Standpoint

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.

 

10. At a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) the owner asked the MP, who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, to by-pass HBO. The Minister then wrote to Town Council and they replied to the owner he would hear from HDB soon. This letter and the letter from the Minister were copied to HBO with a note stating it was for his information only. After the Town Council's letter, the Minister enquired of the owner whether anyone visited him. There was no visit from HDB. Subsequently all letters to HDB from MPs including one from the Minister were answered by HBO as usual. During the final MPS, the area's MP said he would go and meet HBO the next day. Does it not also showed HBO has the power to influence others?

 

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.

 

12. Events stretching over more than a decade indicate officers are familiar with the neighbour. Investigation would have consequences on the officers, and admission of mistakes by the authorities. Without an investigation there is an injustice, and the next owner could be a start of a new one.

 

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.