“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Ethics
August 1, 20101. It is one thing for Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO), to cover up past mistakes at the time of the eviction in ’99, and another when he continues to do so the activities of the neighbour since ’07.
2. An officer wrote there was no eviction when the owner knew first-hand there was one: the owner wrote about the occupier who was evicted in his letters to the HDB Branch Office and HDB Feedback Unit. Back then, the estates officer told him she knew what the occupier was doing; and the letter of Sep 08 from HBO, which indicated the neighbour’s flat had not been sublet, would shows the occupier occupied the flat illegally. So the eviction was not recorded, instead the first owner was allowed to transfer the flat to his own people soon after.
3. The cover-up began to show when Officer-in-Charge(OIC) told the owner the Branch Office did not received his second letter, then two lines was missing from a photocopy of his second letter when the owner asked for an acknowledgement, during the meeting HBO said there was a recent transfer of the neighbour’s flat when it was nine years ago, and he conducted his meeting with OIC in the room so the owner did not made a complaint against him. The two missing lines indicated the OIC contacted the neighbour to adjust the noise level, and saying there was a recent tranfer of ownership misled the owner to think the neighbour was not related to the eviction nine years ago.
4. When the owner wrote to a MP on the maid, force-entry, and eviction and HBO replied for the owner to seek his own solution, he had crossed the line for ethical behaviour and his actions from then on indicated the extent of his influence.
5. Two facts need to be mentioned here. The bcc, from HBO to Chairman, Residents Committe, indicated a flat is use to monitor the neighbour. HBO wrote he had a joint house visit with the Chairman, and there was no noise nuisance being detected. He asked the Chairman to explain to the owner on being a good neighbourliness in length, and he really appreciated the Chairman’s effort and assistance. The other fact is the letter from Town Council that the owner would hear from HDB soon but no officer came to visit him. The dates to note are the owner saw personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on Feb 08 before HBO wrote the bcc on Oct 08 for its own reason. And the letter from Town Council was sent on Jan 09 two months after the owner saw the person who occupied the flat across the neighbour on Nov 08, and he was last seen on Jun 10.
6. There was a motive behind the bcc. When the owner went to see his area’s MP for the first time, noise was heightened, and the OIC and a fellow officer visited him. His refusal to their request to check for noise in his flat was followed by the joint house visit between HBO and the Chairman in the flat across the neighbour. It was the morning of their house visit that the owner heard incessant knocking, but HBO wrote no noise nuisance was detected. It was also the same morning that the Chairman and the Treasurer visited him, and the owner told them he would be writing to Mr Teo Chee Hean. HBO replied to the owner, cc to the area’s MP and bcc to the Chairman a week later; his reply was about a month from the time the owner saw the area’s MP. The plan was for HBO and the Chairman to cast the owner as unreliable.
7. Just as he sent the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to him, HBO sent a counsellor to visit the owner to help him cope with his difficulty. Either he presumed the owner is at fault, or he wanted attention away from the neighbour. He would also prefer not to know what the owner wrote about him in his blog. Therefore after the owner posted Discovery, HBO sent the counsellor, a police officer, the estates officer and OIC to visit the owner. Next he wrote he had exhausted all forms of assistance, and asked the owner to go for mediation or engage his own solicitors. The letter was copied to two MPs, who wrote to HDB. The area’s MP who wrote to the Branch Office, however, was not sent a copy. Since the area’s MP informed the owner he had referred his complaint to the Branch Office, HBO would have his reason for not giving a reply.
8. The owner is sure the neighbour uses his flat for their works. Some of the noises were similar to the noises he heard from the occupier who was evicted many years earlier. He had seen other persons going into the flat themselves and heard noises. They had used noise to intimidate and to signal to the owner. His encounters with HBO, OIC, the Chairman from Residents Committee, the personnel in the flat across the neighbour,and the two volunteers from the Meet-the-People Session, showed they shielded and kept the neighbour informed. It may seemed far-fetched if there were no history on the neighbour, and no one knew and assisted the owner.
