“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Reason
May 24, 20111. The reason has been profit, money, and status. The neighbour has not stop a day since they began four years ago, arrangement between officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office and the neighbour had been made, and people at HDB did not response to letters from MPs and the owner.
2. How would one explain the presence of the people in the flat across the neighbour? One would deny there was ulterior purpose if it was possible. The people at HDB may have asked the neighbour to stop, but they only lowered the noise. There is no fear of enforcement since the people in the flat across the neighbour has the power to prevent inspection.
3. The people in the flat across the neighbour moved into the flat four days after the owner attended his first Meet-the-People Session (MPS) in ’08, and presently continues to monitor from the flat. Very likely a deal was made with the neighbour when they force-entered the neighbour’s flat. They may also have broken into the owner’s flat in search of letters the owner wrote to HDB, and anything else that might be of use against the owner. The owner’s assertions are make from observations. Should one read the previous post Evidence, there is enough indirect and circumstantial evidence to convince.
4. The owner’s case has been over thirteen years since ’98. If it comes to be known, there are others that were covered up. A small number in a population may not be felt, but it could happen to anyone.
5. Code of conducts prevents officers from straying. Finding direct evidence is not likely since dishonest officers will conceal their activities. If there is doubt about an officer, he should be removed to another position or suspended pending investigation. More so if an officer has substantial influence over others. Such is the case where the owner is forced to submit. Because insiders, MPs, Ministers, and President have assisted, the owner did not give up. He could continue to write into the details.
6. One may think the owner has an axe to grind. He may well have but anytime the noise stops, it ceases to be an issue. All he wanted is a fair hearing, and fairness to the next owner as he will be leaving. Loud and threatening noise was part, noise was reduced after PM mentioned government misbehaviour, and noise was further reduced after a post addressed to high officials. Lowered noise is a tactic just as they reduced noise for a time after each complaint to a MP. The knock, ramble, and thump continue to be heard, and the people in the flat across the neighbour watches out for them. HDB could carry out an independent inspection, but it did not because of HBO’s standing (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office’s standing). An abnormality.
7. So it have been a) information that the neighbour has a history of working in their flat seems to be of no use to the owner, b) HDB Branch Office’s replies have been their inspections found no excessive noise therefore no action could be taken, c) both HBO and the neighbour asked him to prove his case in court, d) HDB would not reply to letters from MPs and the owner, and e) people who knew about his situation were unable to help because of powerful influence at work.
8. The neighbour is determine. Noises heard are from machine-tools. Duration of work and workers seen showed they used the flat as a place of work. The people in the flat across the neighbour ensures that the neighbour working inside the flat is not heard outside the flat. The main reason, for which they have stayed since ’08, has been to prevent inspection by spotting any one who does. The owner wrote to practically everybody including the Ministry of National Development. An inquiry would have looked into the details and provided a record of what happened.
9. On 10 May 11 after the General Election there was a drop in noise. That the neighbour did not stopped has been the problem. What is to prevent them from continuing or starting up? Are the officers who were involved still around?
10. In individualism one looks out for oneself. There is limited government and it is for the strong. A community-based government, however, recognises its has both strong and weak members and looks at solution from a larger perspective. Therefore if the owner is telling the truth that officers colluded with the neighbour, they should be stopped from continuing, if not, the owner should be stopped from complaining. The community benefits in a long run.
11. At a General Election Rally on 3 May 11 PM said:
No government is perfect. We can have our best intentions, make our best efforts, but from time to time, mistakes will happen. We will make mistakes. We made a mistake when we let Mas Selamat run away. We made a mistake when Orchard Road got flooded. And there are other mistakes which we have made from time to time, and I’m sure occasionally will happen again – I hope not too often. But when it happens, then we should acknowledge it, we should apologize, take responsibility, put things right, if we have to discipline somebody we will do that, and we must learn from the lessons, and never make the same mistake again.
The owner hopes PM was also referring to this case.
2. How would one explain the presence of the people in the flat across the neighbour? One would deny there was ulterior purpose if it was possible. The people at HDB may have asked the neighbour to stop, but they only lowered the noise. There is no fear of enforcement since the people in the flat across the neighbour has the power to prevent inspection.
