first Meet-the-People Session(MPS) no MP was in session, the interviewer said he would refer to HBO and gave the name of his brother as his own. Later the owner was introduced to the brother, he was also the interviewer at the last Meet-the-People Session, and just after the owner first posted in his blog he spoke to him outside his flat. His behaviour showed he was for the neighbour and against the owner.

 

e) Four days after the first MPS, personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour. Thereafter, a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in at the owner’s flat. The details are in the first post Report under Findings.

 

f) The owner wrote to the MP, who had represented him after the first MPS, the events of maid, force-entry and eviction, and went to see him with a second letter the neighbour used noise to intimidate and signal. HBO followed with a reply to the owner with a copy to the MP asking the owner to seek his own solutions.

 

g) After his reply there was a TV broadcast on perceived injustice. The owner enquired over the phone and wrote to the company for the address flashed on the TV screen, but he could not get help.

  

h) Before meeting the MP the owner saw an elder, and the owner saw him again at his next MPS with the area’s MP. The elder may have influenced Community Centre members because the owner was turned away at the next MPS with Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service.

 

i) Noise was heightened after the meeting with the area’s MP, and the owner refused the OIC entry into his flat to check for noise because he knew it was pre-arranged.

 

j) Someone sent to the owner the bcc from HBO to Chairman, Residents Committee, post-dated the same day he met the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service. The event in the bcc, a week after the owner refused the OIC, was intended to discredit the owner.

 

k) The Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service wrote to Town Council in order to by-pass HBO. Town Council then wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB soon, but no one came. They did not come because they knew the people in the flat across the neighbour were watching out for the neighbour.

 

l) The Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service rebuked an official in parliament. This was about three months after the owner met the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service and received the bcc. It was also the day the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service asked the owner whether someone visited him after he wrote to the Town Council. Other events showed there could be connection to official in high places.

 

m) HBO sent an estates officer and OIC to visit the owner after the post Prospect to inform they did not find machine-tool in the neighbour’s flat. This was a ploy. Item i) and j) indicate HBO staged heightened noise, send OIC to check for noise in the owner’s flat, and asked Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to him.

 

n) HBO sent two persons, one a counsellor, to visit the owner after he posted Record. When pressed his purpose for coming, the counsellor said it was to help him cope.

  

o) HBO sent the counsellor, a police officer, an estates officer and the OIC to persuade the owner to take up mediation after the post Discovery, and to let him know the people in the flat across the neighbour had nothing to do with his problem.

 

p) At the same time Commanding Officer from Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre wrote they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence in reply to the owner’s letter to the President. He did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour, although this was an important item in the letter to the President.

 

q) Also, the area’s MP informed the owner in an email he had referred his complaint in Discovery to the Branch Office. The post is a list of facts that the authorities could ascertain, and included a number of complaints against HBO. HBO, who is Head of the Branch Office, chose not to reply.

 

r) The owner listed instances where insiders assisted him in the post Civics. An example is Civic Advocator that published his email on the force-entry and bcc and, eleven days later, a statement from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service on a lookout for “bold and visionary” leaders and giving public service leaders different and challenging job assignments. The blogsite allows for comment.

 

s) The next post Public asks whether there could be a standard of propriety for officers even if no evidence is found against them. Afterall, the owner has shown quite clearly officers are the cause of the problem.

 

t) The owner wrote to the President, the Police and the Ministers, and there were replies. The owner quoted statement made by Ministers from the newspaper, and new appointment of high officials were reported. The statements and appointments are in Ethics. These had an effect as noise was reduced. The post also refers to unethical behaviour of officers at the Branch Office. 

 

u) The posts Encounter and Comment have most of the details. The first on the people who prevented the owner from a solution, and the second on the motive of the officers who wanted to keep it under wrap.

 

v) The post Question asks the authorities to make an assessment whether the officers knew and allowed the neighbour to work a trade. And the owner wrote to Public Service Commission(PSC) to look into the conduct of officers.

 

w) The post Authority has the letter to PSC. PSC exercises disciplinary control over public officers, and administers rules and regulations governing the code of conduct. There was no reply.

 

x) The post Petition is a request to high officials to investigate the goings-on at the Branch Office because HDB would not. HDB did not because of HBO’s standing; in effect, they forgo direct command over him.

 

 

10.  A summary of events on the neighbour:

 

a) For more than five years the flat was with the first owner only the owner’s mother saw and spoke to him a few times. The present owner and his wife were seen initially and, later, an occupier most of the time until he was evicted.

 

b) The first owner put up the flat for sale in ’98, but it was not sold.

 

c) After the eviction in ’99, which was not recorded, the first owner was allowed to tranfer the flat to the present owner to continue with their work.

 

d) The present owner was given a warning from a man who came to live in the flat across the neighbour. Following which, the flat was quiet for four years because it was unoccupied.

 

e) The flat was put up for sale by the present owner in ’06, it was not sold, and they restarted work in ’07.

 

f) The owner heard the maid carrying out work in the flat for four months after his complaint until she was stopped suddenly. She was seen with the present owner’s family, but her registered place of work was not at the flat. The family would have lived at the place where the maid was registered while using the flat for their work.

 

g) The people in the flat across the neighbour who moved in on Feb 08 took control of the situation in favour of the neighbour. Details are in the post Encounter Item 20 to 24.

 

h) The post Neighbour has more details.

 

 

(To find the post Neighbour, for example, google complainproper neighbour.)

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Petition

1.  The owner hopes high officials would make clear an issue that has becomes messy. MPs wrote to HDB many times, but there has not been a reply; Neighbourhood Police has been tasked to investigate yet missed out on important point. They are aware of HBO’s (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office’s) standing and choose not to do anything. Therefore, this request to high officials.

 

2.  The owner wrote officers at the Branch Office are involved with the neighbour over extended period, and showed HBO has extensive influence in his attempt at covering up. He saw it in the behaviour of the neighbour, officers, and Community Centre members (CC members). The details are in his blog.

 

3.  The neighbour used noise to negotiate with the owner: loud noise, noise through the night, reduced noise after a complaint to MP or in his blog. They take instruction from and are kept informed by the officers. Works carried out through the day with workers and tools are untenable without the officers looking out for them. The people in the flat across the neighbour, who the owner shown HBO and a CC member have contact with, do that.

 

4.  Insiders counter the officers. They assisted the owner enough to let him know the situation he is in. The problem started with the first owner who tranferred the flat to the neighbour after an eviction. An insider stopped them some years later, but they have since restarted. After the owner posted his complaint in his blog, an officer wrote there was no record of an eviction although the owner had seen the occupier shifted out and had been informed of the eviction.  

 

5.  The owner’s request to stop the neighbour is reasonable–they are not the average household, they have been stopped before, and why has the authorities not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour if there is indeed nothing to what the owner had mentioned. Noise through the day could be confirmed by inspection at the owner’s flat, and worker who may not be an occupant at the neighbour’s flat found out, if not for the people in the flat across the neighbour watching out for them. The officers and the people in the flat across the neighbour are in a position of influence to prevent such inspection.

 

6.  The first two week after last month’s posting, rumble and knock as usual and heavy thump was back again. The rumble and knock could be heard in all the rooms that would affect a person taking a nap or concentrating on his work. The few heavy thumps could be heard early in the morning, late at night, and at other times. Works are through the day.

 

7.  At 4.45am on Saturday, 11 Dec 10, there was a huge thump followed by a few knocks. The owner woke, turned on the light, and wrote the first draft of this request. The following Monday noise was muffled, and the man from the flat across the neighbour showed himself in the evening. Since last Monday there was less noise, but thump,rumble and knock continue.

 

8.  There is no direct line of command over the officers as indicated in Item 1 and 2 because of tie. High officials, Public Service Commission, President, Ministers and possibly others are the owner’s last hope for a solution. Even if his observations were stripped of all associations and there is no case, at least high officials would have investigated. Keeping silent is as though high officials sided with the officers, whereas a reply shows common touch.

“Strange” business going around at HDB Flat: Authority

 

1.  On 1 Nov 10, the owner sent an email to Public Service Commission (PSC):

  

Dear Mr, Mrs, Ms and Mdm,

A Request to Look into a Complaint Against Officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office

1.  I attended eleven Meet-the-People Session (MPS): one, no MP was in session; one, I was turned away; one, with MP Charles Chong; two, with DPM Teo Chee Hean; five, with MP Ahmad Mohd Magad; one, with MP Christopher de Souza.

 

2.  After my first MPS where no MP was in session, Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO), wrote to me Mr Charles Chong had asked HDB to look into my feedback. He wrote his officers were unable to detect any undue noise from the neighbour. HBO would continue to reply in the same vein to all the letters addressed to HDB from MPs.

 

3.  Mr Teo turned me away because Community Centre member (CC member) told him about me. He made good when he met me at a session scheduled for Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad. At this session I obtained two useful piece of informations: Mr Teo wrote to Pasir Ris Town Council when I requested the letter by-passed HBO and, before meeting him, an interviewer introduced me to a CC member who lived at my block of flat. Town Council replied I would hear from HDB but no officer came, and the CC member had contact with the people in the flat across the neighbour. The people in the flat across the neighbour are suppose to monitor the neighbour who works a trade in their flat.

 

4.  I was at an impasse at the last MPS. The CC member, who interviewed me before the meeting, asked how many times I had seen the MP, and said 10.00am with a move of his hand to indicate I could expect noise after that time. During the meeting, Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad said he would meet HBO the next day. I took it he had a message for HBO, because I noticed noise was reduced.

 

5.  In reply to an email referring to my blog, a member of Ulu Pandan CC invited me to their MPS. There, I passed a stack of correspondence and some letters I wrote in my blog to Mr Christopher de Souza. MP Penny Low from Pasir Ris Town Council also wrote to HDB. HBO replied to me with copy to the two MPs he had exhausted all forms of assistance in my particular case.

 

6.  HBO is the problem. The post Comment shows he has extensive connection, and the post Encounter shows events that prevented me from seeking a solution. The post Record shows the neighbour was stopped once before, and asks what is different now.

 

7.  The Ministers are aware of the issue from statements they made. DPM Teo Chee Hean said “the government is on the lookout for ‘bold and visionary’ leaders” and ”the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.”  In another he said “public officers will also be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than the ideological path”. PM Lee Hsien Loong said “Singapore cannot ‘afford a bump in the night’, whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem”. SM Goh Chok Tong said “many governments around the world face a trust deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on the government.” On the same subject over TV, Mr Goh said complaint from citizen may be vexatious but urged to engage.

 

8.  I may be wrong, but there are just too many happenings to be coincidental. One would be I have been forced to leave.

 

9.  I hope Public Service Commission looks at the conduct of the officers involved. They have a relationship with the neighbour going back to ’98. Other than insiders who had assisted, no one has solve the problem yet.

 

10. My blogsite has the details at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com and http://complainproper.wordpress.com

 

 

Regards,

 

blank out

 

2.  The Good Neighbour Awards given out each year showcase good example; a bad example would be the neighbour who have officers on their side. The officers are acting against the rules which is the opposite of building community.

 

3.  Much is known about the neighbour that people from People’s Association could help persuade them by looking at the circumstances. Assuming the officers and the people in the flat across the neighbour are not there to look out for the neighbour, HDB could enforce if required.

 

4.  Noise is adjusted down last month, but the owner still hears noise for many hours each day. Generally work is through the day. Rumble and continual knock from machine-tools are heard most of the time; heavy thump, clear knock and dropping of object are heard too. One day last week, continual knock started at 3.00am and became louder toward the morning was telling the owner what they could do. The day before he saw the neighbour’s wife and her two children as he was going out from his flat, and coming back two and a half hours later he saw her on her way out again. Such instances happened before. It was intentional with help from the people in the flat across the neighbour who watches the owner.  

 

5.  The owner has the problem with the neighbour for more than three years now, the problem having its origin after an eviction in ’99. No action on the officers involved allows the neighbour to continue. If the nature of his complaint were untrue, the owner would have been put straight a long time ago.

 

6.  PSC has replied to the owner’s email above.  The reply with ”Re: [Spam]” was inserted into the heading A Request to Look into a Complaint Against Officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. It thanked the owner for his email, and stated they would reply to his email within 3 working days. There was no reply however.

 

7.  The owner’s email was also sent to officers listed under PSC, but not to all its members as their email addresses are not listed. The owner hopes they would be informed so the commission could address the problem directly.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Question

1.  Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) should be held accountable for his action yet isn’t. He wrote in reply to the owner’s letter to a MP without referring to the issue raised. He avoided and actively seek to mislead.

 

2.  One was an eviction and tranfer of flat in ’99. The eviction was not recorded, and the flat was tranferred between own people. Another, a maid who was not at her registered place of work, was allowed to continue after a complaint in ’07. HBO misled in the first and avoided the second.

 

3.  A clear example of collusion is the people in the flat across the neighbour who watch out and protect the neighbour. HBO wrote his first letter to the owner they had not detected any excessive noise, a number of days after the people shifted into the flat. He wrote the second letter for the owner to obtain a court injunction as one possible solution, and visited the flat with Chairman, Residents Committee. A Community Centre member at the Meet-the-People Session had contact with the people in the flat. A neighbourhood police officer did not refer to the flat in his reply to the owner’s letter to the President, although the letter specifically mentioned the flat. They did not reveal the people in the flat across the neighbour after it was pointed out because it was hard to justify. The owner’s first Meet-the-People Session, shifting into the flat, HBO’s first reply, and force-entry into the neighbour’s flat all happened in about a month. The people in the flat then stayed on for over two and a half years. During the time the owner went to see the MPs and later wrote in his blog. Some of his observations are based on fact that would check out. 