9. The owner could see HBO has influence over the two volunteers, the personnel, the Chairman, the counsellor (an officer wrote the owner was referred to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) and officers from the neighbourhood police. It could be assumed HBO knew about the maid, neighbour, occupier and first owner; the personnel across the neighbour, force-entry and break-in; the TV broadcast on perceived injustice; and the owner’s letters to MPs and emails about his posting in the blog. He knew from the actions he took.
10. No issue is seen to have been taken with HBO or OIC. And, personnel has occupied the flat across the neighbour for a period of two and a half years now. To the owner both are contrived, placing him at a disadvantage. Instances listed in Discovery, with more details in subsequent posts, would show the case. Lately the neighbour has reduce noise. They complied because they are kept up-to-date on development. Noises are still heard through the day.
11. An ethical code of conduct for officers is essential. It is relation with the public, and immediacy between person. Using one’s influence to obstruct is not one of its value. The Personnel Boards or a committee on ethics could look at the problem.
12. A number of MPs had assisted the owner by writing to HDB. HBO always replied to the letters, even as the owner requested two of the MPs to bypass him. Later the owner wrote to people he found from the Singapore Government Directory and Who’s Who in Singapore 2006. The replies he received referred him to the relevant authorities, thanked him for his feedback and a few others.
13. The owner had quoted PM Lee Hsien Loong on “government misbehaviour”, SM Goh Chok Tong on “trust deficit” and “morally upright government”, and DPM Teo Chee Hean on ” logical rather than ideological path and stay pragmatic in making policies – an approach that has produced many innovative solutions in the past”. They may not be related to his case, but it was timely and pertinent when he wrote in his blog.
14. The owner had also quoted DPM Teo Chee Hean earlier on “the government is on the lookout for ‘bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments” and “the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments”. This was in the Prime Minister’s Office’s addendum to the President’s address.
15. A year later on 2 Jun 10 and 15 Jun 10 the Business Times reported new permanent secretary appointments, and three statutory boards under the Ministry of National Development were set to get new CEOs respectively. On 10 Jul 10 the Straits Times reported new chief executive director of the People’s Association in June. These could be the development referred in Item 10 above.
16. An inquiry into the volunteers and officers involved is required. How else to stop the noise when they have an arrangement with the the neighbour. The owner is reminded of a number of occasions the people in the flat across the neighbour had guided the neighbour to lower the noise, and of other instances that supported such an observation.
17. The people at the flat across the neighbour has so far prolonged the situation. Some forms of random checks with different officers could be put in place to prevent the neighbour from being informed.
18. The owner has provided details to prove the neighbour carried out works in their flat, and to show the problem has been long-standing. These details could be corroborated.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Public
May 19, 20101. After the owner wrote to the President, Police and Minister for National Development on 1 Feb 10, the Neighbourhood Police emailed telephone numbers and a name of an officer to contact and Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office emailed a reply.
2. Although noise was reduced it was lengthened, and the owner went to the Neighbourhood Police Centre on 16 Feb 10. He wanted to meet the officers named in the email, but since it was a public holiday they were not in.
3. The next day someone called the owner’s mother who was at his sister place. He introduced himself as a police officer and asked questions about his mother and the owner. He called again another day to ask to talk to his sister. Another person, who did not gave his full name when his mother asked, also talked to her several times over the telephone. He left a telephone number, which was from the Neighbourhood Police Centre, for the owner to call back. The owner had emailed the Neighbourhood Police early the next morning after the first person called to confirm whether there was a police officer who called his mother, except for the second person who called his mother and mentioned the email there was no reply.
4. Later a police officer visited the owner twice, one to take a 3-hours statement, and called him over the telephone a few times.
5. A final visit was with officers from Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office, Community Development and Neighbourhood Police after the owner posted Discovery in his blog on 4 Mar 10. The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) had called over the telephone to said they wanted to talk. But there was nothing new during their visit. Before they left they interviewed his mother and ask for his sister’s mobile telephone number.
6. It seemed they wanted more information on the owner after his recent letter, emails and posts.
7. The owner’s complaint about continuing noise is up against groups of volunteers and officers who opposed him. The matter is clear to the owner. Consider the period Mar’99 to Apr’99 in which the occupier was evicted, and the tranfer of the flat from the first owner to the present owner took place. He observed one evening after the eviction a contractor informing the present owner about an inspection by HDB officer, which would be the compulsory handover inspection just before the tranfer of ownership to him. The owner had seen the present owner, his wife and the occupier when the flat was with the first owner.