3. The people in the flat across the neighbour moved into the flat four days after the owner attended his first Meet-the-People Session (MPS) in ’08, and presently continues to monitor from the flat. Very likely a deal was made with the neighbour when they force-entered the neighbour’s flat. They may also have broken into the owner’s flat in search of letters the owner wrote to HDB, and anything else that might be of use against the owner. The owner’s assertions are make from observations. Should one read the previous post Evidence, there is enough indirect and circumstantial evidence to convince.
4. The owner’s case has been over thirteen years since ’98. If it comes to be known, there are others that were covered up. A small number in a population may not be felt, but it could happen to anyone.
5. Code of conducts prevents officers from straying. Finding direct evidence is not likely since dishonest officers will conceal their activities. If there is doubt about an officer, he should be removed to another position or suspended pending investigation. More so if an officer has substantial influence over others. Such is the case where the owner is forced to submit. Because insiders, MPs, Ministers, and President have assisted, the owner did not give up. He could continue to write into the details.
6. One may think the owner has an axe to grind. He may well have but anytime the noise stops, it ceases to be an issue. All he wanted is a fair hearing, and fairness to the next owner as he will be leaving. Loud and threatening noise was part, noise was reduced after PM mentioned government misbehaviour, and noise was further reduced after a post addressed to high officials. Lowered noise is a tactic just as they reduced noise for a time after each complaint to a MP. The knock, ramble, and thump continue to be heard, and the people in the flat across the neighbour watches out for them. HDB could carry out an independent inspection, but it did not because of HBO’s standing (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office’s standing). An abnormality.
7. So it have been a) information that the neighbour has a history of working in their flat seems to be of no use to the owner, b) HDB Branch Office’s replies have been their inspections found no excessive noise therefore no action could be taken, c) both HBO and the neighbour asked him to prove his case in court, d) HDB would not reply to letters from MPs and the owner, and e) people who knew about his situation were unable to help because of powerful influence at work.
8. The neighbour is determine. Noises heard are from machine-tools. Duration of work and workers seen showed they used the flat as a place of work. The people in the flat across the neighbour ensures that the neighbour working inside the flat is not heard outside the flat. The main reason, for which they have stayed since ’08, has been to prevent inspection by spotting any one who does. The owner wrote to practically everybody including the Ministry of National Development. An inquiry would have looked into the details and provided a record of what happened.
9. On 10 May 11 after the General Election there was a drop in noise. That the neighbour did not stopped has been the problem. What is to prevent them from continuing or starting up? Are the officers who were involved still around?
10. In individualism one looks out for oneself. There is limited government and it is for the strong. A community-based government, however, recognises its has both strong and weak members and looks at solution from a larger perspective. Therefore if the owner is telling the truth that officers colluded with the neighbour, they should be stopped from continuing, if not, the owner should be stopped from complaining. The community benefits in a long run.
11. At a General Election Rally on 3 May 11 PM said:
No government is perfect. We can have our best intentions, make our best efforts, but from time to time, mistakes will happen. We will make mistakes. We made a mistake when we let Mas Selamat run away. We made a mistake when Orchard Road got flooded. And there are other mistakes which we have made from time to time, and I’m sure occasionally will happen again – I hope not too often. But when it happens, then we should acknowledge it, we should apologize, take responsibility, put things right, if we have to discipline somebody we will do that, and we must learn from the lessons, and never make the same mistake again.
The owner hopes PM was also referring to this case.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Evidence
April 26, 20111. The types of evidence pertaining to the case would be testimonial and documentary. The proofs are preponderance of evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. Evidences are generally indirect and circumstantial. Indirect evidences could be admission against interest, government records, and letters.
2. A list of evidence is as follows:
a) During a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and OIC (Officer-in-Charge), HBO agreed to give the name of the neighbour to the owner. But two days later when OIC visited the owner, he refused to give the neighbour’s name, which was in his fact sheet. Yet he voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour in another meeting. The meeting was with a police officer, a counsellor, an estates officer, and himself at the owner’s home after he wrote the people in the flat across the neighbour were watching out for the neighbour.
b) When the owner asked for an acknowledgment before the meeting with HBO, he was given a signed photocopy of his letter. Two lines in the letter that could implicate the OIC were missing. The letter also mentioned the maid who may not have registered at the flat and the eviction of an occupant, both crucial to the case.