 

4.  Anyone reading the case would find some things obvious. HBO attempted to show the owner as unreasonable when he asked the Chairman and a counsellor to talk to him. HBO, HDB officers, and neighbourhood police officers asked the owner to contact Community Mediation Centre sounded good, but Item 11 of Comment gave reasons why it was a trap. HBO said to the owner he could have the name of the neighbour during an early meeting, yet the Officer-in-Charge refused to give when he had it in his fact sheet. He is the person on the ground, knew what the neighbour was doing, and giving the neighbour’s name was detrimental. The post Encounter listed the people who prevented the owner from a solution against insiders who assisted. These may have resulted in a change of government policy in an addendum to President’s Address from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service.

 

5.  Noise was reduced after the post Comment last month. The owner heard continual noise in the morning and afternoon. There may be more or less noise depending on workers who work through the day. Rumbling, thump, whine, drag, knock were heard. Some were from machine-tools.

 

6.  There was a further reduction last week, but one day when noise worsen and noise was heard in the night. Their best effort have been low rumbling,muffled and some distinct sounds. There are quiet periods, but they decide on the types of work and workers. If the past is any guide, they do not let up and reduced noise may be for a time only because they do not expect enforcement.

 

7.  Officers had relationship with the group in which the neighbour was part in ’99, and the neighbour has come to expect the same treatment in ’07. Noise is associated with a trade, and officers would try to ameliorate by asking the neighbour to reduce noise and his affected neighbour to be reasonable. This is what happened to the owner, except this time they stationed people in the flat across the neighbour to prevent the neighbour from being caught because insider had stopped them before. The post Record asks why the man from the flat across the neighbour was able to stop the noise for four years but not the present group of people.

 

8.  HBO is the cause because he has a network of connection as seen from the posts Encounter and Comment. His removal will solve the noise problem. Conversely, his presence prevents action to stop the neighbour.

 

9.  HBO would like to show the owner as unreliable, but there is no lack of evidence from his observations.

 

10.  The two posts give sufficient details for the authorities to make an assessment. The authorities could ask HBO for an explanation first. The question remains whether officers knew about the neighbour, and allowed them to carry out a trade in their flat. The items above lay out some of the details.

 

11.  The Business Times of 7 Sep 10 reported Public Service Commission(PSC) ” will now have 12 members. The body’s aim is to be independent and neutral to safeguard integrity, impartiality and meritocracy in the civil service.” The owner has written to PSC to look into his case.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Comment

1.  Continuous noise, continual noise, and some loud noise could be heard through the day. The neighbour worked a trade and operated it like a business. Different workers, besides the husband and the wife, were seen.

 

2.  The people in the flat across the neighbour made sure noise was not noticable to passers-by, informed the neighbour should there be visitor to the owner’s flat, and prevented independent check to verify for noise. They have connection, and an interest to maintain the status quo.

 

3.  The problem requires investigation. The first owner and the present owner used the flat for their work. Two events separated by nine years showed similarities. Officers allowed the occupier and the maid to carry on even though the occupier was an illegal occupant and the maid was not at her registered place of work. Each time they were stopped by someone else many months after the owner wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. The eviction of the occupier was not recorded to enable the first owner to transfer the flat to the present owner. The occupier in ’98 and the maid in the present case indicated continuation of a line work over a long period of time. Do HDB officers take advantage of such situation?

 

 

4.  The Branch Office replied their investigations did not find excessive noise and asked the owner to seek his own solution. He was, however, blocked at every turns. Included were all letters written on behalf of the owner from MPs to HDB that Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO), took to reply. An example, the area’s MP would have written to HDB when the owner wrote HBO did not refer to the issue raised about the force-entry and eviction. In the meantime HBO set the stage for heightened noise, sent the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) to check for noise in the owner’s flat, visited the flat across the neighbour with Chairman, Residents Committee, then sent a reply to the owner with a copy to the area’s MP. It may not be right for his superiors at HDB not to reply but they could be under constraint. HBO took over while HDB receded into the background. It was the same when the owner emailed HDB each time he wrote an open letter in his blog. Officers from HDB and Police filled in by writing to the owner in support of the Branch Office. Later after a series of posts in his blog, statement made by Ministers and change of high official appointments may have been the result.

 

5.  Two MPs wrote directly to the Branch Office referring them to the blog instead of HDB. Being a public officer HBO should reply, especially where the complaint refers to him.

 

6.  HBO sent a counsellor, a police officer, an estates officer and the Office-in-Charge(OIC) to talk to the owner after he posted Discovery. Although he wrote in the post and spoke to the police officer over the phone that mediation was not going to help, they came to persuade the owner to mediate with the neighbour. More importantly, the estates officer wanted the owner to know the people in the flat across the neighbour was not the problem. OIC volunteered a name of a person from the flat. In fact the people in the flat across the neighbour are an evidence, and the crux of the problem.

 

7.  The owner saw the same person in the flat across the neighbour from Nov 08 and on Sep 10 recently. During the period, the owner saw him, his wife and his son. They wanted to show legitimacy but most of the time the owner only saw him. At time the owner could relate the level of noise the neighbour made to the person showing himself to the owner. The first time the owner saw him a number of events happened: 1) HBO sent his first letter to ask the owner to seek his own solution on 25 Sep 08; 2) The owner saw flashed on TV screen an address he could write to on perceived injustice; 3) The owner met the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service because noise was heightened after meeting the area’s MP; 4) Someone sent to the owner the bcc HBO wrote to the Chairman, Residents Committee, after their visit in the flat across the neighbour; 5) And Town Council informed the owner he would hear from HDB on 15 Jan 09. Of the last item the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, who wrote to the Town Council, asked the owner whether someone came to see him. No one came because they knew the people in the flat across the neighbour would have watched them during their visit. Going for the visit would do no good and compound the problem.

 

8.  Two instances wtth a Community Centre member (CC member) showed he knew about the people in the flat across the neighbour. Before meeting the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, the interviewer introduced the CC member to the owner. From what the interviewer said to the CC member, the CC member knew about the flat across the neighbour. The next instance, when the owner saw the CC member burning incense outside his flat, he challenged the owner who had began posting in his blog to contact the newspaper. Then he contacted the people in the flat across the neighbour who contacted the neighbour to make a series of loud noise just as the owner went to bed. The two instances were on Feb 09 and Aug 09 respectively.

 

9.  On 1 Feb 10, the owner wrote to the President and the Police pointing out the people in the flat across the neighbour was the problem. The SPF Customer Relations Branch, Bedok Police Division and Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre(NPC) replied. SPF Customer Relations Branch stated the owner’s feedback would be referred to the Bedok Police Division for appropriate action as necessary, and Bedok Police Division stated they acknowledged the concerns raised and had since referred the matter to relevant officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action. The Commanding Officer from NPC, in his reply to the letter the owner sent to the President, stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. He, however, made no reference to the people in the flat across the neighbour.

 

10.  The neighbour persisted because they work for a profit, and they are a group. Recently, the person in the flat across the neighbour showed himself to the owner one evening and the same evening the neighbour did too. The owner knew well, these have been one of many, to indicate the owner allow for the noise from the work the neighbour was doing. Although the amount and level of noise has been reduced, he hears loud noise, low-level noise, heavy thump and rumbling. Noise could be heard very early in the morning and through the day. The situation has not change.

 

11.  The source of the problem is the neighbour but the cause is the officers. As long as the owner complained, they would have to protect the neighbour. They know the neighbour could be caught as they have been doing it for years and are known to officers. The officers kept referring the owner to the Community Mediation Centre because that would stop the complaint and, as a consequence, no reason for anyone to take action against the neighbour. Further, the complaint against the officers could potentially expose them. Meantime the people in the flat across the neighbour ensures no one would verify for noise and thus maintain the status quo. In their official capacity, their influence prevented any action that would stop the neighbour.

 

12.  Insider assisted the owner but could not prevent it. Ministers helped with policy changes but it come down to the people who operate the system. What the owner has are evidences that would check out. There are leads within the government the neighbour operated a business and the people in the flat across the neighbour colluded with them. These would include the force-entry, the break-in and the long period of time they used the flat to watch out for the neighbour. Could investigation and enforcement agencies act on the leads?

 

 

13.  HBO has influence, and there is a summary under Note. When the owner sent an email to the PM that guess where he got his connection, the owner immediately got a phone call from an old friend to say he would pay him a visit. Then he received a letter from HBO with a copy to the area’s MP in reply to the letter the MP wrote on his behalf earlier. HBO wanted to let the owner know he knew about the email to the PM because he timed his letter one day after his friend visit, while the copy to the MP would have been two months late.

 

14.  If HBO is removed, it would be seen he could no longer hold onto his position because of his connection, and it followed no one would protect the neighbour. Does the foregoing provides for such an argument?

 

 

 

Note

 

A summary of events on HBO:

 

a)  It was not coincidence, the owner could not get through to HBO with the phone number he obtained from HDB Hub and the Branch Office did not receive the second letter the owner sent by post. Nor, the officer who acknowledged by signing on a photocopy of the owner’s letter which had two lines missing that referred to the OIC and HBO who conducted the meeting with the OIC in the room after the owner insisted on meeting HBO.

 

b)  The maid mentioned in the owner’s two letters also had something to do with it. They allowed the maid to continue working for four months. The owner was given an indication someone other than the Branch Office stopped the maid. HBO could simply reply whether he did or did not stop the maid. A check with the Ministry of Manpower would confirm whether the maid was employed by the neighbour and her registered place of work.

 

c)  During the meeting HBO asked the owner whether he knew of a recent tranfer of the neighbour’s flat. In fact the tranfer was nine years ago at the time of an eviction. He also said the owner could talk to the neighbour to solve the noise problem. Later, in his letters, he would be asking the owner to settle through mediation while ignoring complaint against him. All the time he avoided questions referring to himself and the neighbour.

 

d)  HBO’s letter to the owner, after his first Meet-the-People Session where no MP was in session, stated on a MP’s representation they had been unable to detect any undue noise from the neighbour’s flat. The letter was dated seven days after the owner noticed people shifting into the flat across the neighbour. They shifted into the flat four days after the Meet-the-People Session. From the flat, the owner inferred a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in into the owner’s flat. The people in the flat across the neighbour may have deferred to HBO who with his connection may have staged it. 

 

e)  HBO’s second letter was to ask the owner to seek his own solution after the owner wrote to the MP about the maid, force-entry and eviction among other things. In his own words he wrote the owner “claimed that noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner”. In the next paragraph he wrote ”were not able to conclude that your upper floor neighbor had sublet the flat to unknown owner. Neither were we able to establish that there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat.” And in the next paragraph ” we have not found any evidence to suggest that your neighbour were using their flat as a workshop.” As the owner explained in the post Encounter Item 8 he never mentioned anything about sublet or used the term unknown owner. It was intended to hide an eviction followed by the transfer of the flat to allow the neighbour to continue with their work. HBO’s wording on the work carried out by the neighbour, although in negation, actually described the situation. He knew what he was doing.

 

f)  Because HBO did not take issue on the maid, force-entry and eviction, the owner went to see the area’s MP. In the time before HBO reply to the area’s MP’s letter to HDB, he staged heightened noise at the owner’s flat, sent the OIC to visit the owner to check for noise inside his flat, and visited the flat across the neighbour with the Chairman after the owner refused the OIC entry into his flat. Next, he replied to the owner with a cc to the area’s MP and a bcc to the Chairman. Someone sent the bcc to the owner later. And he found the Chairman’s term of office may have been extended for another two years to prevent him from asking help from a new Chairman. 

 

g)  At the owner’s last meeting with the area’s MP, the MP said he would meet HBO the next day and noise was reduced. The owner thinks someone passed a message to the MP to take to HBO. He is central to the problem. The MP also referred him to the blog after the owner posted Discovery. The post has a list of complaint against him but he did not reply.

 

h)  The owner’s mother received phone calls after the owner went to the neighbourhood police because of the noise. The phone calls were most likely from HBO and OIC. They have his mother phone number the owner gave to the OIC and the estates officer during their visit. They did not reveal their names only that they were from the police. OIC spoke English then Malay to his mother who could not understand. Without putting down the phone he shouted for HBO who conversed in dialect and was friendly with his mother. As a ruse HBO asked for the owner phone number, but knew the question to ask. HBO and OIC each called a few times because they wanted information on the owner. The owner emailed the neighbourhood police early the next day after the first call from OIC to confirm whether their officers did call but there was no written reply. This was a critical period for HBO because the owner chose 1 Feb 10, the date the new Commissioner of Police was appointed, to write to the President and the Police earlier.

 

i)  Following the post Discovery, the OIC called the owner over the phone they wanted to talk. In his flat, the counsellor, the police officer, the estates officer and the OIC persuaded the owner to go for mediation. OIC volunteered the name of a person in the flat across the neighbour, and the estates officer said he was going up to the flat in an offer for the owner to check himself. It was important to them the owner think the people in the flat across the neighbour had nothing to do with his problem. Thus, people in the flat across the neighbour could watch out for the neighbour and maintain the status quo.

