5.4 Overview
5.3 Committee
5.2 President
5.1 Integrity
4.6 Proving
4.5 Behaviour
4.4 Reason
4.3 Evidence
4.2 Quote
4.1 Case
3.6 Justice
3.5 Petition
3.4 Authority
3.3 Question
3.2 Comment
3.1 Encounter
2.6 Ethics
2.5 Public
2.4 Civics
2.3 Discovery
2.2 Record
2.1 Plea
1.6 Prospect
1.5 Pervasive Case
1.4 Neighbour
1.3 Officers
1.2 Short Version
1.1 Report
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
5.4
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Overview
November 17, 201117 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
5.3
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Committee
October 15, 20111. 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.
5.2
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: President
September 15, 2011President
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
5.1
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Integrity
August 15, 20111. 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.
4.6
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Proving
July 18, 20111. 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.
4.5
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Behaviour
June 20, 20111. 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.
4.4
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Reason
May 24, 20111. 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.
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
April 26, 20111. 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?
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
March 30, 20111. 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
March 1, 2011
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
3.6
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Justice
February 1, 20111. 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
January 1, 20111. 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
December 1, 20101. 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
November 1, 20101. 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
October 1, 20101. 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
September 2, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)