c) HBO wrote to the owner in reply to a letter a MP wrote to HDB. The letter written on the owner’s behalf included letters the owner wrote to the MP who told him it would be attached. HBO did not address the issues raised, which included the maid and the eviction, but instead asked the owner to seek his own solution.
d) HBO’s letter was a clue he knew what the neighbour is doing. He wrote that the owner claimed work was conducted by unknown owner and the neighbour sublet the flat to unknown owner. The sentence made more sense when the words neighbour and unknown owner switched places. He had inadvertently used the term unknown owner, which correctly referred to the first owner of the flat who was never seen, to refer to the neighbour. He probably wanted the owner to say the unknown owner let out the flat to an occupant who sublet it to the neighbour. Anyway, the owner neither mentioned anything about sublet nor used the term unknown owner. He went on to write they were not able to establish there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat in his own words. Also by telling the owner at his office the transfer of the flat to the neighbour was a recent event, he hoped to avoid the connection between the eviction of the occupant and the tranfer of the flat to the neighbour nine years ago. He would have made up a story. What the owner did not say and what HBO did say would be owner’s words against his only.
e) From the letters the owner sent to the Branch Office, the dates of the letters could determine the occupant under the first owner and the maid under the neighbour were allowed to work in the flat for many months before insiders stopped them. There would be government records on the transfer of the flat to the neighbour sometime about Mar ’99 just after the eviction, and whether the maid was registered at the flat. The eviction of the occupant was a fact. The owner saw the occupant shifted out and an officer came to inform him. However, an officer wrote to the owner when he first posted in his blog there was no record of an eviction. The fact that insiders assisted the owner when it first began in ’98 and continue to do even now speaks volume.
f) After HBO wrote the letter in c) there was a broadcast over TV on preceived injustice that lasted the time it took for a voice-over and a display of an address that one could write to. Next, on the day the owner went to a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) to meet the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, he received a letter sent by HBO earlier but with a bcc to the Chairman, Residents Committee. The next time the owner met the Minister at another MPS was on the day he rebuked an official in Parliament. The events leading to the rebuke may have something to do with the case. When the owner emailed the PM the resemblance of name between the HBO and the official, he received an immediate phone call from a friend to visit him. Upon the friend’s visit HBO gave his reply to a letter from the area’s MP who wrote on behalf of the owner, which he kept for two months, to let the owner know he knew. It all indicates HBO has high standing and is difficult to take down.
g) HBO’s powerful and extensive connection could be seen over many instances:
i) They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour to monitor the owner and the neighbour. The details indicated a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in into the owner’s flat.
ii) HBO posted on the front page of a forum hosted by CNA after the owner said to a friend he would bring up his problem at a discussion site. Although the posting was on unrelated matter, it was a reminder to the owner not to publicise. As it happened he was thwarted many times.
iii) The owner’s computer was infected to prevent him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks stopped him from using the computer over extended period of time.
iv) HBO’s network of people included Community Centre members (CC members), Chairman of Residents Committee, the police, a counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and officers at government departments. CC members had tried to stop the owner on two occasions at MPS. They may have spoken to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service who turned the owner away and, at his last MPS, a CC member asked how many times he had seen the area’s MP and indicated he could expect noise after 10.00am. The owner was first introduced to the CC member on the matter of the people in the flat across the neighbour at a MPS. Sometime later the owner spoke to him outside his flat. That night just after the owner switched off the light before going to bed, a series of noise was heard from the neighbour. A clear indication the CC member informed the people in the flat across the neighbour who when they saw the light went off informed the neighbour to make the noise.
v) The Chairman was asked to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, a counsellor came to assess the owner for fault, a police officer urged the owner to consider mediation, and officers at HDB Hub referred the owner to the Branch Office knowing full well what was in his blog. One police officer wrote to him HDB had thoroughly investigated, another officer referred him to a directory of lawyers, and still others returned his email with the words spam or suspected spam inserted in the title.
vi) HDB did not response to letters from MPs instead HBO replied to the letters. Therefore the MP who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service wrote to Pasir Ris Town Council, which then wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB and cc to HBO that the letter from the Minister was enclosed for his information. At the next MPS the Minister asked the owner whether anyone visited him and he answered no one. This had to do with the people in the flat across the neighbour who would have spotted them during their visit. Such instances seemed to indicate HDB has washed their hands of HBO.