 

j)  Examples HBO had contacts with the neighbour, CC members and the people in the flat across the neighbour:

i) On the morning that HBO visited the flat across the neighbour there was incessant knocking. HBO could see the owner in his study room from the flat. The nature of the noise let the owner to believe it was his doing. The owner would not have known if not for the bcc, which indicated the date HBO and the Chairman visited the flat to be followed by the Chairman’s visit to the owner the same day. Related events are in Item f) above.

 

ii) OIC and the estates officer visited the owner after he posted Prospect to inform they inspected the neighbour’s flat and found no machine-tool. The owner had no reason to believe the OIC did not inform the neighbour before the inspection. Some time back the owner did not allow the OIC to check for noise in his flat because he distrusted him. HBO knew about the event, which let him to set up a visit to the flat across the neighbour with the Chairman. As explained in the post Encounter Item 13c the estates officer was new, and the inspection was a ploy for others to see. 

 

iii) A chance meeting with the CC member outside his flat. He challenged the owner to contact the newspaper as he had just posted on his blog. That night as he went to bed, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour. The CC member had contacted the people in the flat across the neighbour who contacted the neighbour to make the noise once the owner switched off the light to go to bed. HBO is in contact with CC members and the people in the flat across the neighbour could be seen from followings: 1) During the first Meet-the-People Session the brother of the CC member pointed to the name of HBO when asked who the matter would be referred to as no MP was in session, 2) From the conversation between the CC member and an interviewer, who introduced the CC member to the owner, the CC member knew about the flat across the neighbour and so did HBO who with the Chairman visited the flat.

k)  HBO posted a car parking problem on the front page of CNA forum. It was not as it seemed. He intended to let the owner know his attempt at publicity from the blogsphere would fail. This was after HBO knew about the TV broadcast on perceived injustice as the owner told a friend and said he would look at discussion group instead. Earlier he wrote to the company, that also hosted the CNA forum, to get the address he saw flashed on the screen during the broadcast. He could not get the address. (It may not have helped even if he could. Even so the broadcast was an important signal.) The owner began looking at other blogsites. A meeting was arranged with one at the owner’s flat but they did not turn up. Two volunteers from another blogsite visited the owner, one was ready to listen the other kept contradicting. One thing was clear, he insisted he would publish the report the owner requested together with his photograph. It meant the owner would have difficulty selling his flat. These go to show the extent of HBO’s reach.

 

l)  The owner sent to the PM an email with a name that resembled HBO’s to show there might be a connection. He was surprised by the immediate response because an old friend called over the phone, and he arranged to meet the owner at his flat. The owner came across the name first from blogsites, and later in the newspaper when he was rebuked by the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service. It may have started with the TV broadcast, and may have been related to the bcc the owner received a day after the owner went to see the Minister. Subsequently the Minister wrote to the Town Council, and enquired of the owner whether someone visited him. Following which was the rebuke in Parliament. The rebuke was about the expensive cooking lesson he took and wrote about in a newspaper during an economic downturn. But some questioned whether he deserved being put on record. HBO may provide a clue. His reply to the letter the area’s MP wrote on the owner’s behalf was timed one day after his friend visit while the copy to the MP would have been two months late. He wanted the owner to know he knew about the email to PM. To the owner, there is a connection.

 

m)  PM said Singapore cannot “afford a bump in the night”,whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem, in an interview with American television on 15 Apr 10. After which there a number of new appointments in the government from Jun 10 onward. It may somehow be related to the Item l) above, considering the problem the owner had.

 

n)  The MPs wrote to HDB on the behalf of the owner. HBO would reply to the owner with a copy to the MP even as the owner asked the MPs to bypass him. His superiors may be under constraint and so left the answering to HBO. Of late he stop replying, especially when MPs referred him to the blog which listed the complaint against him. In its place other officers responsed to email the owner sent to PM, MP, and other high officials to inform them of new posting in his blog. It was pretension when they named them in their reply. After the owner posted Encounter, a HDB officer stated in her reply their staff visited him, and the owner “rejected our offer and refused to reveal more information pertaining to your feedback”. Only no one visited.

 

o)  HBO asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner. He sent a counsellor to help him cope with his difficulty. When required, they could be turned round to show the owner in bad light. HBO also had police officers involved. Two police officers who took the line of HBO when they wrote to the owner, although one in reply to a letter to the President and the other to an email of 18 Sep 09 to the Commissioner of Police to inform him of new posting. A police officer who took a 3-hour statement in his flat, and persuaded him to take up mediation over the phone. The police officer, the counsellor, the estates officer and the OIC visited the owner to persuade him to mediate, and to let him know the people in the flat across the neighbour was not the problem. After the meeting, HBO wrote to the owner he had exhausted all forms of assistance with a copy to two MPs.

 

 

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Encounter

1.  The owner wished he did not have to put up post after post, and said so during the last meeting with officers on 12 Mar 10. This was after he posted Discovery when he said he would not pursue further if the noise stop. He decided now to tell it as it was.

2.  The Officer-In-Charge(OIC) and an official-looking man visited the owner when he first wrote to HDB Branch Office. The owner asked for the man’s name, but the OIC said he only followed. As they had not read his letter, and did not accept the owner’s invitation to come in, he passed a copy of his letter to the Branch Office to them.

3.  When they went upstairs to talk to the neighbour, the owner left the door of his flat opened and stayed at his living room. Some time later, he heard an under-the-breath shout after the officers from the neighbour’s boy showing unity with his father. The owner waited for the officers to come down but they did not, although the two staircases could only lead to the lifts downstairs in which the owner had full view. They must have used the farther staircase and skipped the floor.

4.  The owner surmised their talk may not be successful. He inquired of the OIC a few times about the man who followed him, but he kept quiet. The owner thinks the force-entry later was a way to deal with the neighbour.

5.  The owner wrote a second letter to the Branch Office, and a week later telephoned to inquire whether they received it. Not able to get through with the numbers he got from HDB Hub, he called the OIC, who informed him they did not receive his second letter. He went to the Branch Office to hand over a copy, asked for an acknowledgment, and requested to meet the Head, Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO). He was shown the names of two officers to meet, but he insisted on a meeting with HBO. The meeting on the same day was conducted with the OIC in the room, making it less likely the owner would complain against him. The owner asked about mediation and about the neighbour, and HBO said he could rally the residents committee. He also said the owner could talk to the neighbour, and whether he knew there was a recent transfer of the flat. The owner ended the meeting as it was not getting anywhere. Two days later, the OIC and a fellow officer visited him. The OIC said he had been around his flat for 15 minutes but did not hear any noise, and his fellow officer was his witness.

6.  Two items to note here. The acknowledgment was a signed photocopy of the owner’s letter with two lines missing. The lines referred to a quiet period before the OIC’s visit and rumbling noise just after the OIC’s visit. He called the owner over the telephone after the rumbling noise to check the noise level. The other item HBO said was a recent transfer of the neighbour’s flat happened nine years ago at the time of an eviction. This would have implicated the neighbour, since the tranfer just after the eviction was for the purpose of continuing with their works.

7.  HBO wrote his first letter to the owner after he went to his first Meet-the-People session. It stated a MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback. They had been unable to detect any undue noise at every inspections, including an inspection after the MP’s representations. He would like the owner to know that HDB would take action against lessees only if there was evidence of misuse of HDB flat, and noise from everyday living was not within their control. But the owner had seen personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on the fourth day after the Meet-the-People Session. HBO’s letter was on the seventh day after the personnel shifted in, and the force-entry was on the third week after his letter. And the neighbour approached the owner on the third day after the force-entry to ask the owner to tell him where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. So HBO wrote the letter after personnel shifted into the flat, and could have known what was going on.

8.  Six months later when the owner wrote two letters on maid, force-entry and eviction among other things to the MP and went to see him, HBO replied the owner may seek assistance from the Neighbourhood Police or instruct his solicitors to obtain a court injunction. Alternatively he may seek assistance from the Residents Committee or Community Mediation Centre to settle the matter amicably. He also wrote investigation based on the owner’s information was not able to conclude the neighbour had sublet the flat to unknown owner. But the owner never mentioned anything about sublet or used the term unknown owner. The idea behind it was to show there was no record of an occupier (unknown owner) and, therefore, there could not have been an eviction. Hence in Aug 09 when the owner first posted in his blog, an officer wrote no eviction was ever conducted, and it was incorrect to state an eviction had taken place. If there was an occupier he would be an illegal occupant. To be sure the owner knew the occupier lived in the flat for many years, and the occupier was evicted after the owner wrote he came pounding at his door. After the eviction, the owner wrote to HDB Feedback Unit to express his appreciation

9.  About the maid, the owner observed she worked in the flat from the noise made while monitoring the family’s comings and goings. With his door open he could see the lift lobby and the stairs to their flat, and he kept watch for eight days spread over a month from 6.00am to 9.00pm. Then he wrote his first letter to the Branch Office on Aug 07, and a poster of a maid appeared on the noticebroad at the void deck of his block sometimes in Dec 07. It showed a maid working in a coffeeshop, and stated the maid was only allowed to work as a domestic help at the place she was registered. This happened at the same time the noise stopped for a few weeks. The owner thinks the maid was stopped because she was not seen from that time on except for one day on Lunar New Year. The maid, however, was not stopped for the four months after he wrote to the Branch Office. Someone else did when they came to know of his letter. Later the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to confirm whether there was a maid under the employ of the neighbour to show not only they used the maid for the works they were doing but also they resided at the place where the maid was registered.

10.  Following the letter from HBO in Item 8, the owner went to see his area’s MP. Noise was heightened, and the owner refused to let the OIC and a fellow officer check for noise in his flat. HBO then met Chairman, Residents Committee, at the flat across the neighbour. In the bcc to the Chairman, he wrote during their house visit there was no noise nuisance being detected and asked him to explain good neighbourliness to the owner. The bcc also stated the date of the house visit, and an arrangement for the Chairman and the Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. Before their visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room. The increasing intensity of the noise, for several minutes, let the owner to suspect the noise was because of HBO who could see the owner in his study room from the flat across the neighbour.

11.  HBO replied to seven letters written by MPs on behalf of the owner. Each time he wrote there was no excessive noise, and referred the owner to the Police, Residents Committee, Community Mediation Centre or his solicitor. The whole time that the owner requested the MPs to bypass him, and wrote in his blog letters to HDB to which MPs had responded, he kept up with similar replies. No further investigation was carried out although certain facts were known about the neighbour. For examples, the owner showed dealing with the first owner allowed the flat to be transferred to the neighbour, and just after his first Meet-the-People Session people shifted into the flat across the neighbour to keep the situation under their control. A number of statements made by Ministers and quoted by the owner could be an acknowledgment, since it have to do with the civil service. New appointments of high official that were reported could be the result.

12.  HBO’s last letter to the owner with copies to two MPs on Mar 10 was followed by letters from estates officers on May 10 and Aug 10. In the estates officers’ replies they named PM, MP and high officials the owner emailed to inform them of new postings. They referred the owner to Community Mediation Centre again, but four letters written by MPs on his behalf remain unanswered. In his case, reply to the owner is not as important as having copies to the MPs, who represent the people in the constituencies.

13.  Other matters to highlight on the trail of OIC:

a)  When OIC and a fellow officer visited the owner two days after his meeting with HBO, the owner asked for the name of the neighbour but he refused. The owner reminded him he was at the meeting, and HBO had agreed. Next the owner asked the date the neighbour’s flat was transferred, which he gave from his fact sheet.

b) After the owner’s first meeting with his area’s MP noise was heightened, and the OIC and the fellow officer visited. He asked why he was not allowed to enter his flat to check for noise. In reply, the owner said the OIC knew as well as the owner did why not. A week later, HBO’s joint visit with the Chairman in the flat across the neighbour was a tic for tac to discredit the owner.

c) After the owner wrote in his blog the post Prospect, the OIC and an estates officer visited him to inform they had conducted an inspection of the neighbour’s flat and found no machine-tools. Why took the trouble when the owner already distrusted the OIC? The estates officer was new as he did not even know the name of HBO, and he was eager to find out more from the owner. He hinted he knew something about the owner. He asked and agreed when the owner said the neighbour was working on jewellery or fashion accessory. It may not be a ploy in the first place but became one with the OIC alongside. The neighbour would have been informed beforehand, and the OIC could keep tag on what was said between the owner and the estates officer. The estates officer was to change his tune shortly, but the owner does not blame him.

d) By elimination the owner suspected the OIC called the owner’s mother on pretext to obtain information about him. This was a day after the owner went to the Neighbourhood Police Centre(NPC) some time after he posted Discovery. He wrote an email to NPC to confirm whether a police officer called his mother over the telephone, but there was no written reply. Instead a person called his mother a few times. He did not give his full name when asked, mentioned the email the owner sent, and gave a telephone number from NPC for the owner to call back. The OIC was to call the his mother again, this time to speak to his sister.

e) Some time later, OIC called the owner over the telephone to said they wanted to talk . The meeting at the owner’s home was with a counsellor, an officer from the neighbourhood police, the estates officer and the OIC. There was nothing new except the OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person who occupied the flat across the neighbour and, before they left, interviewed the owner’s mother and asked for his sister’s mobile number. Having sent the officers, HBO wrote to the owner he had exhausted all forms of assistance with copies to two MPs. He did not, however, copy to the area’s MP either because the MP wrote to the Branch Office instead of HDB as usual or because the MP knew what he was up to.

f) One time the OIC called the owner to ask who was working in the flat upstairs, and let on the man of the house did not because he worked outside. Another time he asked why the owner did not make a police report on the break-in at his flat. (The owner did suspect a break-in and call the police.) Talking to him often, the owner could take his cue from what was said and the manner it was said.