8. The owner is quite certain there was a force-entry not only from what is outlined in his first post but also from signs he observed during the first visit by OIC who was with a man, and when they went upstairs to talk to the neighbour. Also, the present owner spoke to him a few days later after the force-entry to ask him where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment.
9. The force-entry was an ultimatum, and they shielded the present owner when the owner brought out the past. It was not expected after an intervening eight years. A possible break-in at the owner’s flat to seach for documents for traces to be removed could be seen in this context. It happened after the owner signalled to the neighbour he knew there was a different person working in the flat and was in the process of writing to a MP.
10. The bcc from Head,Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO) to Chairman,Residents Committee, and the letter Town Council sent to the owner that he would hear from HDB, gave weight there was a forced-entry and a break-in. The bcc indicated a flat is used to monitor the neighbour, and no officer came to see the owner indicated they know something is going on.
11. From observations the neighbour has a place to live elsewhere and uses the flat as a workplace. At any one time there may be one or two persons working through the day. Noises made are of various types and they use machine-tools. By varying their works or reducing the noise when there is complaint they could keep going. They have continued over the years and possibly in other places. That is how officers come to know about them. The officer who came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period anticipated it and he stopped the noise. In contrast the personnel who presently occupied the same flat for more than two years did not.
12. There has been less noise since 19 Apr 10. For a month after, some days are worse than others. Muffled sounds and also clear, heavy or loud noises. Due to the different type of works and, considering the length of time from early morning to night, from a change of person. They have shown to be determined. Even as the owner showed that officers are involved the neighbour maintains the status quo. It meant that they do not fear enforcement by personnel in flat across them. The owner has been writing to HDB because a) the activities of the neighbour are known to officers, b) HBO has been putting up a front, c) personnel in the flat across the neighbour allows them, d) HDB has the authority to enter flat, and e) the owner cannot take effective action.
13. Are the observations made by the owner flawed and the officers and neighbour wronged. In the past there was the kampong spirit, now we depended on officers and volunteers to be seen in a position of trust. There could be a standard for propriety for officers who do not measure up and no offence is found. What do our state, parliament, government bodies, civil society organisations and media recommend?
14. The owner posted Civics on 12 Apr 10, and the Business Times reported on 16 Apr 10 a wide-ranging interview between the veteran journalist Charlie Rose and PM Lee Hsien Loong in Washington. Mr Lee said “…Singapore cannot ‘afford a bump in the night’, whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem…”. It was also reported on 17 Apr 10 SM Goh Chok Tong said “Many governments around the world face a trust-deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on government. These may have their place in certain contexts.” “In Singapore, our starting premise is that given our unique characteristics and vulnerabilities as a little nation, a strong, competent and morally upright government is essential to Singapore’s survival”. Mr Goh was speaking at the second annual Singapore-China Forum on Leadership.
15. It may be a stretch to think the two news items above are related to his case, but leaves the reader to see how well it fits.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Civics
April 12, 20101. There is a number of surprising events from the post Discovery. Does it not indicates the neighbour is carrying out works in the flat and officers are involved?
2. The actions of Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) and the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) are questionable.
3. Chairman,Residents Committee(Chairman), whose term of office for two years ended 31 Mar 09 shown on the noticeboard, is still the Chairman who spoke to the owner on 6 Dec 09. He could not rely on a new Chairman and members of his committee to check on noise in his flat. It will be possible when there is no one to inform the neighbour about their visits.
4. The owner knows of instances where HBO, Community Centre members, and people in the flat across the neighbour who have a view of the owner’s flat are involved with the neighbour.
5. After the owner wrote to the President, Ministers, the Police, and on his blog on 1 Feb 10, HDB Branch Office wrote there was no evidence of undue noise from interviews with several neighbours and no noise recording device as claimed. A letter from Neighbourhood Police post-dated 11 Mar 10 stated they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence. A meeting with officers from the Branch Office, Community Development and Neighbourhood Police at the owner’s flat on 12 Mar 10 was the same - no noise heard by the neighbours, no recording device, gave the name of the person in the flat across the neighbour, and offered mediation. It seemed like a position to take after the facts.
