"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: Committee
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: President
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Integrity
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Proving
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Behaviour
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Reason
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Evidence
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Quote
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Case
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Justice
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Petition
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Authority
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Question
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Comment
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Encounter
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Ethics
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Public
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Civics
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Discovery
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Record
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Plea
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Prospect
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Pervasive Case
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Neighbour
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Officers
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Short Version
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Report
Saturday, October 15, 2011
"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: Committee
1. The owner refers to ethics committees. Public Service Commission (PSC), Presidential Council for Minority Rights, and Presidential Council for Religious Harmony are of similar nature. They consisted people from inside and outside government with public duties. The President's office and the Attorney-General's Chambers too have public duties. All represents fair-mindedness of the State.
2. Complaint Julian Baggini
The return to ethics. The overall thrust of my argument about the grievance culture is that it places law above ethics, and this leads to three bad consequences: responsibility being denied in some places and inappropriately ascribed in others...
What we cannot and should not have is a return to authority-based morality. Politically and socially this will not work, since the world has become far too pluralistic for any authority to hold sway in a sustainable way.
Moral philosophy has the potential to be a help or a hindrance in this regard, and the way the subject is usually taught, it looks more like a hindrance. Most people who study it are presented with a standard trio of moral frameworks: consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. On this view, consequentialists believe that actions are right or wrong solely in terms of whether they produce good or bad outcomes; deontologists believe that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences; and virtue theorists say that being good is not about following strict rules but about developing the moral character to make ethical choices. To give these caricatures a concrete example, consequentialists would say that whether torture is wrong depends on whether, in balance, it leads to more goods than harms; a deontologists would say that torture is wrong in itself; and a virtue theorist would say that torture is not something one can imagine a virtuous person doing, but who knows there may be exceptions.
However, there is another way of looking at moral philosophy which has more potential. Although there is no consensus as to which moral theory is the right one, there is a tacit acceptance of a common procedure for thinking through moral theories. This can be summed up as the view that moral discourse is a democratic, rational activity. It works by assessing the different reasons given for or against a particular course of action in a way that defers to no authority. This is the way in which ethics committees work: they do not require everyone involved to subscribe to the same fundamental theory of ethics. Rather, they demand that people effectively set these aside and offer only such reasons as can be assessed and judged by the common standards of rationality. It is democratic, not in the sense that it necessarily follows majority opinion, but in the sense that contributions to the debate are assessed on the merits of the arguments, not on the status of the person offering them.
3. The owner wrote to PSC, which administers the code of conduct, and to HDB, which has its rules and regulations. A principled approach is to reply, but there is none. Where an ethics committee comes to a decision from contributions based on fact-finding, the connection of the officers chooses the status quo of doing nothing. The questions that need asking: a) Does the neighbour carries on a trade in the flat? b) Do officers collude with the neighbour? c) Why are people station across the neighbour? d) Why do insiders assist the owner? e) Were there no reference of the case in the media, if only indirectly?
4. Mr Tan Kin Lian said he would form a personal Council before and during the presidential election. Someone wrote it was "glorified feedback", and it was quoted by a Minister. But, in the owner's case, it makes sense. A personal Council could assist the President in giving voice to the people when the system fail.
5. The owner wrote to the President last month, and noise has lowered and lessen. He appreciated it, however, the noise is not justifiable. Generally work is through the day, and there is the potential for increase noise.
2. Complaint Julian Baggini
The return to ethics. The overall thrust of my argument about the grievance culture is that it places law above ethics, and this leads to three bad consequences: responsibility being denied in some places and inappropriately ascribed in others...
What we cannot and should not have is a return to authority-based morality. Politically and socially this will not work, since the world has become far too pluralistic for any authority to hold sway in a sustainable way.
Moral philosophy has the potential to be a help or a hindrance in this regard, and the way the subject is usually taught, it looks more like a hindrance. Most people who study it are presented with a standard trio of moral frameworks: consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. On this view, consequentialists believe that actions are right or wrong solely in terms of whether they produce good or bad outcomes; deontologists believe that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences; and virtue theorists say that being good is not about following strict rules but about developing the moral character to make ethical choices. To give these caricatures a concrete example, consequentialists would say that whether torture is wrong depends on whether, in balance, it leads to more goods than harms; a deontologists would say that torture is wrong in itself; and a virtue theorist would say that torture is not something one can imagine a virtuous person doing, but who knows there may be exceptions.
However, there is another way of looking at moral philosophy which has more potential. Although there is no consensus as to which moral theory is the right one, there is a tacit acceptance of a common procedure for thinking through moral theories. This can be summed up as the view that moral discourse is a democratic, rational activity. It works by assessing the different reasons given for or against a particular course of action in a way that defers to no authority. This is the way in which ethics committees work: they do not require everyone involved to subscribe to the same fundamental theory of ethics. Rather, they demand that people effectively set these aside and offer only such reasons as can be assessed and judged by the common standards of rationality. It is democratic, not in the sense that it necessarily follows majority opinion, but in the sense that contributions to the debate are assessed on the merits of the arguments, not on the status of the person offering them.
3. The owner wrote to PSC, which administers the code of conduct, and to HDB, which has its rules and regulations. A principled approach is to reply, but there is none. Where an ethics committee comes to a decision from contributions based on fact-finding, the connection of the officers chooses the status quo of doing nothing. The questions that need asking: a) Does the neighbour carries on a trade in the flat? b) Do officers collude with the neighbour? c) Why are people station across the neighbour? d) Why do insiders assist the owner? e) Were there no reference of the case in the media, if only indirectly?
4. Mr Tan Kin Lian said he would form a personal Council before and during the presidential election. Someone wrote it was "glorified feedback", and it was quoted by a Minister. But, in the owner's case, it makes sense. A personal Council could assist the President in giving voice to the people when the system fail.
