“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?