6. The owner had wrote noise only affected his flat in his first post, and the flat across the neighbour was occupied after he wrote his first letter to the Meet-the-People Session. The bcc would indicates the flat was used to keep watch over the neighbour.
7. In his posts the owner stated there were people from the inside who assisted him. A list could includes the followings:
a) Within a week after he wrote a letter to HBO on 10 Mar 99 (another person at the time) the occupier shifted out and a Techical Officer visited to inform him of the eviction. It was significant he asked the owner what he did that let to the eviction because of other instances the owner had noted.
b) About four years later a man came to live for a short period in the flat across the neighbour and noise stopped. A lady who scolded him for staring gave him the full name of the man. The owner was actually keeping tag of persons living at the upper floor because of noise from the neighbour. It was quiet for four years before loud noise started for a number of days on Jun 07 and noise has continues since.
c) Someone checked out the maid in his first letter to HDB Branch Office on 12 Aug 07. Noise stopped at the same time a poster on domestic help was placed on the noticeboard. The maid was not seen again for six months afterwards.
d) A 15 seconds TV broadcast on perceived injustice that he could write to after HBO wrote his first letter to offer mediation or the court as a solution. His letter followed the owner’s letter to a MP about the maid, force-entry and eviction pertaining to the neighbour.
e) A bcc was sent to him. The bcc was from HBO to Chairman asking him to give a talk to the owner. The bcc indicated two other facts — the flat used to monitor the neighbour and a noise recording device.
f) Town Council wrote to him he will hear from HDB soon. The interviewer and Mr Teo Chee Hean asked him during the next session whether someone came to see him. The officer by not coming indirectly indicated something else was going on.
g) A blogsite published his complaint. It was a help. His subsequent meeting with the volunteers and correspondences indicated this was limited. He had earlier wrote to another site and a meeting was arranged, but they did not come. Another site asked the owner to keep him informed, but when he asked him to let his readers know about the post Discovery he replied he does not quite understand the content of the blog.
h) He thinks someone asked the MP to pass a message to HBO during his last Meet-the-People Session. It was his ninth session when the MP said he will meet HBO the next day and noise was reduced.
8. Three MPs replied, one through an intermediary, after the owner posted Discovery on 4 Mar 10. HBO in turn replied to the owner on 29 Mar 10 and cc to two MPs but not the third, as it could be too obvious. The third MP is familiar with the case having met the owner four times and during the last meeting said he would meet HBO. The MP had replied he asked the Branch Office to look into his complaint which did not made sense. But it does because HBO would have to read about himself in the complaint, and all letters to HDB ended up in the Branch Office anyway. HBO’s reply was officers had visited the owner as Item 5 above, added the owner was not keen on mediation, and since he had exhausted all forms of assistance the owner may have to engage his own private solicitors.
9. It may be procedure to refer the case to HDB Branch Office, but with the same officers noise from works by the neighbour will continues uninterrupted. The neighbour is kept informed and had signalled to the owner they had the upper hand. He had talked to the HBO one time, the Chairman two times, the Community Center member who lives at his block three times, the OIC who called over the telephone and visited many times, and saw the person who lives in the flat across the neighbour many times since ’08. They had shielded the neighbour and in some instances dropped the pretence.
10. The surprise events show there is concerted effort and HBO has substantial influence. Between HBO and the people in the flat across the neighbour no inspection could be carried out without alerting the neighbour. And for writing about them they have reason to want the the owner to leave his flat. Whether it was the letter asking the owner to seek assistance elsewhere in Item 7d) or the bcc he sent to the Chairman, HBO wanted to divert attention away from the neighbour.
11. On 31 Mar 10 the Business Times reported “Five-pronged push to make Public Service fit for the future”. DPM Teo Chee Hean was speaking at the Administrative Service Dinner and Promotion Ceremony. “Public officers will also be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than ideological path and stay pragmatic in making policies – an approach that has produced many innovative solutions in the past, Mr Teo noted.” seemed relevant to the case.
12. There was very little noise the afternoon of 30 Mar 10 and on 31 Mar 10 the day after the speech. After that noise at lower level is still through the day every day of the week.