h) The bcc from HBO to Chairman indicated they were at the flat across the neighbour. Separately, the Chairman arranged to meet the Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. During the meeting the owner mentioned in passing the noise heard that morning and, before they left, asked them to visit him without the knowledge of the officers. The owner inferred they were asked to visit and not as the Chairman said they were on their round.
i) Because of the noise from the neighbour and the people in the flat across the neighbour who watched out for the neighbour, the owner wrote to the Police and the President. The Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was asked to investigate. In his reply to the owner, he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour. He stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence that referred to the neighbour only.
j) The people in the flat across the neighbour shifted in four days after the owner’s first MPS. He knew the flat was used to stop the neighbour about four years earlier. From the behaviour of the officers and those connected to the flat, the owner deduced they abetted the neighbour. He noticed workers, noise from machine-tools, and work was through the day including at times late at the night and very early in the morning. Some of the noises were similar to those made when the flat was with the first owner. On several occasions they used noise to intimidate the owner.
3) It will be four years come Jun 11 since the noise began. It will be two years come Aug 11 since the owner published it in his blog. The post Petition on Jan 11 was addressed to high officials with the result noise was reduced. The neighbour persisted because of the people in the flat across the neighbour and their influence.For the last four weeks noise was lowered but the knock, ramble and sometime thump prevented the owner from taking nap and concentrating on his work. As long as the owner is set up, it will be as if the neighbour is given licence to carry on. Future owner of his flat will face the same problem.
4) There are two different things to Government: the Ministers who represent general will and legislative capacity, and the high officials who represent executive power. As noted elsewhere, three Ministers responded in their own way through the media. Also, the Minister for National Development requested the owner to acknowledge receipt when he replied he would ask HDB to look into it in an email to the owner on 1 Feb 10. But HDB has been consistent in not responding precisely because they understood the problem. Would the Minister open an inquiry since the Ministry of National Development is the parent of HDB?
2. A list of evidence is as follows:
a) During a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and OIC (Officer-in-Charge), HBO agreed to give the name of the neighbour to the owner. But two days later when OIC visited the owner, he refused to give the neighbour’s name, which was in his fact sheet. Yet he voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour in another meeting. The meeting was with a police officer, a counsellor, an estates officer, and himself at the owner’s home after he wrote the people in the flat across the neighbour were watching out for the neighbour.
b) When the owner asked for an acknowledgment before the meeting with HBO, he was given a signed photocopy of his letter. Two lines in the letter that could implicate the OIC were missing. The letter also mentioned the maid who may not have registered at the flat and the eviction of an occupant, both crucial to the case.
c) HBO wrote to the owner in reply to a letter a MP wrote to HDB. The letter written on the owner’s behalf included letters the owner wrote to the MP who told him it would be attached. HBO did not address the issues raised, which included the maid and the eviction, but instead asked the owner to seek his own solution.
d) HBO’s letter was a clue he knew what the neighbour is doing. He wrote that the owner claimed work was conducted by unknown owner and the neighbour sublet the flat to unknown owner. The sentence made more sense when the words neighbour and unknown owner switched places. He had inadvertently used the term unknown owner, which correctly referred to the first owner of the flat who was never seen, to refer to the neighbour. He probably wanted the owner to say the unknown owner let out the flat to an occupant who sublet it to the neighbour. Anyway, the owner neither mentioned anything about sublet nor used the term unknown owner. He went on to write they were not able to establish there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat in his own words. Also by telling the owner at his office the transfer of the flat to the neighbour was a recent event, he hoped to avoid the connection between the eviction of the occupant and the tranfer of the flat to the neighbour nine years ago. He would have made up a story. What the owner did not say and what HBO did say would be owner’s words against his only.
e) From the letters the owner sent to the Branch Office, the dates of the letters could determine the occupant under the first owner and the maid under the neighbour were allowed to work in the flat for many months before insiders stopped them. There would be government records on the transfer of the flat to the neighbour sometime about Mar ’99 just after the eviction, and whether the maid was registered at the flat. The eviction of the occupant was a fact. The owner saw the occupant shifted out and an officer came to inform him. However, an officer wrote to the owner when he first posted in his blog there was no record of an eviction. The fact that insiders assisted the owner when it first began in ’98 and continue to do even now speaks volume.