14.  The Chairman’s term of office from Apr 07 to Mar 09 may have been extended for another two years. This rules out help from a new Chairman. The Chairman was sent the bcc asking him to explain good neighbourliness to the owner on Oct 08, and he spoke to the owner who he met at the void deck on Dec 09. The owner asked him whether he or members of his committee could make random check at his flat. He replied he would only visit him with officer.

15.  During one of the Meet-the-People Session the owner saw an elder who was greeted warmly as he entered the hall, and the owner saw him again during the next Meet-the-People Session when he went into the end room where the MP was to held his meeting. From the events that followed, the owner thinks the elder was there each time to influence the outcome of the meeting the owner had with the MPs.

16.  At the first Meet-the-People Session, the owner asked the interviewer who the matter would be referred to as no MP was in session. He pointed to the name of HBO in a letter. When the owner asked for his name it was the name of his brother he gave. The owner saw him twice around owner’s neighbourhood, and in later sessions he only saw the brother. After the first Meet-the-People Session, HBO wrote to the owner that a MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback as Item 7 above.

17.  At one of the Meet-the-People Session the owner was introduced to the brother by another interviewer. The brother said he may have interviewed the owner, and he was the only person with that name. From what was said between the interviewer and the brother, the brother already knew the owner’s case.

18.  During the last Meet-the-People Session the interviewer was the brother. He asked how many times the owner had seen the MP to mean it had been too many times, and said 10.00am with a move of his hand to indicate the owner could expect noise after that time.

19.  Some time after the first posting in his blog on Aug 09, the owner met the last interviewer burning incense outside his flat. He said his brother was not in, and challenged the owner to contact the newspaper. That night, just after the owner went to bed, there was a series of loud noise made by the neighbour upstairs. The last interviewer had contacted the people in the flat across the neighbour, who then contacted the neighbour when the owner switched off his light to go to bed. A clear instance of contact between them.

20.  Of the people in the flat across the neighbour, the situation is more complicated. They moved in just after the owner went to his first Meet-the-People Session, and stayed for two and a half years. They keep an eye on the neighbour to prevent them from making too loud a noise, and watch out for them at the same time. The person the owner saw in Nov 08 till Jun 10, who the OIC may have volunteered his name, may be the register occupant but this did not preclude other persons who used the flat. Two events of consequence happened during this period: on Jan 09 Town Council informed the owner he would hear from HDB but no one came, and on Aug 09 the event in Item 19.

21.  Four more events to do with the flat: a) a man who lived there for a short period gave warning that caused the neighbour to stop for fours years, b) the flat as staging area for a force-entry to deal with the neighbour the second time round, c) the flat as a staging area for a break-in into the owner’s flat in search of incriminating letter and personal detail, and d) HBO and the Chairman’s house visit at the flat with a plan to discredit the owner. These events were inferred from observation, which included noise heard each day and insider who assisted him.

22.  The main reason the people in the flat across the neighbour stayed over the years is not clear to the owner, but his observations make a case. For examples: noise through the day, including early morning and night each day of the week, indicated workers take shift; thump and rumbling noise indicated tools; appearance of the neighbour and his wife separately indicated they work at the same trade, but do not live in; and family routines such as being with their two children, grocery and outing would have indicated whether they do. Besides the owner had seen the workers, and he noted the neighbour was kept informed. One reason could be the people in the flat across the neighbour prevented the neighbour from getting caught until such time the owner sold his flat. It would be less trouble without the owner to complain the neighbour took over the flat just after the eviction to continue with their works, and the maid found working was not registered to work in the neighbour’s flat for examples. It would not be an exaggeration that at any one time an inspection of the neighbour’s flat would find tool, material, and worker who may not be an occupant of the flat.

23.  The people in the flat across the neighbour have a view of the entrance and into the study room of the owner’s flat. Because of their influence, they prevented independent check to verify for noise. All these times no one visited the owner to conduct check this way. Where there were visits the noise stopped. An example was the letter from Town Council that he would hear from HDB officer but no one came. Also the two weeks from 5 Aug 10 to 18 Aug 10 that the flat was not occupied the noise was tolerable, but the noise was louder and more frequent after it was re-occupied. In the post Ethics on 1 Aug 10, the owner may have correctly suggested random checks are required, and pointed out the people in the flat across the neighbour prolonged the situation.

24.  When they re-occupied the flat across the neighbour, knocks were heard as early as 4.30am in the morning and most of the noise were rumbling and knocks the whole afternoon. Before they started, there were testings for noise level to ensure the noise would not be obvious from outside the flat. Although there are relatively quiet period in the morning and quiet after certain hours at night, it bears repeating the neighbour used the flat to carry out a trade and, since works are through the day each day of the week, there are other workers. The owner could only hope the authorities do something as there is nothing the owner could do. Not doing something in effect allows them to continue.

25.  The neighbour himself approached the owner a few days after the force-entry. He said he had reduced the noise, and there had not been any noise from his flat for a period was it not (Item 21a). When the owner asked him for his full name he would only give a shorten form, and said the owner would not have asked if he could get it from HDB. He asked the owner to compromise by letting him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. Since the owner did not accept, he asked the owner not to knock on his door too loudly. This in reference to the occupier who would not answer the door just before he was evicted. Earlier when the owner talked to the neighbour, he said there was no noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice.

26.  The owner has shows directly the behaviour of the officers allowed the neighbour to continue with their works. He has shows indirectly the neighbour operated a business and the officers knew that for a fact. They make sure the noises are not noticable from outside the flat, but the noises heard inside the owner’s flat are another matter. So when the owner complained, the neighbour obliged by reducing the noise for a time but started up later. This has been going on for over three years with the owner trying to get help. He has been forced to leave. Shouldn’t the authorities first take to task the officers who are in contact with the public?

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Ethics

1.  It is one thing for Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO), to cover up past mistakes at the time of the eviction in ’99, and another when he continues to do so the activities of the neighbour since ’07.

 

2.  An officer wrote there was no eviction when the owner knew first-hand there was one: the owner wrote about the occupier who was evicted in his letters to the HDB Branch Office and HDB Feedback Unit. Back then, the estates officer told him she knew what the occupier was doing; and the letter of Sep 08 from HBO, which indicated the neighbour’s flat had not been sublet, would shows the occupier occupied the flat illegally. So the eviction was not recorded, instead the first owner was allowed to transfer the flat to his own people soon after.

 

3.  The cover-up began to show when Officer-in-Charge(OIC) told the owner the Branch Office did not received his second letter, then two lines was missing from a photocopy of his second letter when the owner asked for an acknowledgement, during the meeting HBO said there was a recent transfer of the neighbour’s flat when it was nine years ago, and he conducted his meeting with OIC in the room so the owner did not made a complaint against him. The two missing lines indicated the OIC contacted the neighbour to adjust the noise level, and saying there was a recent tranfer of ownership misled the owner to think the neighbour was not related to the eviction nine years ago.

 

4.  When the owner wrote to a MP on the maid, force-entry, and eviction and HBO replied for the owner to seek his own solution, he had crossed the line for ethical behaviour and his actions from then on indicated the extent of his influence.

 

5.  Two facts need to be mentioned here. The bcc, from HBO to Chairman, Residents Committe, indicated a flat is use to monitor the neighbour. HBO wrote he had a joint house visit with the Chairman, and there was no noise nuisance being detected. He asked the Chairman to explain to the owner on being a good neighbourliness in length, and he really appreciated the Chairman’s effort and assistance. The other fact is the letter from Town Council that the owner would hear from HDB soon but no officer came to visit him. The dates to note are the owner saw personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on Feb 08 before HBO wrote the bcc on Oct 08 for its own reason. And the letter from Town Council was sent on Jan 09 two months after the owner saw the person who occupied the flat across the neighbour on Nov 08, and he was last seen on Jun 10.

 

6.  There was a motive behind the bcc. When the owner went to see his area’s MP for the first time, noise was heightened, and the OIC and a fellow officer visited him. His refusal to their request to check for noise in his flat was followed by the joint house visit between HBO and the Chairman in the flat across the neighbour. It was the morning of their house visit that the owner heard incessant knocking, but HBO wrote no noise nuisance was detected. It was also the same morning that the Chairman and the Treasurer visited him, and the owner told them he would be writing to Mr Teo Chee Hean. HBO replied to the owner, cc to the area’s MP and bcc to the Chairman a week later; his reply was about a month from the time the owner saw the area’s MP. The plan was for HBO and the Chairman to cast the owner as unreliable.

 

7.  Just as he sent the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to him, HBO sent a counsellor to visit the owner to help him cope with his difficulty. Either he presumed the owner is at fault, or he wanted attention away from the neighbour. He would also prefer not to know what the owner wrote about him in his blog. Therefore after the owner posted Discovery, HBO sent the counsellor, a police officer, the estates officer and OIC to visit the owner. Next he wrote he had exhausted all forms of assistance, and asked the owner to go for mediation or engage his own solicitors. The letter was copied to two MPs, who wrote to HDB. The area’s MP who wrote to the Branch Office, however, was not sent a copy. Since the area’s MP informed the owner he had referred his complaint to the Branch Office, HBO would have his reason for not giving a reply.

 

8.  The owner is sure the neighbour uses his flat for their works. Some of the noises were similar to the noises he heard from the occupier who was evicted many years earlier. He had seen other persons going into the flat themselves and heard noises. They had used noise to intimidate and to signal to the owner. His encounters with HBO, OIC, the Chairman from Residents Committee, the personnel in the flat across the neighbour,and the two volunteers from the Meet-the-People Session, showed they shielded and kept the neighbour informed. It may seemed far-fetched if there were no history on the neighbour, and no one knew and assisted the owner.

 

9.  The owner could see HBO has influence over the two volunteers, the personnel, the Chairman, the counsellor (an officer wrote the owner was referred to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) and officers from the neighbourhood police. It could be assumed HBO knew about the maid, neighbour, occupier and first owner; the personnel across the neighbour, force-entry and break-in; the TV broadcast on perceived injustice; and the owner’s letters to MPs and emails about his posting in the blog. He knew from the actions he took.

 

10.  No issue is seen to have been taken with HBO or OIC. And, personnel has occupied the flat across the neighbour for a period of two and a half years now. To the owner both are contrived, placing him at a disadvantage. Instances listed in Discovery, with more details in subsequent posts, would show the case. Lately the neighbour has reduce noise. They complied because they are kept up-to-date on development. Noises are still heard through the day.

 

11.  An ethical code of conduct for officers is essential. It is relation with the public, and immediacy between person. Using one’s influence to obstruct is not one of its value. The Personnel Boards or a committee on ethics could look at the problem.

 

12.  A number of MPs had assisted the owner by writing to HDB. HBO always replied to the letters, even as the owner requested two of the MPs to bypass him. Later the owner wrote to people he found from the Singapore Government Directory and Who’s Who in Singapore 2006. The replies he received referred him to the relevant authorities, thanked him for his feedback and a few others.

 

13.  The owner had quoted PM Lee Hsien Loong on “government misbehaviour”, SM Goh Chok Tong on “trust deficit” and “morally upright government”, and DPM Teo Chee Hean on ” logical rather than ideological path and stay pragmatic in making policies – an approach that has produced many innovative solutions in the past”. They may not be related to his case, but it was timely and pertinent when he wrote in his blog.

 

14.  The owner had also quoted DPM Teo Chee Hean earlier on “the government is on the lookout for ‘bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments” and “the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments”. This was in the Prime Minister’s Office’s addendum to the President’s address.

 

15.  A year later on 2 Jun 10 and 15 Jun 10 the Business Times reported new permanent secretary appointments, and three statutory boards under the Ministry of National Development were set to get new CEOs respectively. On 10 Jul 10 the Straits Times reported new chief executive director of the People’s Association in June. These could be the development referred in Item 10 above.

 

16.  An inquiry into the volunteers and officers involved is required. How else to stop the noise when they have an arrangement with the the neighbour. The owner is reminded of a number of occasions the people in the flat across the neighbour had guided the neighbour to lower the noise, and of other instances that supported such an observation.

 

17.  The people at the flat across the neighbour has so far prolonged the situation. Some forms of random checks with different officers could be put in place to prevent the neighbour from being informed.

 

18.  The owner has provided details to prove the neighbour carried out works in their flat, and to show the problem has been long-standing. These details could be corroborated.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Public

1.  After the owner wrote  to the President, Police and Minister for National Development on 1 Feb 10, the Neighbourhood Police emailed telephone numbers and a name of an officer to contact and Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office emailed a reply.

 

2.  Although noise was reduced it was lengthened, and the owner went to the Neighbourhood Police Centre on 16 Feb 10. He wanted to meet the officers named in the email, but since it was a public holiday they were not in.

