1. The eviction of an occupier was followed by a
transfer of the flat to the neighbour in '99. The owner, who wrote the complaint
about the occupier, was informed by an officer of the eviction although the
owner was unaware of the transfer. He thought the neighbour (husband and wife),
whom he had seen a few times before the eviction, owned the
flat.
2. About four years later
when the owner was feeling the effect of the noise, an insider stopped the
neighbour. He came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a while, greeted
the owner once, and a woman gave the owner his full name. Noise stopped after he
left. He had inside information since the owner had not made a complaint
yet.
3. Another four years later
in '07 the neighbour signalled with loud noises for many days that they were
starting work. They may have known beforehand officers would be on their
side.
4. The cover-up started right off from the behaviour of the OIC (Officer-in-Charge) and a well-dressed man when they first visited the owner. Also, one of the complaints in the first letter to HDB Branch Office was noise made by a maid during the number of months she was there. There were indications the maid was not registered to work in the flat and it was insider who caused the maid to be removed. The owner later wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to verify, but there was no reply.
5. The owner handed a draft of the second letter to the Branch Office when the OIC said they did not receive it. Following which the owner insisted on a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office). Although HBO said there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat, the owner deduced it was the eviction that let to the transfer. What was more, an officer wrote later there was no record of there having been an eviction.
6. There was indication of a force-entry into the neighbour's flat on the fourth week after the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour moved in. They moved in on the fourth day after the owner's first Meet-the-People Session. It would seem there was an understanding between officers after the force-entry, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed to protect the neighbour. An old friend, who the owner had not been in contact for many years, met the owner in the evening on the same day of the force-entry. The friend was an intermediary, though he did not say so, who had since met the owner five times. The last time was after the owner emailed the President a month after the presidential election. In this instance there was considerably noise reduction the next day. The email is the post President.
7. The owner suspected a break-in of his flat, in
which he called the police, a few months following the force-entry. The door
lock to his flat was jammed. The circumstances leading to it were examined
in his first post under Findings. He never had any problem with door locks
before having lived in three other HDB flats and the present one since '93. But
it happened in Jun '08 when events come to a head.
8. The officers have the
resources, and the break-in is a strong possibility. Beside the instances noted
in his blog indicating collaboration between officers and neighbour, the
owner was shown times and again the extensive influence the officers had over
ordinary citizen like himself as he went about his business. There is motive and
they would find ways to stop him, including the use of noise to force him into
selling his flat.
9. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour could communicate with the
neighbour and watch the owner by sight from their flat. The purpose is to
monitor the workers, ensures the noise is not obvious outside the neighbour's
flat, and keeps the insiders out. Noise through the day including late night and
early morning indicates workers take shifts during each 24 hours period. In
fact they once showed the owner what they could do with noise through the night
to the next morning. The officers are able to keep their cover because of their
network of contacts that extends across government departments. More immediate
examples are police officers at Neighbourhood Police Centre, branch members and
community centre members at Meet-the-People Session, and
the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. At HDB, no attempt to address the
complaint against its officers is out-of-character.
11. The owner could not be mistaken. The signs:
Noises were real, it forced him to leave his flat; he noted the behaviour of the
officers and their contacts, and the many details that would check out; insiders
who supported; MPs who gone out of their way to assist; and the official
silence.
13. Three factors led to
the lessening of noise when the owner emailed the President just after the
presidential election. First, general support for the owner although no one
referred to the case directly; second, the complaint was to the President who
ensures integrity of the civil service; and third, the owner continued to blog
relevant details of the case. The three factors at the right
time.
14. Previous to this there
was support as the owner blogged about the same issue for two years and he wrote
his first letter to the President one and a half years ago, but there was no
change. Even now, since the problem has not been identified technically, the
officers and neighbour could go back to their old way.
15. It is important that the President know. The posts President, Ombudsman
and Dissent let him in on the situation. Nevertheless the Minister-in-Charge of
Civil Service does. He is aware of the bcc between HBO and Chairman, Residents
Committee, that was sent to the owner. It indicated they met in the flat across
the neighbour. Some time later the Minister met the owner at a Meet-the-People
Session that was supposed to be scheduled for the area's MP, but before the
meeting a Community Centre member (CC member) introduced the owner to another CC
member who lived in the same block of flat as the owner to discuss the noise. As
in this first and on two more occasions, the owner showed this other CC member
has been in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They in
turn ensure things do not get out-of-hands.
16. The owner explained the purpose of
the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour in separate correspondence to the
President and the Singapore Police Force. Both correspondences were acknowledged
by Bedok Police Division and Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC). Bedok Police
Division noted the concern raised and referred it to NPC. NPC wrote they were
unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence, yet nowhere in the
letter was the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour mentioned. When the owner
wrote again to the President after the presidential election, the matter was
subsequently referred to Bedok Police Division. Because Bedok Police Division
already knew of the situation, they did not reply. In the post News the
Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service and Head, Civil Service, spoke of issue not
falling within neat domain and of issue not falling neatly into any one agency's
work respectively. The owner thinks the speeches fit his case.
17. A government that is too centralized and forms relationships too
tightly could be an explanation of the problem. It could also be about
accountability.
18. A key democratic idea is adequate accountability.
Observation Noise started up for two days on the fourth day after
the posting of News and Citizen. On and off there were many more days
where noise was obvious. By the eighth week noise was adjusted down but the
difference came with more noise in length of time heard, at least for a few
days.
Now into the sixteenth week their works are still continuing. Some days
noises are frequent and annoying. Some noises are muffled, others are heard
clearly. The noises are continual, mostly in the morning and
afternoon.
Some things remain the same. Message from the administration to the
officers who collaborate with the neighbour causes the neighbour to reduce
noise. No action taken to the officers, who are still in their places including
the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, serves the neighbour. The officers
guide the neighbour on what to do.
Compare that to the insider who was able to stop the neighbour for about
four years in Item 2 above.