f) After HBO wrote the letter in c) there was a broadcast over TV on preceived injustice that lasted the time it took for a voice-over and a display of an address that one could write to. Next, on the day the owner went to a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) to meet the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, he received a letter sent by HBO earlier but with a bcc to the Chairman, Residents Committee. The next time the owner met the Minister at another MPS was on the day he rebuked an official in Parliament. The events leading to the rebuke may have something to do with the case. When the owner emailed the PM the resemblance of name between the HBO and the official, he received an immediate phone call from a friend to visit him. Upon the friend’s visit HBO gave his reply to a letter from the area’s MP who wrote on behalf of the owner, which he kept for two months, to let the owner know he knew. It all indicates HBO has high standing and is difficult to take down.
g) HBO’s powerful and extensive connection could be seen over many instances:
i) They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour to monitor the owner and the neighbour. The details indicated a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in into the owner’s flat.
ii) HBO posted on the front page of a forum hosted by CNA after the owner said to a friend he would bring up his problem at a discussion site. Although the posting was on unrelated matter, it was a reminder to the owner not to publicise. As it happened he was thwarted many times.
iii) The owner’s computer was infected to prevent him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks stopped him from using the computer over extended period of time.
iv) HBO’s network of people included Community Centre members (CC members), Chairman of Residents Committee, the police, a counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and officers at government departments. CC members had tried to stop the owner on two occasions at MPS. They may have spoken to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service who turned the owner away and, at his last MPS, a CC member asked how many times he had seen the area’s MP and indicated he could expect noise after 10.00am. The owner was first introduced to the CC member on the matter of the people in the flat across the neighbour at a MPS. Sometime later the owner spoke to him outside his flat. That night just after the owner switched off the light before going to bed, a series of noise was heard from the neighbour. A clear indication the CC member informed the people in the flat across the neighbour who when they saw the light went off informed the neighbour to make the noise.
v) The Chairman was asked to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, a counsellor came to assess the owner for fault, a police officer urged the owner to consider mediation, and officers at HDB Hub referred the owner to the Branch Office knowing full well what was in his blog. One police officer wrote to him HDB had thoroughly investigated, another officer referred him to a directory of lawyers, and still others returned his email with the words spam or suspected spam inserted in the title.
vi) HDB did not response to letters from MPs instead HBO replied to the letters. Therefore the MP who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service wrote to Pasir Ris Town Council, which then wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB and cc to HBO that the letter from the Minister was enclosed for his information. At the next MPS the Minister asked the owner whether anyone visited him and he answered no one. This had to do with the people in the flat across the neighbour who would have spotted them during their visit. Such instances seemed to indicate HDB has washed their hands of HBO.
h) The bcc from HBO to Chairman indicated they were at the flat across the neighbour. Separately, the Chairman arranged to meet the Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. During the meeting the owner mentioned in passing the noise heard that morning and, before they left, asked them to visit him without the knowledge of the officers. The owner inferred they were asked to visit and not as the Chairman said they were on their round.
i) Because of the noise from the neighbour and the people in the flat across the neighbour who watched out for the neighbour, the owner wrote to the Police and the President. The Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was asked to investigate. In his reply to the owner, he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour. He stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence that referred to the neighbour only.
j) The people in the flat across the neighbour shifted in four days after the owner’s first MPS. He knew the flat was used to stop the neighbour about four years earlier. From the behaviour of the officers and those connected to the flat, the owner deduced they abetted the neighbour. He noticed workers, noise from machine-tools, and work was through the day including at times late at the night and very early in the morning. Some of the noises were similar to those made when the flat was with the first owner. On several occasions they used noise to intimidate the owner.
3) It will be four years come Jun 11 since the noise began. It will be two years come Aug 11 since the owner published it in his blog. The post Petition on Jan 11 was addressed to high officials with the result noise was reduced. The neighbour persisted because of the people in the flat across the neighbour and their influence.For the last four weeks noise was lowered but the knock, ramble and sometime thump prevented the owner from taking nap and concentrating on his work. As long as the owner is set up, it will be as if the neighbour is given licence to carry on. Future owner of his flat will face the same problem.
