11 Feb 2012
President
Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Dear Sir,
Officers Colluded With Neighbour
1. I wrote to the President on 1 Feb 10 and 15 Sep 11, each time the President's Office referred me to the police. Despite stating the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watched out for the neighbour, the police still posed the problem as only between the neighbour and myself. I also wrote to PSC and HDB since they are directly responsible for the officers. They did not give a reply.
2. The case has features of whistleblowing. I would not have noticed the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour if someone in the same flat had not stopped the neighbour many years earlier, and someone sent me a bcc between HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and Residents Committee chairman that indicated they met in the flat across the neighbour. At a Meet-the-People Session one Community Centre member introduced me to another who lived at my block of flat to talk about the noise, and two other meetings with the latter indicated he had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
3.It seemed a plan was underway when loud noise for a number of days signalled the start of work in '07. I wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office about a maid who was only removed at the same time a poster appeared on the noticeboard at my block.The poster showed a maid at a coffeeshop saying she was only allowed to work at the address she was registered in. Someone other than the Branch Office took action a number of months after my complaint and indicated by putting up the poster.
4. Because I complained, the neighbour together with the officers retaliated with noise to force me to leave my flat. In the meantime the officers kept their silence on issues raised in the complaint and waited for me to slip up. They would, however, repeatedly referred me to the Community Mediation Centre where, if they succeeded, would confine and leave me without an audience.
5. King (1999) stipulated that variation in organizational structure would have a direct impact on organizational dissent, particularly whistleblowing. He postulated that in centralized-vertical-bureaucratic organization where dissent is met with retaliation or ignored, fewer channels exist for expressing dissent and employees believe they can exercise little influence. As a result employees tend to express dissent externally. Conversely, in hybrid structure, where decision-making is decentralized among business units while administrative functions remain centralized, communication and exchange of information flows without difficulty between divisions and upper management. King stipulated that in these arrangements, dissent should be expressed internally within organization.
Accordingly, we can see that dissent may be ineffectual and risky, fundamental to participation, key to shaping organizational culture, reflective of organizational discourse, or instrumental to identity enactment.
Dissent in Organization Jeffery Kassing (2011), Pg 132 and 70.
6. Cabinet Office may have taken a step in the direction when PM announced after the general election that Ministers would have a free hand to think and reshape policies.
7. The neighbour is able to continue over the years because of backing from the officers. It allows the neighbour to carry on as usual even though the motive of the officers and neighbour were known and shown to be early on. Admitting the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour is an evidence is embarrassing. If not, where is the justice?
8. At the moment light knock, low rambling and muffled thump are heard although the noise is less than in the period covered by the previous post. The general reduction over the last four peiods covered may be seen as a concession by the neighbour. They use their flat as a work place rather than as a space to live in, but over the years there was nothing to stop them.
9. My complaint comes down to HBO who has influential connection within the administration so that dissent against his wrongdoing is risky.
10. The President may be unaware. In the reply two weeks after I wrote to the President an officer referred me to the relevant authorities without giving his name. It was followed by a reply from a police officer from SPF Customer Relation Branch who referred me to Bedok Police Division. Another two weeks later, another police officer from SPF Customer Relation Branch, instead of Bedok Police Division, replied. He stated the matter had been adequately addressed before, which would be the investigation by Neighbourhood Police Centre that did not investigate the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. (It reminded me of a police officer who, in reply to my email to the Commissioner of Police, stated HDB had investigated thoroughly the matter and there was no unnecessary noise nor misuse of flat in Sep '09.) Bedok Police Division did not reply because they were aware of the issue the first time I wrote to the President. The officer from the President Office and the second police officer who replied may have took over the case in that my email never reached the President.
11. I hope the President takes a serious view of my situation of many years as the underlying cause have not been addressed.
Regards,
hh