 

3.  The next day someone called the owner’s mother who was at his sister place. He introduced himself as a police officer and asked questions about his mother and the owner. He called again another day to ask to talk to his sister. Another person, who did not gave his full name when his mother asked, also talked to her several times over the telephone. He left a telephone number, which was from the Neighbourhood Police Centre, for the owner to call back. The owner had emailed the Neighbourhood Police early the next morning after the first person called to confirm whether there was a police officer who called his mother, except for the second person who called his mother and mentioned the email there was no reply.

 

4.  Later a police officer visited the owner twice, one to take a 3-hours statement, and called him over the telephone a few times.

 

5.  A final visit was with officers from Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office, Community Development and Neighbourhood Police after the owner posted Discovery in his blog on 4 Mar 10. The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) had called over the telephone to said they wanted to talk. But there was nothing new during their visit. Before they left they interviewed his mother and ask for his sister’s mobile telephone number.

 

6.  It seemed they wanted more information on the owner after his recent letter, emails and posts.

 

7.  The owner’s complaint about continuing noise is up against groups of volunteers and officers who opposed him. The matter is clear to the owner. Consider the period Mar’99 to Apr’99 in which the occupier was evicted, and the tranfer of the flat from the first owner to the present owner took place. He observed one evening after the eviction a contractor informing the present owner about an inspection by HDB officer, which would be the compulsory handover inspection just before the tranfer of ownership to him. The owner had seen the present owner, his wife and the occupier when the flat was with the first owner.

 

8. The owner is quite certain there was a force-entry not only from what is outlined in his first post but also from signs he observed during the first visit by OIC who was with a man, and when they went upstairs to talk to the neighbour. Also, the present owner spoke to him a few days later after the force-entry to ask him where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment.

 

9.  The force-entry was an ultimatum, and they shielded the present owner when the owner brought out the past. It was not expected after an intervening eight years. A possible break-in at the owner’s flat to seach for documents for traces to be removed could be seen in this context. It happened after the owner signalled to the neighbour he knew there was a different person working in the flat and was in the process of writing to a MP.

 

10.  The bcc from Head,Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO) to Chairman,Residents Committee, and the letter Town Council sent to the owner that he would hear from HDB, gave weight there was a forced-entry and a break-in. The bcc indicated a flat is used to monitor the neighbour, and no officer came to see the owner indicated they know something is going on.

 

 

11.  From observations the neighbour has a place to live elsewhere and uses the flat as a workplace. At any one time there may be one or two persons working through the day. Noises made are of various types and they use machine-tools. By varying their works or reducing the noise when there is complaint they could keep going. They have continued over the years and possibly in other places. That is how officers come to know about them. The officer who came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period anticipated it and he stopped the noise. In contrast the personnel who presently occupied the same flat for more than two years did not.

 

12.  There has been less noise since 19 Apr 10. For a month after, some days are worse than others. Muffled sounds and also clear, heavy or loud noises. Due to the different type of works and, considering the length of time from early morning to night, from a change of person. They have shown to be determined. Even as the owner showed that officers are involved the neighbour maintains the status quo. It meant that they do not fear enforcement by personnel in flat across them. The owner has been writing to HDB because a) the activities of the neighbour are known to officers, b) HBO has been putting up a front, c) personnel in the flat across the neighbour allows them, d) HDB has the authority to enter flat, and e) the owner cannot take effective action.

 

13.  Are the observations made by the owner flawed and the officers and neighbour wronged. In the past there was the kampong spirit, now we depended on officers and volunteers to be seen in a position of trust. There could be a standard for propriety for officers who do not measure up and no offence is found. What do our state, parliament, government bodies, civil society organisations and media recommend?

 

14.  The owner posted Civics on 12 Apr 10, and the Business Times reported on 16 Apr 10 a wide-ranging interview between the veteran journalist Charlie Rose and PM Lee Hsien Loong in Washington. Mr Lee said “…Singapore cannot ‘afford a bump in the night’, whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem…”. It was also reported on 17 Apr 10 SM Goh Chok Tong said “Many governments around the world face a trust-deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on government. These may have their place in certain contexts.” “In Singapore, our starting premise is that given our unique characteristics and vulnerabilities as a little nation, a strong, competent and morally upright government is essential to Singapore’s survival”. Mr Goh was speaking at the second annual Singapore-China Forum on Leadership.

 

15.  It may be a stretch to think the two news items above are related to his case, but leaves the reader to see how well it fits.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Civics

1.  There is a number of surprising events from the post Discovery. Does it not indicates the neighbour is carrying out works in the flat and officers are involved?

 

2.  The actions of Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) and the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) are questionable.

 

3.  Chairman,Residents Committee(Chairman), whose term of office for two years ended 31 Mar 09 shown on the noticeboard, is still the Chairman who spoke to the owner on 6 Dec 09. He  could not rely on a new Chairman and members of his committee to check on noise in his flat. It will be possible when there is no one to inform the neighbour about their visits.

 

4.  The owner knows of instances where HBO, Community Centre members, and people in the flat across the neighbour who have a view of the owner’s flat are involved with the neighbour.

 

5.  After the owner wrote to the President, Ministers, the Police, and on his blog on 1 Feb 10, HDB Branch Office wrote there was no evidence of undue noise from interviews with several neighbours and no noise recording device as claimed. A letter from Neighbourhood Police post-dated 11 Mar 10 stated they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence. A meeting with officers from the Branch Office, Community Development and Neighbourhood Police at the owner’s flat on 12 Mar 10 was the same - no noise heard by the neighbours, no recording device, gave the name of the person in the flat across the neighbour, and offered mediation. It seemed like a position to take after the facts.

 

6.  The owner had wrote noise only affected his flat in his first post, and the flat across the neighbour was occupied after he wrote his first letter to the Meet-the-People Session. The bcc would indicates the flat was used to keep watch over the neighbour.

 

7.  In his posts the owner stated there were people from the inside who assisted him. A list could includes the followings:

 

a) Within a week after he wrote a letter to HBO on 10 Mar 99 (another person at the time) the occupier shifted out and a Techical Officer visited to inform him of the eviction. It was significant he asked the owner what he did that let to the eviction because of other instances the owner had noted.

 

b) About four years later a man came to live for a short period in the flat across the neighbour and noise stopped. A lady who scolded him for staring gave him the full name of the man. The owner was actually keeping tag of persons living at the upper floor because of noise from the neighbour. It was quiet for four years before loud noise started for a number of days on Jun 07 and noise has continues since.

 

c) Someone checked out the maid in his first letter to HDB Branch Office on 12 Aug 07. Noise stopped at the same time a poster on domestic help was placed on the noticeboard. The maid was not seen again for six months afterwards.

 

d) A 15 seconds TV broadcast on perceived injustice that he could write to after HBO wrote his first letter to offer mediation or the court as a solution. His letter followed the owner’s letter to a MP about the maid, force-entry and eviction pertaining to the neighbour.

 

e) A bcc was sent to him. The bcc was from HBO to Chairman asking him to give a talk to the owner. The bcc indicated two other facts — the flat used to monitor the neighbour and a noise recording device.

 

f) Town Council wrote to him he will hear from HDB soon. The interviewer and Mr Teo Chee Hean asked him during the next session whether someone came to see him. The officer by not coming indirectly indicated something else was going on. 

 

g) A blogsite published his complaint. It was a help. His subsequent meeting with the volunteers and correspondences indicated this was limited. He had earlier wrote to another site and a meeting was arranged, but they did not come. Another site asked the owner to keep him informed, but when he asked him to let his readers know about the post Discovery he replied he does not quite understand the content of the blog.

 

h) He thinks someone asked the MP to pass a message to HBO during his last Meet-the-People Session. It was his ninth session when the MP said he will meet HBO the next day and noise was reduced.

 

8.  Three MPs replied, one through an intermediary, after the owner posted Discovery on 4 Mar 10. HBO in turn replied to the owner on 29 Mar 10 and cc to two MPs but not the third, as it could be too obvious. The third MP is familiar with the case having met the owner four times and during the last meeting said he would meet HBO. The MP had replied he asked the Branch Office to look into his complaint which did not made sense. But it does because HBO would have to read about himself in the complaint, and all letters to HDB ended up in the Branch Office anyway. HBO’s reply was officers had visited the owner as Item 5 above, added the owner was not keen on mediation, and since he had exhausted all forms of assistance the owner may have to engage his own private solicitors.

 

9.  It may be procedure to refer the case to HDB Branch Office, but with the same officers noise from works by the neighbour will continues uninterrupted. The neighbour is kept informed and had signalled to the owner they had the upper hand. He had talked to the HBO one time, the Chairman two times, the Community Center member who lives at his block three times, the OIC who called over the telephone and visited many times, and saw the person who lives in the flat across the neighbour many times since ’08. They had shielded the neighbour and in some instances dropped the pretence.

 

10.  The surprise events show there is concerted effort and HBO has substantial influence. Between HBO and the people in the flat across the neighbour no inspection could be carried out without alerting the neighbour. And for writing about them they have reason to want the the owner to leave his flat. Whether it was the letter asking the owner to seek assistance elsewhere in Item 7d) or the bcc he sent to the Chairman, HBO wanted to divert attention away from the neighbour.

 

11.  On 31 Mar 10 the Business Times reported “Five-pronged push to make Public Service fit for the future”. DPM Teo Chee Hean was speaking at the Administrative Service Dinner and Promotion Ceremony. “Public officers will also be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than ideological path and stay pragmatic in making policies – an approach that has produced many innovative solutions in the past, Mr Teo noted.” seemed relevant to the case.

 

12.  There was very little noise the afternoon of 30 Mar 10 and on 31 Mar 10 the day after the speech.  After that noise at lower level is still through the day every day of the week.

  

13.  Noise had been loud to intimidate and low to keep him off guard. At present the knock, ramble and thump seemed to be muffled but would worsen as had happened many times before since the situation has not changed. Knock in the early morning(4.00am – 7.00am), noise in the morning and longer period of noise in the afternoon. These may be verified for presence of machine-tool and material at the neighbour’s flat or noise at the owner’s flat taking note they are kept informed. He had tried to held on to his flat by meeting his MPs and later writing in his blog for two years and nine months now.

 

14.  This is an appeal. The owner hopes HDB could take up the case by Item 10.

 

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Discovery

1.  Singapore Mint  ventured into the lucrative jewellery market, and is currently considering getting local distributors to represent it, was reported in the Business Times on 1 Feb 2010.

 

2.  The owner’s reaction was this would take away some business from workers who work from their flats and create noise for others. He remembered from BlogTV a participant saying a noise woke him at night, and he was unable to go back to sleep. He said the neighbour seemed like reasonable people, but when he mentioned the noise they did not admit it. It sounded familiar to the owner. The subject title was Neighbour From Hell.

 

3.  The owner wrote to the President, the Police and a few Ministers. He received replies the matter will be look into. The owner also placed two more posts in his blog on the same day 1 Feb 2010.

 

4.  Let’s go by the facts that could be ascertained:

 

a)  How did the owner come to conclude the maid, who was making the noise, was not registered to work in the flat? He kept watch over the period 8 Jul 07 to 5 Aug 07, wrote to HDB Branch Office, and noted a quiet period at the same time a poster of a maid working at a coffeeshop (not allowed) appeared on the noticeboard. The maid was not seen again until the Chinese New Year ’08. If the maid was with the present owner and she was registered at another address that may be where the family had lived. Meanwhile the flat is used as a place of work. More details may be found in the post sub-titled Neighbour. The Ministry of Manpower could confirms whether there was a maid in the record, and the address she was registered.

 

b)  The owner thinks the noises are from the working of jewellery or fashion accessory. HDB has personal details on the neighbour such as their occupation.

 

c)  The owner gave reasons in his postings the first owner and the present owner are working together. They are in a business with other workers. HDB would have the personal details of the first owner and his occupier, and could confirms the dates of the owner’s complaint, the eviction of the occupier, a letter the owner sent to HDB Feedback Unit, and the tranfer of the flat to the present owner. The dates should be close together. Several officers knew about the eviction, which took place in mid-Mar 99.

 

d)  If there was no eviction as an officer wrote on 20 Aug 09, it is possible there is also no record of the occupier. The owner wrote to the Branch Office the occupier came pounding on the owner’s door the next morning after the owner knocked on his door the night before but he would not answer. He had lived there for many years. The owner had also seen the present owner and his wife before the occupier came to live there. Only the owner’s mother had seen the first owner and spoken to him a few times.

 

e)  The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) would not give the name of the present owner, although he was at the meeting in which Head,Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO) agreed to when the owner asked. Does the present owner has a record. 

 

f)  The flat across the neighbour used to keep watch on the neighbour has a noise recording device inside. The bcc from HBO to Chairman,Residents Committee would confirmed it. Are they facts.

 

g)  The flat is occupied since 22 Feb 08 after the owner’s first letter to the Meet-the-People Session on 16 Feb 08. It has been two years now. If there was not a problem they would not be there, and if there was one they had not done much to solve it. During that time the owner went to eight more Meet-the-People Sessions, wrote in a blog and the noise has continues. His observations indicated noise could be detected, and noises from early morning to the night are from persons taking shift. The tamp and ramble are from machine-tools. If there was an independent team could the problem be resolved.