4) There are two different things to Government: the Ministers who represent general will and legislative capacity, and the high officials who represent executive power. As noted elsewhere, three Ministers responded in their own way through the media. Also, the Minister for National Development requested the owner to acknowledge receipt when he replied he would ask HDB to look into it in an email to the owner on 1 Feb 10. But HDB has been consistent in not responding precisely because they understood the problem. Would the Minister open an inquiry since the Ministry of National Development is the parent of HDB?
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Quote
March 30, 20111. The owner showed officers collude with the neighbour and how the neighbour operates. Yet no one has stop them even as the government has control over the officers and access to information that the owner could only observe.
2. Any mistake the owner made could be picked up as he went to extraordinary length in his blog. And he kept repeating key statements of fact.
3. A number of days after the post Case was published on 01 Mar 11 noise went up for about a week, then down and the owner’s computer that was under attacked was back to normal. On 25 Mar 11 his computer was targeted again. These were co-ordinated. Noise from the neighbour continues to be heard each day. They are making use of the flat for their works as the family do not live there.
4. The whistleblowing policy for civil service and statutorys board announced in parliament on 28 Feb 11 enables insiders who present evidence to be protected from exposing themselves. But this should be secondary to a formal inquiry. Having one would show the authority is serious, and allow people to come forward.
5. The quotes selected here are of particular relevance to the case:
a) In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a poltical and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such government. When however the relationship of government to the moral community is put in question both by the changed nature of government and the lack of moral consensus in the society, it becomes difficult any longer to have any clear, simple and teachable conception of patriotism. Loyalty to my country, to my community — which remains unalterably a central virtue — becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me.
Just as this understanding of the displacement of patriotism must not be confused with the liberal critique of moral particularity, so this necessary distancing of the moral self from the government of mordern states must not be confused with any anarchist critique of the state. Nothing in my argument suggests, let alone implies, any good grounds for rejecting certain forms of government as necessary and legitimate; what the argument does entail is that the modern state is not such a form of government. It must have been clear from earlier parts of my argument that the tradition of the virtues is at variance with the central features of the modern economic order and more especially its individualism, its acquisitiveness and its elevation of the values of the market to a central social place. It now becomes clear that it also involves a rejection of the modern political order. This does not mean that there are not many tasks only to be performed in and through government which still require performing: the rule of law, so far as it is possible in a modern state, has to be vindicated, injustice and unwarranted suffering have to be dealt with, generosity has to be exercised, and liberty has to be defended, in ways that are sometimes only possible through the use of governmental institutions. But each particular task, each particular responsibility has to be evaluated on its own merits. Modern systematic politics, whether liberal, conservative, radical or socialist, simply has to be rejected from a standpoint that owes genuine allegiance to the tradition of the virtues; for modern politics itself expresses in its institutional forms a systematic rejection of that tradition.
After Virtue (2008), Page 254–255, Alasdair MacIntyre
b) For Aristotle, the purpose of politics is not to set up a framework of rights that is neutral among ends. It is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character. It’s about learning how to live a good life. The purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop their distinctive capacities and virtues–to deliberate about the common good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a whole.
[A]ny polis which is truly so called, and is not merely one in name, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise, a political association sinks into a mere alliance…Otherwise, too, law becomes a mere covenant…”a guarantor of men’s rights against one another”–instead of being, as it should be, a rule of life such as will make the members of a polis good and just.
For Aristotle, this is the primary purpose of law–to cultivate the habits that lead to good character. “Legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one. It makes no small difference…whether we form habits of one kind or of another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference.”
Justice:What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009), Michael J. Sandel.
c) So how is it possible to acknowledge the moral weight of community while still giving scope to human freedom?
Alasdair MacIntyre offers a powerful answer to this question. As an alternative to the voluntarist conception of the person, MacIntyre advances a narrative conception. Human beings are storytelling beings. We live our lives as narrative quests. “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?’”
The contrast with the narrative view of the self is clear. For the story of my life is always embedded in the story of those communities from which I derive my identity. I am born with a past; and to try to cut myself off that past, in the individualist mode, is to deform my present relationships.
They can’t be captured by an ethic of consent. That is, in part, what gives these claims their moral force. They draw on our encumbrances. They reflect our nature as storytelling beings, as situated selves.