13. Noise had been loud to intimidate and low to keep him off guard. At present the knock, ramble and thump seemed to be muffled but would worsen as had happened many times before since the situation has not changed. Knock in the early morning(4.00am – 7.00am), noise in the morning and longer period of noise in the afternoon. These may be verified for presence of machine-tool and material at the neighbour’s flat or noise at the owner’s flat taking note they are kept informed. He had tried to held on to his flat by meeting his MPs and later writing in his blog for two years and nine months now.
14. This is an appeal. The owner hopes HDB could take up the case by Item 10.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Discovery
March 4, 20101. Singapore Mint ventured into the lucrative jewellery market, and is currently considering getting local distributors to represent it, was reported in the Business Times on 1 Feb 2010.
2. The owner’s reaction was this would take away some business from workers who work from their flats and create noise for others. He remembered from BlogTV a participant saying a noise woke him at night, and he was unable to go back to sleep. He said the neighbour seemed like reasonable people, but when he mentioned the noise they did not admit it. It sounded familiar to the owner. The subject title was Neighbour From Hell.
3. The owner wrote to the President, the Police and a few Ministers. He received replies the matter will be look into. The owner also placed two more posts in his blog on the same day 1 Feb 2010.
4. Let’s go by the facts that could be ascertained:
a) How did the owner come to conclude the maid, who was making the noise, was not registered to work in the flat? He kept watch over the period 8 Jul 07 to 5 Aug 07, wrote to HDB Branch Office, and noted a quiet period at the same time a poster of a maid working at a coffeeshop (not allowed) appeared on the noticeboard. The maid was not seen again until the Chinese New Year ’08. If the maid was with the present owner and she was registered at another address that may be where the family had lived. Meanwhile the flat is used as a place of work. More details may be found in the post sub-titled Neighbour. The Ministry of Manpower could confirms whether there was a maid in the record, and the address she was registered.
b) The owner thinks the noises are from the working of jewellery or fashion accessory. HDB has personal details on the neighbour such as their occupation.
c) The owner gave reasons in his postings the first owner and the present owner are working together. They are in a business with other workers. HDB would have the personal details of the first owner and his occupier, and could confirms the dates of the owner’s complaint, the eviction of the occupier, a letter the owner sent to HDB Feedback Unit, and the tranfer of the flat to the present owner. The dates should be close together. Several officers knew about the eviction, which took place in mid-Mar 99.
d) If there was no eviction as an officer wrote on 20 Aug 09, it is possible there is also no record of the occupier. The owner wrote to the Branch Office the occupier came pounding on the owner’s door the next morning after the owner knocked on his door the night before but he would not answer. He had lived there for many years. The owner had also seen the present owner and his wife before the occupier came to live there. Only the owner’s mother had seen the first owner and spoken to him a few times.
e) The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) would not give the name of the present owner, although he was at the meeting in which Head,Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO) agreed to when the owner asked. Does the present owner has a record.
f) The flat across the neighbour used to keep watch on the neighbour has a noise recording device inside. The bcc from HBO to Chairman,Residents Committee would confirmed it. Are they facts.
g) The flat is occupied since 22 Feb 08 after the owner’s first letter to the Meet-the-People Session on 16 Feb 08. It has been two years now. If there was not a problem they would not be there, and if there was one they had not done much to solve it. During that time the owner went to eight more Meet-the-People Sessions, wrote in a blog and the noise has continues. His observations indicated noise could be detected, and noises from early morning to the night are from persons taking shift. The tamp and ramble are from machine-tools. If there was an independent team could the problem be resolved.
h) In effect they watch out for the neighbour. The letter from Town Council to the owner that he would hear from HDB and Mr Teo Chee Hean, who wrote the letter to the Town Council, asked him whether someone came to visit him but no one did. The people in the flat would know they were coming or inform the neighbour when they visited. They have a view of the main entrance and study room of the owner’s flat. The owner wonders whether they occupied the flat only to have the matter under their control.
i) Random inspection of noise at the owner’s flat may be an effective method since the repossession of flat acts as a deterrence. The owner wrote a man who came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period and noise had stopped for four years, and a lady who scolded him for staring gave him the full name of the man. The neighbour at the time was the present owner. The inspection will have to be carried out without the people in the flat who would informed the neighbour when they visited.