 

h)  In effect they watch out for the neighbour. The letter from Town Council to the owner that he would hear from HDB and Mr Teo Chee Hean, who wrote the letter to the Town Council, asked him whether someone came to visit him but no one did. The people in the flat would know they were coming or inform the neighbour when they visited. They have a view of the main entrance and study room of the owner’s flat. The owner wonders whether they occupied the flat only to have the matter under their control.

 

i)  Random inspection of noise at the owner’s flat may be an effective method since the repossession of flat acts as a deterrence. The owner wrote a man who came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period and noise had stopped for four years, and a lady who scolded him for staring gave him the full name of the man. The neighbour at the time was the present owner. The inspection will have to be carried out without the people in the flat who would informed the neighbour when they visited.

 

j)  The owner has a general awareness of the situation. During the time he was at the Meet-the-People Sessions he noted there were Community Center members who were for and against him. He had spoken to the Community Center members who were involved. He knows he is watched, and had noise directed at him that could be tied to action such as after he sent a letter. When there were visits to the owner’s flat the noise would stopped.

 

k)  The problem could as easily be someone else. The neighbour is working for a profit and some officers allow it. More details on a force-entry, a break-in and the bcc could be found in the first post under Findings and the post sub-titled Pervasive Case.

 

l)  The owner handed over a copy of his letter because the OIC said the office did not received it. He asked for an acknowledgement and a meeting with HBO, which was in a room with the OIC present. The signed acknowledgement had two lines missing that alluded to the OIC having contacted the present owner to adjust the noise level. The owner was already suspicious after a well-dressed man and the OIC visited him before visiting the neighbour upstair. The well-dressed man did not want to give his name. Two days later, a three hours stretch of rambling noise was followed by the OIC calling back to enquire.

 

m)  The owner first two letters to a MP was followed by a letter from HBO that the owner may obtain a court injunction to stop the noise. The letters the owner wrote were a list of items including maid, force-entry, start and stop attempts and previous eviction; and the second letter was about a heavy knock at 1.00am followed by continual knock through the night, next morning and afternoon.

 

n)  The date of the TV broadcast on perceived injustice was after HBO sent his first letter on court injunction on 25 Sep 08 and before the owner received the bcc on 7 Nov 08. 

 

o)  The owner spoke about checking out discussion groups to a friend on 26 Mar 09 since there was no lead on contacting the person who broadcasted the message, and mentioned about the post HBO placed at the CNA Form to the volunteers from the site http://civicadvocator.net who visited him on 18 May 09. They had published the owner’s letter a week earlier. HBO may had published and withdrew his post on car-parking at CNA Forum about these two dates. The owner thinks the TV message and HBO’s post were unusual events, and there was intend to let the owner know his attempt to publicise was not going to succeed.

 

p)  The bcc from HBO to Chairman,Residents Committee stated “there is no noise nuisance being detected”, and asked the Chairman to give the owner a talk on good neighbourliness during their visit to the flat across the neighbour. The Chairman had arranged to meet one of his member the same morning after his meeting with HBO to visit the owner. The owner noted there was in fact incessant knocking that morning; and he told the Chairman and the member about the noise and said, as they were leaving, that if they come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Did HBO communicated with the neighbour that morning to make the noise when he saw from the flat the owner at his study room. The Chairman had on two separate occasions said he would come to visit him but did not.

 

q)  There are reasons HBO was at the flat across the neighbour. After HBO wrote his first letter on court injunction, the owner when to see his area MP about a connection between the first owner and the present owner, and a previous eviction. Noise was heightened after this, and the owner refused to allow the OIC and a fellow officer into his flat to check for noise on the second week (the owner saw the area MP on the first week). HBO visited the flat with the Chairman who then visited the owner on the third week. HBO wrote to the owner that the area MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback, and he was glad the Chairman had approached and assisted him on the fourth week .

 

r)  The last meeting the owner had with the area MP (when he said he would meet HBO the next day) was on 23 Feb 09. HBO did not reply to the letter the MP sent to HDB then until two months later on 24 Apr 09, which was five days after the owner emailed to the PM on 19 Apr 09. The owner thinks HBO knew about the email because noise in the form of knocks spaced apart over a period of time was meant for the owner.There was direct mention of HBO in the email. The owner remembered the incident because an old friend called almost immmediately after he emailed the PM, and he visited the owner on 23 Apr 09 one day before HBO sent his reply.

 

s)  HBO has influence. There were seven letters from the MPs to HDB that he replied to. The owner made his request to the MPs a number of times that the letters go to the Headquarter and not to the Branch Office, since six of his letters had the words court injunction in it. The owner thinks the area MP had a message for HBO when he went to see him because noise was reduced. HBO should not be made answerable going by the items l) to s), someone else should be or appointed to do so.

 

t) An addendum to the President’s address presented by DPM Teo Chee Hean,who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, and reported in the Business Times on 22 May 09 was at a time after the following events: i) The owner wrote about his problem in a post published at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem on 11 May 09. ii) Mr Teo Chee Hean sent a letter to the Town Council after the owner requested the letter do not go to the Branch Office, but in the next Meet-the-People Session when Mr Teo wrote to HDB HBO cc to Mr Teo his reply to the owner on 3 Feb 09. iii) Mr Teo rebuked an official in Parliament on 19 Jan 09. iv) The owner received the bcc on 7 Nov 08. v) The message broadcasted on TV (about 15 seconds)  was sometimes between 25 Sep 08 and 7 Nov 08.

 

u)  There are people who assisted the owner. He would had no support without them.

 

5.  The Neighbourhood Police’s email dated 10 Feb 2010 and the Branch Office’s email dated 12 Feb 2010 that followed Item 3 marked the time of lower noise. Knock, rambling and muffled tamp are heard from early morning, morning, afternoon and night. The owner emailed the Neighbourhood Police on the 18 Feb 09 and 19 Feb 09 and a policeman came to visit him. An hour before the visit the noise stopped and it started again when he left.

 

6.  HBO in his letters asked the owner to go for meditation or through the court. It will be between the owner and the neighbour, but without much in the way of evidence the noise would continues. The nature of the works and activities of the neighbour known to officers from the time of an eviction in ’99 would not be brought into question.

7.  The owner hopes the reader could come to some conclusions too. 

 

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Record

1.  There are two things important to the case: a) the blind copy sent to owner and b) publicity through email and blog.

 

2.  Without the blind copy one wonders what the owner writes is true. Whatever evidence he lines up only he himself knows or needs to be corroborated. The blind copy is a small note from HDB Branch Office to Residents Committee but points out several facts. It does requires background knowledge and, by itself, it attracts attention.

 

3.  The publicity gave exposure and noise was reduced, at least before they start up again. The owner emailed to people from Who’s Who in Singapore, some he sent to addresses he found on the internet, and some are readers from http://civicadvocator.net. Even so the number is small, if not for the fact the people in the Who’s Who are seen as leaders.

 

4.  Four months later the owner wrote an email to the Town Council on worsening noise. The email is the post before this. The noise could be detected in the flat across the neighbour. The owner can expects knocks in the early morning; loud noise,knocks and ramble during the day; and low level noise at night. Last week there was some noise on two nights including one that began with a heavy tamp at 1.30am. Both times the noise could be heard up till the morning. It had happened before and the owner wrote to an MP in Sep 08.

 

5.  Noise from machine-tools, and works through the day from a change of person should not be allowed; and the lowering of sounds made does not solve the issue. When the owner mentioned they are working on jewellery or fashion accessory he got a definite response from an officer. 

 

6.  After the owner wrote to his first Meet-the-People Session he noted personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on 22 Feb 08. They had occupied the flat for nearly two years now. He wrote in his first post a similar instance when a man came to live in the same flat for a short period, and the noise stop for four years. A lady who had scolded him for staring gave him the full name of the man. The neighbour in both cases is the same family. Why is there a different.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Plea

The owner wrote to the Town Council on 13 Jan 2010.

 

Dear Sir,

 

NOISE FROM A NEIGHBOUR

 

1.  Blank out

 

2.  After I wrote in a blog, an officer and the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) visited me on 1 Oct 09 to informed no machine-tools were found inside the upper floor unit during their inspection on the same day. I said they would have removed it before the inspection. The officer may have been recently posted to the Branch Office, and I had invited him and the OIC in for a chat.

 

3.  There is a reduction of noise both in amount and level since Sep 09, but now and then there are increased noises. From Dec 09 onwards I noticed such noises (and there were many) would be reduced the next day due to the people at the flat across them. Ramble, knock, drag, heavy sound, sharp sound and noisy drainpipe could be heard. The continual knock, ramble and tamp are from machine-tools. Although the disturbance had been reduced considerably, I do not think it is acceptable to a person over a long term considering the nature of the works, change of person during the day and noise beyond normal hours.

 

4.  Somehow it is also a game where they get away with little risk, and I bear with noise, anguish, and interruption to my work. I wrote about the noise starting in Jun 07 after a lull of four years, and it has continues despite help by the authorities.

 

5.  What are the causes underlying the problem? I had provided part of the details at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com

 

6.  I have hope because there is sufficient evidence works are carried out for profit.

 

 

Regards,

 

Blank out

 

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Prospect

1. Could the owner look towards a solution in an article of the Business Times dated 22 May’09? Quote: ” the government is on the lookout for ’bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing enironments.” and ” Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, said in the Prime Minister’s Office’s addendum to the President’s address that the government would strive to boost the quality of the public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.”

 

2. How is it relevant? After the owner made his request to by-pass Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO), Mr. Teo Chee Hean wrote to Town Council. They in turn wrote to HDB and informed the owner he would hear from HDB soon, but it was HBO who wrote a reply with a copy to Mr. Teo. HBO had replied to all the letters the MPs wrote to HDB. When the owner decided it was going to be his last meeting at the Meet-the-People Session, the MP said he would meet HBO the next day. The owner observed noise was then reduced.

 

3. A letter was sent to help the owner by someone who knew the workings from the inside. The letter was from HBO to the owner with a bcc to the RC Chairman. The note in the bcc on their house visit provided informations significant to the owner. There was also a timely TV message on perceived injustice the owner could write to although he could not get hold of the address.

 

4. A MP had asked the owner whether he considered selling his flat. And why has not a few good officers confirmed by random visits what he wrote was continuous noise for many hours each day. In fact, he was asked whether someone came to see him after a letter was sent to the Town Council, (Item. 2).

 

5. The owner thinks personnel still occupied the flat across the neighbour. The neighbour knows about the flat because there was a force-entry and later, through a recording device in the flat, attempted to lower the noise they were causing to a tolerable level. That could be the reason why no officer came to visit him. Without the personnel the owner could also be worse off left on his own.

 

6. Many times the neighbour would made loud noise after certain events to tell the owner they were informed, and is why the noise has not stop. Who would not be afraid when people in and out of a flat could be watched and noise recording made. The owner noted the couple and their two children do not live-in as a family would and there were change of persons, and constant noise may be detected as sound conducts better through the floor and depending on the sensitivity of the equipment.

 

7. An officer wrote to the owner after he posted on the web there was no noise during their numerous inspections with local Residents Committee, and there was no eviction at the upper floor unit. Why had they not visited the owner. On no eviction it would seemed procedure was not being followed when the owner saw the present owner with the contractor. The contractor attended the compulsory handover inspection conducted by HDB, and informed the present owner of an unauthorised alteration when he came later in the evening. Thus the present owner was known to the first owner before the tranfer of ownership to him as the transfer could not be effected until after the inspection was completed. It seemed the eviction was the cause of the transfer that followed. The owner knows there was an eviction when he saw the occupier shifted out within a week of his complaint, an officer visited to inform him and he wrote to HDB Feedback Unit to thank the officers involved.

 

8. Are the observations made by the owner valid? He wrote noise is a continuation of works carried in the flat from the first owner to the present owner, a warning was given to the present owner, the maid was not registered to work in the flat, a force-entry into the present owner’s flat and a break-in into the owner’s flat.

 

9. The problem the owner faces is not minor. Currently there are knocks in the early morning and reduced noise in the day showing work is continuing. When he is force to leave all that happened is kept out. Is it not of public interest something is done.

 

10. The owner hopes to attract an audience so the matter may be discussed. Though he may not succeed, having an audience would be worthwhile.

Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller

 

 

  

 

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Pervasive Case

 

1. The upper floor neighbour is making use of his flat to carry out works as seen and heard by the owner.

 

2. An earlier complaint let to an eviction of an occupier, which was followed by a tranfer of the flat from the first owner to the present owner. In fact, the owner saw the present owner with a contractor who attended what could be the compulsory handover inspection required before the transfer of the flat. The contractor said HDB officer had pointed out of an unauthorised alternation before the present owner could stop him. The date of transfer just after the date of eviction was disclosed by the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). The owner recognised the present owner he had seen many years earlier before the occupier. In all it indicated the first owner, the present owner and the occupier knew each other and carried out the same type of works in the flat from the noise heard.

 

3. There was an observation the present owner was given a warning before the current complaint in Jun’07. A man had came to lived in the flat across the neighbour for a short time and noise stopped for four years. When the owner made his second complaint, he saw personnel moving into the same flat across the neighbour but it did not have the same effect. The period from the first to the second complaint spanned more than seven years. The second and current complaint is now into the third year.

 

4. After personnel move into the flat, the owner is quite certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in into his flat although no one would say it had happened.