Justice:What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009), Michael J. Sandel.
d) First, Confucian humanism places great responsibility on the shoulders of the individual person and regards it as the ruler’s responsibility to teach individuals how to be essentially self-governing: “Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them by law and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety (li), and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right.” At the same time,
Confucianism would reject the notion of the human person as an individual, if by this term one means to suggest the presence of a free and autonomous self.
Confucian Political Ethics, Daniel A. Bell.
e) Appearance. In Plato’s Republic Glaucon presents a challenge between the perfectly unjust man and the perfectly just man. The unjust man is truly unjust but has the skills and resources he needs for a prosperous life and to get away with his misdeeds while maintaining a reputation for justice. The perfectly just man is the exact opposite–he has nothing but his justice and a false reputation for being unjust. The challenge given to Socrates is to prove that the life of the just man is preferable even under the stated conditions.
What Don’t You Know?, Michael C. LaBossiere.
( The excerpt from Republic could be found in Philosophy 101, Stanley Rosen.)
f) Led by degrees, people will agree not only that men ought to abstain from doing evil but also that they ought to prevent evil from being done and even to alleviate it when it is done, at least as far as they can without inconvenience to themselves. I am not now examining how far this inconvenience can go. Yet it will still be doubted, perhaps, that one is obligated to secure the good of another, even when this can be done without difficulty. Someone may say, “I am not obligated to help you achieve. Each for himself, God for all.” But let me again suggest an intermediate case. A great good comes to you, but an obstacle arises, and I can remove that obstacle without pain. Would you not think it right to ask me to do so and to remind me that I would ask it of you if I were in a similar plight? If you grant this point, as you can hardly help doing, how can you refuse the only remaining request, that is, to procure a great good for me when you can do this without inconvenience of any kind to yourself and without being able to offer any reason for not doing it except a simple, ”I do not want to”? You could make me happy, and you refuse to do so. I complain, and you would complain in the same circumstances; therefore, I complain with justice.
(Paragraph from Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.)
Philosophy 101, Stanley Rosen.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Case
March 1, 2011
1. The neighbour is not the main problem because they could be stopped. It is the officers who perpetuate it.
2. In trying to cover up a long relationship, their behaviours made that clear to the owner. The role of the people in the flat across the neighbour to prevent inspection at the neighbour’s flat is a case in point. The owner has supported his claim, but there has been no reply from the authorities.
3. Through no fault of his, the owner has been subjected to noise each day. It restarted in Jun ’07, and noise was reduced in Apr ’10 after PM mentioned “government misbehaviour”. After the post Petition in Jan ’11, there was a further reduction in noise. However in the first week after the next post Justice, there were huge thump and sharp noise. It stopped the second week, but the usual knock, thump and rumble continued through the day. About the third week after a contractor told him repair was carried out on the floor of the neighbour’s unit, a different set of noise was heard. They have reduced the amount and level of noise so that their works would continue–the huge thump, loud knock and rumble, still there, are muffled.
4. Higher authority could have intervened because there are much less noise now. Knock and muffled noise are heard in early morning and the rest of the day. The authority should not stop here, what counts is why the neighbour is doing it.
5. Except for the change there is no real solution. The officers and neighbour have an interest to see the owner forced out of his flat. He writes a blog about them and, to show who is in charge, they had used noise to let him know.
6. The first time the owner went to see the area’s MP, HDB may have investigated but prevented from taking action. The owner could see the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was feeling the heat when he asked the owner to allow him to check for noise in his flat, which was refused. An officer, who called the owner over the phone, had also replaced OIC for a time.
7. It started with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO), when he wrote to the owner on things he did not say and on what the neighbour was not. That was followed by the TV broadcast on perceived injustice probably directed at the owner, then he received the bcc from HBO to Residents Committee Chairman, some time later Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB but no one came, and Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service rebuked an official in parliament the same day he met the owner at a Meet-the-People Session. The chain of events could have been stopped at HBO. But he was not taken to task because of his standing. His network supported him, and letters to HDB he took to reply. Similarly letters to the President, Police, and Public Service Commission had no effect. No one seemed to be responsible for HBO.
8. An inquiry is required. It is necessary because events happened over many years, many people are involved, and there is cover-up. It is a duty given that insiders have assisted.