j) The owner has a general awareness of the situation. During the time he was at the Meet-the-People Sessions he noted there were Community Center members who were for and against him. He had spoken to the Community Center members who were involved. He knows he is watched, and had noise directed at him that could be tied to action such as after he sent a letter. When there were visits to the owner’s flat the noise would stopped.
k) The problem could as easily be someone else. The neighbour is working for a profit and some officers allow it. More details on a force-entry, a break-in and the bcc could be found in the first post under Findings and the post sub-titled Pervasive Case.
l) The owner handed over a copy of his letter because the OIC said the office did not received it. He asked for an acknowledgement and a meeting with HBO, which was in a room with the OIC present. The signed acknowledgement had two lines missing that alluded to the OIC having contacted the present owner to adjust the noise level. The owner was already suspicious after a well-dressed man and the OIC visited him before visiting the neighbour upstair. The well-dressed man did not want to give his name. Two days later, a three hours stretch of rambling noise was followed by the OIC calling back to enquire.
m) The owner first two letters to a MP was followed by a letter from HBO that the owner may obtain a court injunction to stop the noise. The letters the owner wrote were a list of items including maid, force-entry, start and stop attempts and previous eviction; and the second letter was about a heavy knock at 1.00am followed by continual knock through the night, next morning and afternoon.
n) The date of the TV broadcast on perceived injustice was after HBO sent his first letter on court injunction on 25 Sep 08 and before the owner received the bcc on 7 Nov 08.
o) The owner spoke about checking out discussion groups to a friend on 26 Mar 09 since there was no lead on contacting the person who broadcasted the message, and mentioned about the post HBO placed at the CNA Form to the volunteers from the site http://civicadvocator.net who visited him on 18 May 09. They had published the owner’s letter a week earlier. HBO may had published and withdrew his post on car-parking at CNA Forum about these two dates. The owner thinks the TV message and HBO’s post were unusual events, and there was intend to let the owner know his attempt to publicise was not going to succeed.
p) The bcc from HBO to Chairman,Residents Committee stated “there is no noise nuisance being detected”, and asked the Chairman to give the owner a talk on good neighbourliness during their visit to the flat across the neighbour. The Chairman had arranged to meet one of his member the same morning after his meeting with HBO to visit the owner. The owner noted there was in fact incessant knocking that morning; and he told the Chairman and the member about the noise and said, as they were leaving, that if they come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Did HBO communicated with the neighbour that morning to make the noise when he saw from the flat the owner at his study room. The Chairman had on two separate occasions said he would come to visit him but did not.
q) There are reasons HBO was at the flat across the neighbour. After HBO wrote his first letter on court injunction, the owner when to see his area MP about a connection between the first owner and the present owner, and a previous eviction. Noise was heightened after this, and the owner refused to allow the OIC and a fellow officer into his flat to check for noise on the second week (the owner saw the area MP on the first week). HBO visited the flat with the Chairman who then visited the owner on the third week. HBO wrote to the owner that the area MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback, and he was glad the Chairman had approached and assisted him on the fourth week .
r) The last meeting the owner had with the area MP (when he said he would meet HBO the next day) was on 23 Feb 09. HBO did not reply to the letter the MP sent to HDB then until two months later on 24 Apr 09, which was five days after the owner emailed to the PM on 19 Apr 09. The owner thinks HBO knew about the email because noise in the form of knocks spaced apart over a period of time was meant for the owner.There was direct mention of HBO in the email. The owner remembered the incident because an old friend called almost immmediately after he emailed the PM, and he visited the owner on 23 Apr 09 one day before HBO sent his reply.
s) HBO has influence. There were seven letters from the MPs to HDB that he replied to. The owner made his request to the MPs a number of times that the letters go to the Headquarter and not to the Branch Office, since six of his letters had the words court injunction in it. The owner thinks the area MP had a message for HBO when he went to see him because noise was reduced. HBO should not be made answerable going by the items l) to s), someone else should be or appointed to do so.
t) An addendum to the President’s address presented by DPM Teo Chee Hean,who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, and reported in the Business Times on 22 May 09 was at a time after the following events: i) The owner wrote about his problem in a post published at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem on 11 May 09. ii) Mr Teo Chee Hean sent a letter to the Town Council after the owner requested the letter do not go to the Branch Office, but in the next Meet-the-People Session when Mr Teo wrote to HDB HBO cc to Mr Teo his reply to the owner on 3 Feb 09. iii) Mr Teo rebuked an official in Parliament on 19 Jan 09. iv) The owner received the bcc on 7 Nov 08. v) The message broadcasted on TV (about 15 seconds) was sometimes between 25 Sep 08 and 7 Nov 08.
u) There are people who assisted the owner. He would had no support without them.