 

5. There were people who had assisted the owner. The blind copy he received, just after his meeting with a third MP, was significant to him in a number of ways. First, it showed Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO) asked the RC Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, and a week earlier the owner had refused the Officer-in-Charge and a fellow officer who wanted to check for noise in his flat. It would not had boded well for the owner. Second, it confirmed to the owner a flat was used to monitor the neighbour and the neighbour had a previous record with HDB. Third, it indicated a noise recording device in the flat, which could be an effective method in proving noise coming from the neighbour’s flat. And fourth, it adds to the certainty there was a force-entry and a break-in because there would had been a place to conduct an operation from.

 

6. The message broardcasted on TV was timely. It was some times between the first letter from HBO to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions in Sep’08 and the blind copy received in Nov’08. It stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice to the an address flashed on the screen. A check could be made. If there was only one broadcast and it was on the night the owner was watching, it would increase the probability the message was intended for him.

 

7. The owner did not took note of the address but he called and wrote to Mediacorp. The woman who received the call did not gave him the address even after she checked with her superior, and there was no reply to his email. On the same topic, HBO had a posting on a car parking placed on the same page as CNA Forums that the owner thinks was intended for him not to publicise his problem there. His first mentioned of discussion groups/forums to a friend was on 26Mar’09, and he spoke about the posting to the volunteers from Civic Advocator who visited him on 18May’09, the dates may be the determinants when HBO posted and withdrew the posting.  

 

8. During the one month the owner was watching the neighbour, the maid was an evidence the neighbour was starting up works again. Mentioned in the first letter to HBO it had aroused suspicion for someone to check on the maid. Noise started in Jun’07 and the letter was sent in Aug’07. The maid was not seen afterwards except for one day during the Lunar New Year in ’08. She was probably not registered to work in the flat, and was there as a cover for the noise that was being made.

 

9. A number of events showed that the neighbour may not live in the flat. Noise in the early morning to late at night indicates works could be continuous with one or two persons taking turn. Noise may be undisguised or reduced when they wanted to. Some noises are from machine-tools. The force-entry into their flat at 10.00am when rambling noise stopped suddenly would had found evidences of tools and materials. Other instances indicated the forced-entry took place. The owner surmises they were let off.

 

10. The matter is also known to CC members at the Meet-the-People Session. Each time a CC member would draft the owner’s request before meeting with a MP. From some of their questions he sensed they were awared of the situation. He had seen two CC members at his block at the time the neighbour’s flat was being monitored, and there were indications of involvement.

 

11. The MPs did their best to assist. Together, they wrote to HDB, Town Council, Police and went to meet HBO.

 

12. The owner thinks there is a larger issue. HBO answered all letters sent to HDB when he had requested many times for the MPs to write to a higher authority.

 

 

 

 

Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Neighbour

1. Loud noise started in Jun’07 for a number of days before the owner decided to watch the neighbour. A similar incident happened in Dec’98 when the occupier was evicted after the owner complained.

 

2. The owner has a view of the lift lobby at his floor, and could take note of people living at the upper floor since there was no lift there. The neighbour’s flat is directly above his own with a staircase alongside their flats. He kept watch for eight days spread over a month.

 

3. The neighbour’s family consisted of a man, his wife, a child and a maid. On the second day of his watch, he saw the maid, child and, probably, a mother and a sister of the couple. The mother and sister were there for a few days. The owner saw that the mother was self-conscious coming down the staircase and at the lift lobby in a few instances. She knew the owner was watching from his doorway. And the sister answered the door when the owner went upstair as noise became unbearable.

 

4. The noise continued with the maid present in the flat. Initially the wife, who was pregnant, would come in the morning when she knew the owner was watching and that day was quiet. The man was seen only on the first day, the evening before the last day, and the last day of the his watch. It would seemed the couple was not living in the flat during the month he was watching.

 

5. The maid was there to bring the child to a kindergarden nearby giving an appearance of a family, but continuing with the noise from her works. The matron, whom the owner saw earlier before the watch, could had been her trainer. When the maid was no longer seen with the family some times after the owner sent his first letter to HDB Branch Office, he concluded the maid was not registered to work in the flat. She was a substitute for the loud noise when it first started. If the maid was registered at another address and she was with the family, then the family live at this other address.

 

6. The neighbour’s flat could have been put up for sale in ’06 a year earlier before the noise started. The descriptions including the floor area in the real estates agent’s flyer would so indicated.

 

7. To add to the list the neighbour may not be living in the flat, there was a quiet period of four years before the noise restarted. A man had came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period; and a lady had given the owner his full name after he explained he was watching the people living at the upper floor because of the noise, and may had offended her when he looked at her. It may be the neighbour was given a warning because the noise stopped.

 

8. The owner felt certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat, because the neighbour approached him a few days later. He said as a compromise the owner let him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. The owner had spoken to him before, but he denied there was any noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice. It was his concession to the owner knowing he was covered.

 

9. From observations over a long period of time the neighbour is part of a larger operation. Noise started with the first owner, next the occupier, then the present owner after the eviction of the occupier. The owner was not awared of the tranfer of ownership until Head,HDB Branch Officer(HBO) informed him during a meeting. He had seen the couple, and thought they were the owners after the eviction of the occupier who lived there for many years. He had not seen the first owner but his mother did. When he realised there a tranfer, he related it to the eviction and the evening the contractor informed the present owner HDB officer had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat. So when the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) visited him a few days later after the meeting, he asked him the date of the transfer which was just after the eviction.

 

10. The evening the contractor said HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration would be the date of compulsory handover inspection before the tranfer of ownership. It seemed the inspection was carried out with the contractor without the first owner being present, and when the present owner came later in the evening the contractor informed him. To note: there was a relationship between the first owner and the present owner before the tranfer, and an arrangement was made as there could be no record of an eviction that was the cause of the transfer in the first place. An officer wrote to the owner there was no eviction after he posted on the internet recently. It is logical to assume the event at Item.7 followed when they were given a warning a number of years after the tranfer.

 

11. After the noise restarted various persons were seen and types of noise heard. There were two men in neat dark blue uniform, a matron, another couple, a few other persons and food delivery services. There were different noise patterns. They concealed their activities by muffling the noise, varying the works and keeping up appearance.

 

12. Once the owner wrote to a MP a list of pointers the neighbour was carrying out works in the flat, they made noise to let the owner know they knew of the letter. Noise was used to intimidate after the owner met the second MP. Noise may be reduced for a short period after certain events but it was back to the usual.

 

13. The types of noise are heavy tamp and ramble heard before and after the eviction. Other noises are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining of water up to an hour is sometimes heard. The heavy tamp and ramble are from machine-tools. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is due to a narrowed pipe from deposits accumulated over the years.

 

14. The items they work-on could be small and easily concealed, and works may be continuous through the day and night by a change of person. There are noises at night, but generally the nights are kept quiet.

 

15. There was reduced noise after the MP said he was going to meet HBO the next day, and was reduced again when the owner was about to publish a report in a blog. The noises are now muffled thug, continual knock,ramble and drain in the day and some noise at night. At times the noise would worsen.

 

16. The owner is clear about his situation. People had assisted him. There are questions to be asked, and his observations could be corroborated since the neighbour is not an unknown.

 

 

Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Officers

1. Although the owner called HDB Branch Office then HDB Hub, he was only able to contact the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). OIC said the office did not received the owner’s second letter so he handed over a copy at the office, and asked for an acknowledgement. The signed acknowledgement showed two lines missing from the original. Could it be a mistake made during the photocopying? The copy was reduced in size with margin all round, and there was more than sufficient space for a chop. The two lines referred to the OIC’s visit — rambling noise for three to four hours just after his visit and two weeks quiet period before his visit. He called back to check with the owner on the situation after the noise. A copy of the acknowledgement and the orginal was sent to a third MP the owner saw when noise worsen many months later.

 

2. Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO) allowed a meeting with the owner the same day with the OIC in the room. He told the owner there was tranfer of ownership, and the owner could not establish a link between the first owner and the present owner. In the owner’s first letter to HBO he had referred to an eviction of an occupier, and similar noises were heard before the eviction. He left the meeting without the matter being resolved.

 

3. A few days later OIC and a fellow officer visited him. OIC said he had been about his flat for about 15 minutes and there was no noise, his fellow officer was his witness. During their conversation the owner asked him for the name of owner at the upper floor and the date of transfer of ownership mentioned at the meeting with him in the room. OIC would not gave the name of the present owner but gave the date of tranfer from his fact sheet. It confirmed for the owner not only was the first owner and present owner seen before and after the eviction, but the transfer was immediately after the eviction.

 

4. The owner listed his observations, including a force-entry, in two letters to the first MP was followed by a reply from HBO. He wrote about “noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner” and “sublet the flat to unknown owner”, which the owner wondered when he said it. That there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, called the Police, or seek assistance from Residents Committee or Community Mediation Centre. When the owner went to see the second MP he sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him before he gave a similar reply a month later.

 

5. Someone was to sent the letter from HBO to the owner again but with an attachment. The attachment referred to his house visit with the RC Chairman where no noise was detected, and he asked the RC Chairman to give the owner a talk on good neighbourliness. The RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him separately, then visited the owner. The OIC and a fellow officer had earlier wanted to enter the owner’s flat to check for noise but the owner refused to let them. The RC Chairman and OIC could each be a witness to an unreasonable man if it had gone awry for the owner.

 

6. HBO wrote no noise was detected during his house visit with RC Chairman but the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and the member visited him. He mentioned the noise during their discussion, and said if they come without the upper floor neighbour knowing they may hear some noise.

 

7. The house visit was in the flat used to monitor the neighbour, and there was a noise recording device inside. The owner had seen people moving into the flat after his complaint at his first Meet-the-People Session, and HBO wrote “there is no noise nuisance being detected” during the house visit would seemed to indicate there was a recording device. 

 

8.. Some times after a message on perceived injustice was flashed on TV, the owner began seeking out the address so he could write to them. He called and wrote to Mediacorp, talked to his friend about it, but he could not get the address. He checked the discussion groups, and found HBO had a posting at CNA Forums on car parking. It seemed out-of-place, and may not be usual to have a separate posting on the same page as the forums. Both the broadcast and the forums are with Mediacorp.

 

9. The owner had many times mentioned to the MPs to go direct to HDB when writing on his behalf. There were five such letters each with a reply from HMO and a copy to a MP. One letter from Town Council informed the owner HDB was already looking into the matter and he would hear from them soon, and there was a note to HBO that a copy of the letter from Mr. Teo Chee Hean was enclosed for his information. Clearly Town Council got to HDB but HBO replied. No one came to see the owner.

 

10. After the owner’s last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.

 

 

Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller. Comments were not allowed here because I am one person and not up to the task.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Short Version

1.  An owner made his complaints to HDB Branch Office, several MPs and finally wrote an open letter to HDB. Over a period of over two years from Jun’07 the noise from the upper floor neighour has not stop.

 

2. Ten years ago a similar situation resulted in an eviction. There was a change of ownership just after the eviction, and the owner observed both the first owner and the present owner were seen before and after the eviction.

 

3. The owner is awares the neighbour knows from experience they could get away with the noise they caused.

 

4. The problem was how to prove the present owner is carrying on a trade of some kinds. Noise that is heard over many hours each day is not considered evidence unless there is credible witness. Video and noise recording might do. They are aware of the facts for they will ask the owner to get legal advice or go through mediation. Both involve lawyers and they require evidence to work with.

 

5. Item they work-on could be small and easily concealed, noise created may not be too obvious and works could be varied. And they take care to put up an appearance of a family. It affected the owner because noise could be loud, and works are continuous through the day with change of person.

 

6. Once the owner began to writing to MPs, they use noise to let the owner know they knew and to intimidate. Noise was lowered after a MP said he would meet Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) the next day in Feb’09, and when the owner wanted to publish his report in a blog in Jun’09. It was in many such instances that the owner thinks his problem is not being addressed.

 

7. To give some examples of help the owner had received, someone re-sent a letter from HBO to the owner but with an attachment. The attachment indicated a flat was used to monitor the neigbour, and a noise recording device in the flat. HBO wrote “During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected.” during his house visit with the RC Chairman. On “no noise nuisance being detected”, the owner heard incessant knocking before the RC Chairman and one of his member were invited into owner’s flat the same morning after the house visit. In the attachment HBO asked the RC Chairman to explained to the owner about being a good neighbour in length.

 

8. Someone checked out the maid referred to in the first letter the owner sent to HBO. Noise stopped for a few weeks at the same time a poster showing a maid was placed in the noticeboard. The maid in the poster is saying she cannot work at the coffeeshop, and can only do housework at the adddress stated on her work permit card. After that the maid was no longer seen with the neighbour. The owner assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat, she was there as a cover for the noises just before the owner began to keep watch.

 

9.There was a quiet period of a four years before the current complaint. The owner thinks the present owner had been warned before. He remembered a lady who gave him the full name of the person,who came to live for a short period in the same flat used to monitor neighbour, following which the noise had stopped.

 

10. The owner hopes HDB could corroborate these findings and others in a report at his first posting. MPs and Town Council wrote to HDB on his behalf but HBO replied to these letters. He wrote an open letter as last recourse.