9. The truth in the facts is as follows:
a) The first owner transferred the flat to the present owner after an eviction to continue with their works. The date of tranfer was some time before 17 Apr 99 when a contractor, who did some renovation in the flat, slipped a note on noise from their works to the owner. The owner wrote his complaint to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office on 8 Dec 98, 11 Jan 99 and 10 Mar 99 and, after the eviction, wrote to HDB Feedback Unit on 21 Mar 99. Although an officer later wrote no eviction was ever conducted, there remains the date of the tranfer, letters from the owner, replies from an estates officer at the Branch Office, and names of officers the owner wrote to nine years ago to show the event did take place. Besides, the owner saw the occupier shifted out of the flat and a techical officer came to inform him of the eviction.
b) The dates of the complaint from Dec 98 to Mar 99 was a period of three months during which the occupier continued with his work. During this period the estates officer and the techical officer visited the owner. The estates officer said she had an idea what the neighbour was doing though she was not saying. After the eviction of the occupier, who was an illegal occupant, the techical officer visited the owner to inform him and to inquire what the owner did to cause the eviction.
c) Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) did not stop the maid mentioned in two letters to the Branch Office. HDB would have in their record whether the maid was an occupant of the flat. Officers also visited the flat, but four months passed before someone else stopped the maid. An indication given to the owner earlier let him to notice noise stopped at the same time the maid was not seen. Later, he wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to check whether a maid was with the neighbour. It could be that the maid was not employ by the neighbour or, if she was, her registered place of work was at another address. It goes to show the maid and the flat were used for their works.
d) As officers protected the neighbour, insiders assisted the owner. An insider had stopped the neighbour for four years before they restarted works. This time round the officers stationed people in the flat across across the neighbour to spot anyone who dare goes to the owner’s flat or the neighbour’s flat. It was necessary because the neighbour works through the day with change of workers, and the officers have the influence to prevent anyone from assisting the owner.
e) The owner wrote to the President about the people in the flat across the neighbour, and the Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was tasked with the investigation. In his reply he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour, and may have considered it an internal matter.
f) The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) refused to give the name of the neighbour to the owner although he was at the meeting when HBO agreed. Obviously he needed to protect the neighbour or to cover his trail. Details showing the neighbour operates a business and officers are involved were described.
g) The HBO’s doings are detailed. The issue is at the least clear to Ministers, MPs, Community Centre members, Residents Committee members, personnel from HDB, Police, and insiders. That many people knew, and yet not set right, is an injustice writ large.
h) Foods for thought. W. D. Ross classified duties into six major kinds: of fidelity (which includes truth-telling), of not causing harm (which includes not killing), of doing good, of justice, of gratitude, and of reparation. He insists that the determination of which duty takes precedence over another is only revealed to us by reasoning through the particulars of the concrete situation. In the owner’s case think from the standpoint of insiders, HDB, People’s Association, high officials and Ministers, which of the six kinds take precedence. Choose one kind for each without repeating your choice, and see how it goes.
i) Immanuel Kant claims your ability to rule your life should be respected even if you might hurt yourself and others in the process. His respect for your person is as if you will your punishment when you make the wrong choice. In other words, you take responsiblility for it. Since ’07 when OIC and a man, who did want to be identified, visited the owner and neighbour, they colluded with the neighbour to allow them to carry on with their works. They were not faulted the whole time because HBO has powerful connection, which he uses to abet the neighbour.
j) The two quotes above are from Understanding Ethics, David Bruce Ingram and Jennifer A. Parks, The Complete Idiot’s Guide.
Accompanying Email
Dear Mr, Mrs, Ms and Mdm,
Open Letter To HDB
The post Case is of a person who knows noises from the neighbour are from the working of a trade, and the people in the flat across the neighbour with connection to officers prevent anyone from inspecting the neighbour’s flat.
He hopes you will give your opinion on the case. Agreement and disagreement would be discussed, and a position reached. If it happened, it would be a community effort.
He needs the help, having done all he could do.
You could start with any items, the previous post Justice has a summary of the main events.
Give your opinion at Civic Advocator. Google the site and look for his post under Housing, Activism, Forum, or search under HDB. Linked address to the site could also be found at the end of the post Officers, Neighbour, Prevasive Case, or Prospect, in his blog.
His blog is at http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4135734356197297920&postID=6965642906205147735 and http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4135734356197297920&postID=6965642906205147735
(The blogs could be google by name; at the name complainproper, each post is listed separately. Please forward this email if you think it would help.)
Regards,
hh