5. The Neighbourhood Police’s email dated 10 Feb 2010 and the Branch Office’s email dated 12 Feb 2010 that followed Item 3 marked the time of lower noise. Knock, rambling and muffled tamp are heard from early morning, morning, afternoon and night. The owner emailed the Neighbourhood Police on the 18 Feb 09 and 19 Feb 09 and a policeman came to visit him. An hour before the visit the noise stopped and it started again when he left.
6. HBO in his letters asked the owner to go for meditation or through the court. It will be between the owner and the neighbour, but without much in the way of evidence the noise would continues. The nature of the works and activities of the neighbour known to officers from the time of an eviction in ’99 would not be brought into question.
7. The owner hopes the reader could come to some conclusions too.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Record
February 2, 20101. There are two things important to the case: a) the blind copy sent to owner and b) publicity through email and blog.
2. Without the blind copy one wonders what the owner writes is true. Whatever evidence he lines up only he himself knows or needs to be corroborated. The blind copy is a small note from HDB Branch Office to Residents Committee but points out several facts. It does requires background knowledge and, by itself, it attracts attention.
3. The publicity gave exposure and noise was reduced, at least before they start up again. The owner emailed to people from Who’s Who in Singapore, some he sent to addresses he found on the internet, and some are readers from http://civicadvocator.net. Even so the number is small, if not for the fact the people in the Who’s Who are seen as leaders.
4. Four months later the owner wrote an email to the Town Council on worsening noise. The email is the post before this. The noise could be detected in the flat across the neighbour. The owner can expects knocks in the early morning; loud noise,knocks and ramble during the day; and low level noise at night. Last week there was some noise on two nights including one that began with a heavy tamp at 1.30am. Both times the noise could be heard up till the morning. It had happened before and the owner wrote to an MP in Sep 08.
5. Noise from machine-tools, and works through the day from a change of person should not be allowed; and the lowering of sounds made does not solve the issue. When the owner mentioned they are working on jewellery or fashion accessory he got a definite response from an officer.
6. After the owner wrote to his first Meet-the-People Session he noted personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on 22 Feb 08. They had occupied the flat for nearly two years now. He wrote in his first post a similar instance when a man came to live in the same flat for a short period, and the noise stop for four years. A lady who had scolded him for staring gave him the full name of the man. The neighbour in both cases is the same family. Why is there a different.
February 1, 2010
The owner wrote to the Town Council on 13 Jan 2010.
Dear Sir,
NOISE FROM A NEIGHBOUR
1. Blank out
2. After I wrote in a blog, an officer and the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) visited me on 1 Oct 09 to informed no machine-tools were found inside the upper floor unit during their inspection on the same day. I said they would have removed it before the inspection. The officer may have been recently posted to the Branch Office, and I had invited him and the OIC in for a chat.
3. There is a reduction of noise both in amount and level since Sep 09, but now and then there are increased noises. From Dec 09 onwards I noticed such noises (and there were many) would be reduced the next day due to the people at the flat across them. Ramble, knock, drag, heavy sound, sharp sound and noisy drainpipe could be heard. The continual knock, ramble and tamp are from machine-tools. Although the disturbance had been reduced considerably, I do not think it is acceptable to a person over a long term considering the nature of the works, change of person during the day and noise beyond normal hours.
4. Somehow it is also a game where they get away with little risk, and I bear with noise, anguish, and interruption to my work. I wrote about the noise starting in Jun 07 after a lull of four years, and it has continues despite help by the authorities.
5. What are the causes underlying the problem? I had provided part of the details at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com
6. I have hope because there is sufficient evidence works are carried out for profit.
Regards,
Blank out