“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Report

Call to HDB

A Pervasive Case

Summary

   An owner complained about noise from an upper floor neighbour. He thinks the noise is a continuation of the same line of works starting from the first owner. The first owner had transferred the flat to the present owner shortly after an eviction of an occupier.
   A meeting with and written replies by Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) were unsatisfactory. However, the owner appreciated the assistance given at the Meet-the-People Sessions.
   He hopes to present his case to HDB.

Content

1.Introduction
2.Overview
3.Findings
4.Conclusions
5.Recommendations

Introduction

   The owner had a posting ” ‘Strange’ business going around at HDB flat ” on 11 May’09 at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem. A call was made from the site for someone to write a report. Later two volunteers from civic advocator went to interview the owner and collect a set of correspondence. These were letters sent to HDB and MPs, replies from the authorities and some others.
   This report is prepared by the owner in third person.

Overview

2.1 The owner first noticed occasional bouncing sound and noises from the ceiling, but he did not mind too much. At the time, he saw a young couple who is now the present owner. A girl, possibly relation of the first owner, who the owner saw recently on Lunar New Year ’08. Another couple who lived in the flat for many years before they were evicted.

2.2 The mother of the owner saw the first owner on three occasions, two times before the eviction when he spoke to her and one time after when he did not. The owner had noted down the date her mother said she saw the first owner with two young daughters after the eviction.

2.3 The owner wrote a few letters to HDB Branch Office from Dec’98 to Mar’99 when noise was at its peak. There was low level knocking during the day, a few heavy tamps and some loud knocks. Some of the noises were at night. The owner was relieved of his ordeal when his letter to HBO at the time let to an eviction. The estates officer had replied there was no excessive noise to two previous letters the owner wrote. After the eviction the techical officer visited the owner to inform and also to enquire. He wanted to know what the owner did that let to the eviction. The owner wrote to the Feedback Unit, HDB, to thank the officers involved.

2.4 One evening following the event, the owner was returning to his flat when he recognised the present owner who was with a contractor. The contractor was saying HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat before the present owner could stop him. The owner knew he referred to an area near the balcony where he had heard loud hacking noise before. The contractor carried out some repair works at the balcony, and cement chips were left alongside the wall. There was no major renovation to indicate a transfer of ownership. Later he deduced a compulsory inspection of the flat, required before handover, had taken place; the date of eviction and the date the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) said was the transfer of ownership were close.

2.5 There was still noises that the owner felt compelled he should at least know who the neighbours were at the upper floor. Afterall, they had to use the lifts at his floor. It was one evening when a young lady turned around and scolded him for staring. He apologised and explained the neighbour was causing noise, and he wanted to know all the neighbours living at the upper floor. She then gave the full name of the person who lived upstair across the neighbour. The owner had greeted this person once. He lived there for a short period, and noise from the neighbour stopped for four years before restarting again in Jun’07.

2.6 There was loud noises for a number of days. Having gone through it once before, the owner decided to keep full watch this time. He had a view of the lift lobby, and left the door of his flat opened from 6 am to 9 pm, two days a week for a month. He saw from their actions they wanted to give an appearance of a family. Constant observation gave them away. The couple did not lived in the flat. The maid causing the noise was a substitude for what went on before. Two uniform men and a matron seen before the watch indicated there was commercial interest. It becomes clearer when the owner discovered the flat could be put up for sale in ’06 from a real estates agent’s flyer. The maid may not had been registered to work in the flat. And works are continuous through the day and night by a change of person, though noises are heard mostly in the day.

2.7 The owner had approached them twice. A woman, who could be a sister of the wife, said the noise was caused by the maid moving furniture. Later the present owner denied there was any noise from his flat, and asked the owner to seek legal advice.

2.8 The owner wrote the first letter to HBO after the watch. Noise had stopped for two weeks when the OIC and another man visited him. The OIC had checked his fact sheet when the owner said both he and the neighbour had lived there since building completion. Next they went upstair to talk to the neighbour. The owner suspected there was an arrangement with the neighbour because rambling noise was heard for three to four hours two days later. The OIC followed with a telephone call to the owner to check. The OIC was to telephone and visit the owner many times over a period of nearly two years on his own accord.

2.9 The owner brought a copy of his second letter to HDB Branch Office as he was informed they did not received it. He asked for an acknowlegdement, and insisted on an appointment with HBO. A meeting was allowed the same day with the OIC present in the room. The owner did not made his complaint against the OIC since he was present. HBO told him there was a transfer of ownership, and the owner could not established a link between the first owner and the present owner. His letters to HBO had indicated there was an eviction and similar noises were heard. In the signed acknowlegdement, two lines were missing from a page that referred to the noise just after the OIC’s visit and no noise between the period of the first letter and the OIC’s visit.

2.10 In the second letter the owner wrote, he saw a poster placed on the noticeboard at the same time the noise from the neighbour stopped for a few weeks. The poster showed a maid working at a coffeeshop saying she cannot work there, and can only do housework at the address stated on her work permit card. The owner noted if the maid was not registered to work at the flat then the couple did not lived there.

2.11 The owner then went to his first Meet-the-People Session. No MP was in at the time, and he left a letter with the member who interviewed him. HBO replied to the letter that a MP had asked HDB to look into the matter. After which, the owner saw people shifting into the flat upstair across the neighbour. On the morning of 18 Mar’08 at 10.00 am rambling noise stopped suddenly, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp, and was quiet the rest of the day. The owner thinks it was a force-entry.

2.12 The owner wrote two letters to a MP. He made a list of all that was known to date including the force-entry. He did not included the break-in into his flat because he only suspected
it. The second letter was on noise directed at the owner to let him know they knew about the first letter. The MP said they would asked the neighbour to lower the noise, and sent the two letters as attachment to HDB. HBO replied there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, seek assistance from Mediation Center or Residents Committee, or called the Police. His reply was in Sep’08.

2.13 The owner next went to see another MP because he wanted the matter brought to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. This was a critical period, noise was heightened, and HBO sent the OIC and RC Chairman to meet the owner before his reply a month later. The owner refused to let the OIC and a fellow officer enter his flat to check for noise, and invited the Chairman and one of his member in for a discussion. The owner had said there was noise before they came in, and if they come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Later someone sent the letter from HBO to the owner again, but attached to the letter was a blind copy addressed to the RC Chairman.

2.14 The blind copy provided information the owner had already suspected, and reinforced what he had observed about the force-entry and break-in. HBO wrote, during the joint visit with the Chairman to the house no noise was detected, and asked him to give a talk to the owner about good neighbourliness. The house referred to the flat, which was used once before to monitor the neighbour that let to four years of quiet, (Item 2.5).

2.15 Not long before the blind copy was received on Nov’08 a TV message was broadcasted one night. The voice-over stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice. The owner called and wrote to Mediacorp to obtain the address, which he had not taken note of when the message was flashed, but they did not help.

Findings

3.1 A number of events indicated there was a force-entry on 18 Mar’08:

    1. The owner heard the rambling sound stopped, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp at 10.00 am. There was quiet the rest of the day. Usually noise is many hours in the morning and afternoon.
    2. In the evening of same day he met an old friend. It was not a coincident. A year later, just after the owner sent an email to PM, his old friend called over the telephone to say he was coming to meet him.
    3. Two of his neighbours had smiled knowingly at the owner after the event.
    4. The neighbour approached him a few days later to compromise. He would only gave his nickname.
    5. The owner’s sister called to say HDB could repair the leak in his bedroom. The leak was in Jun’00 and the owner had solved it.

3.2 A confluence of events occurring before a possible break-in at the owner’s flat on 21 Jun’08:

   1. The owner left the door of his flat opened to signal to the neighbour. To let them know he knew a different person was working in the flat from the different noise pattern heard. The neighbour’s wife responded by coming down the stairs loudly. The owner began writing to an MP at his study room that has line-of-sight from the flat used to monitor the neighbour.
   2. The owner went out on two consecutive days in the morning and came back in the afternoon. He went to top-up his CPF on the second consecutive day, which was a Saturday. The evening when he returned home he found the lock of the door jammed. It was not his routine to go out in the morning but his routine to go out in the evening.
   3. The neighbour across the owner usually go out with his family and come back at night on a Saturday. When he came back he noticed the owner had left his bag of grocery outside his door, and he came out to enquire when the owner called a locksmith and the police.
   4. It was the owner routine to go out in the evening for three hours, but the Saturday he took a shorter route and came back in about an hour.

3.3 Why would they broke into the owner’s flat? The owner thinks they thought he had connection, and wanted to know more about him. For examples, someone checked out the maid referred to in his letter, took action so noise stopped for a while, and placed a poster on the noticebroad. Someone probably sent him the TV message on perceived injustice as it was well-timed. And someone sent him the blind copy that indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. Also, the continuous nature of the neighbour’s works indicated a larger operation and more involvement.

3.4 HBO wrote five similar letters to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions. These were in replied to letters MPs wrote to HDB and Town Council. In particular the letter written by Mr.Teo Chee Hean to Town Council, and reply from Town Council to the owner and a note to HBO. The reply was the owner would hear from HDB soon, and the note stated a copy of the letter from Mr.Teo Chee Hean was attached for his information. No one came to see the owner and HBO replied to the letter. It would seemed there were no higher authorities to refer the matter other than HBO.

3.5 In the blind copy HBO wrote to RC Chairman a sentence stated “During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected.” Let assumed the place of the house visit could be outside the owner’s flat, outside or inside the neighbour’s flat, or inside the flat across the the neighbour. What would be the likelihood of each when the sentence ended with “there is no noise nuisance being detected.”? The last possibility could mean there was a noise recording device in the flat.

3.6 Although HBO wrote no noise was detected during the house visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him, called on the owner. There followed two days of quiet before noise started again.

3.7 Earlier before the owner received the blind copy, he noted in his first letter to a MP there were many start-and-stop attempts after the force-entry. He thinks there was a device that detect or record noise in the flat, and the people in the flat had communicated with the neighbour to reduce noise to a tolerable level.

3.8 The owner was suspicious from the OIC who telephoned and visited him many times, his meeting with HBO at the Branch Office, and when HBO sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him after his meeting with a second MP. Uniform men, matron, maid, change of person and use of food delivery service at the neighbour’s flat indicated they do not have legitimate purpose. They would made noise to let the owner know they knew about letters sent to the MPs. When asked, they would lower the noise for a day or two, but works continued amidst the complaints and have not stop.

3.9 So far as the owner could tells the items they work-on are small, and could be easily concealed in a bag. The heavy tamp and rambling noise are from machine-tools. Other noises heard are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining is heard from water used. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is caused by a narrowed pipe due to deposits accumulated over the years.

3.10 The works could be continuous through the day and night. Light knocking early in the morning to final drain late at night. Most of the noise are in the morning and afternoon for many hours. A change of person was also seen.

3.11 After the last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner still hears muffled tamp, heavy sound, knocking and draining consistent with works being carried out.

3.12 HBO had a posting on car parking at CNA Forums, which the owner found odd from the page layout. Was it intended for him not to enter into discussion at the forums showed on the page? The owner had enquired about the TV message at Mediacorp and talked to his friend about it, but it was without success either.

Conclusions

4.1 There were two lines missing from the signed acknowlegdement. The two lines referred to noise just after the OIC’s visit, and no noise for two weeks before the OIC’s visit. The owner had enquired about the handwritten letter, which they did not received, and had handed over a handwritten copy at the HDB Branch Office. If he had not photocopied another he would not have the evidence.

4.2 The blind copy written by HBO to RC Chairman indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. The owner saw people shifting into the flat, and heard a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat. There were other signs of a force-entry.

4.3 The owner had assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat. He could be right as the maid was no longer seen except for one day on Lunar New Year ’08. (The maid working in the flat was a substitude for the noise that went on before.) Since the maid was with them, it showed the neigbour did not lived in the flat. It tied in with the fact their flat could had been put up for sale one year earlier, and the preceding four years was quiet.

4.4 The neighbour is carrying on a trade from the types of noise, duration and change of person noted. The owner complained about the same group of people in Dec’98 and from Jun’07 currently. He and his mother had recognised persons before and after the eviction in Mar’99, and rambling and heavy tamping were similar types of noise made.

4.5 Observations made by the owner should be checked for accuracy. Examples could be noisy drainpipe at the service lobby, neighbours who may know about the force-entry, the TV message, and his comments on personnel and the neighbour in his letters . Earlier examples could be whether there was eviction, date of eviction and transfer of ownership, and was there a warning given to the present owner before the current complaint.

4.6 The owner requested a number of times for the MPs to write to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. Town Council made a special effort because the owner was asked whether someone came to see him, but HBO replied to this and other letters sent to HDB. During the owner’s last meeting at the Meet-the-People Session the MP said he would meet HBO the next day, and noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.

4.7 If there was a device used to detect or record noise in the flat, it would had been a deterrence. The blind copy could indicate there was a recording device, and the owner was puzzled at first when he heard five start-and-stop attempts.

4.8 The owner have some supports from MPs, people from the Meet-the-People Session and others. Some of the people he knows, some he does not.

4.9 The reader will have to decide whether there was a force-entry and a break-in given the circumstances.

Recommendations

   An article in the Business Times on 22 May’09 may be related to Item 3.4, and the posting at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem on 11 May’09. “Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government is on the lookout for ‘bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments.” and “the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.”

   The neighbour is part of a larger operation, and profit is the motive; the works they carried out could be easily concealed, and noise affected the household below them. If HDB do not take action no one could.