5. The owner wrote to the President last month, and noise has lowered and lessen. He appreciated it, however, the noise is not justifiable. Generally work is through the day, and there is the potential for increase noise.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: President
President
Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Dear Sir,
Officers Colluded With Neighbour
1. I wrote to the President and the Police the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevented independent inspection for noise in the neighbour's flat on 1 Feb 10.
2. Bedok Police Division referring to my letter to the President and emails to the SPF Customer Relations Branch informed me they acknowledged my concerns raised and had since referred the matter to the relevent officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action.
3. Neighbourhood Police Centre tasked to investigate replied they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. Nonetheless, they paid the neighbour a visit and reminded them of the importance of exercising consideration and tolerance toward neighbour in Singapore's high density living enironment. But they left out the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour specifically mentioned in my letter and emails. Instead a police officer visited me three times and talked to me over the phone. In the letter they also referred me to the Community Mediation Centre.
4. I blog over two years what goes on. I would refer one to the post Integrity at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com
5. Noise has been through the day. The rumble, knock, thump, drag, sharp and heavy sound are not noticably outside the neighbour's flat but could be heard one level down inside my flat. It goes to show that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stationed over the years served more to protect the neighbour than to catch them. They prevented independent inspection at the neighbour's flat and my flat. There is no mistake they have the influence.
6. Noise was lowered and muffled due to publicity generated from the post Behaviour published on 20 Jun 11. At the time the number of viewers double.
7. Loud sound and knock were a warning half an hour after a visit from a techical officer and the OIC (Officers-in-Charge), Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. The visit, three days after I published Integrity, was on 18 Aug 11.
8. From the neighbour's viewpoint, they would not stop because they have dealing with officers. Their tactic has been to reduce noise for a time after a complaint. Such is the case for the month after the last posting. Noise is generally reduced, but rumble, knock, thump, heavy sound and dropping of bead are heard. Noises are over many hours each day.
9. From the my viewpoint, there is aspect of bullying. Justice has to be seen.
10. The problem is plain in a way. Insiders and MPs do their best to assist while residents community members and high officials stay by the sideline.
11. Is there someone or a committee able to take it up?
Regards,
hh
Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Dear Sir,
Officers Colluded With Neighbour
1. I wrote to the President and the Police the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevented independent inspection for noise in the neighbour's flat on 1 Feb 10.
2. Bedok Police Division referring to my letter to the President and emails to the SPF Customer Relations Branch informed me they acknowledged my concerns raised and had since referred the matter to the relevent officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action.
3. Neighbourhood Police Centre tasked to investigate replied they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. Nonetheless, they paid the neighbour a visit and reminded them of the importance of exercising consideration and tolerance toward neighbour in Singapore's high density living enironment. But they left out the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour specifically mentioned in my letter and emails. Instead a police officer visited me three times and talked to me over the phone. In the letter they also referred me to the Community Mediation Centre.
4. I blog over two years what goes on. I would refer one to the post Integrity at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com
5. Noise has been through the day. The rumble, knock, thump, drag, sharp and heavy sound are not noticably outside the neighbour's flat but could be heard one level down inside my flat. It goes to show that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stationed over the years served more to protect the neighbour than to catch them. They prevented independent inspection at the neighbour's flat and my flat. There is no mistake they have the influence.
6. Noise was lowered and muffled due to publicity generated from the post Behaviour published on 20 Jun 11. At the time the number of viewers double.
7. Loud sound and knock were a warning half an hour after a visit from a techical officer and the OIC (Officers-in-Charge), Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. The visit, three days after I published Integrity, was on 18 Aug 11.
8. From the neighbour's viewpoint, they would not stop because they have dealing with officers. Their tactic has been to reduce noise for a time after a complaint. Such is the case for the month after the last posting. Noise is generally reduced, but rumble, knock, thump, heavy sound and dropping of bead are heard. Noises are over many hours each day.
9. From the my viewpoint, there is aspect of bullying. Justice has to be seen.
10. The problem is plain in a way. Insiders and MPs do their best to assist while residents community members and high officials stay by the sideline.
11. Is there someone or a committee able to take it up?
Regards,
hh
Monday, August 15, 2011
"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: Integrity
1. It is not possible to stop the neighbour with the same officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. A period of four years is a long time to assume the officers are correct when they said their investigations reveal no undue noise. During the same period the owner wrote to the MPs, and later in his blog, facts that could be ascertained but were not taken up.
2. Because the facts bear checking, the officers would not defend themselves or refute its conclusion.
3. Removal of the officers is the right thing to do because they collaborated with the neighbour. The owner pointed out many instances of wrongdoing on the part of HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and those he has influence over. He is not aboveboard. Removal would sever the connection between the officers and the neighbour, and send a clear signal to the neighbour.
4. The officers have broken the rules. They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour just days after the owner went to his first Meet-the-People Session. Considering what the officers and the neighbour were about back in '98, it was likely there followed a force-entry at the neighbour's flat and a break-in at the owner's flat. They stay to monitor the situation and prevent anyone from assisting the owner. Noise is still heard at various times through the day showing work being carry out.
5. Part of a repertoire arrayed against the owner included noise to force him out of his flat and disabling his computer. The Java program made unworkable prevented him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks prevented him from working from his computer over extended period of time.
6. The statutory board, which is also responsible for discipline, could have taken action. They did not because HBO has connection.
7. There is the ethics Do no harm. There is a saying Corruption and waste are very serious crimes. The government should not risk its reputation.
8. It would be disappointing if the government is quiet. Loyalty to person or group has to be reasonable. Officers are citizens in government, if they shield one of their own above all else, the citizens at large are in trouble.
9. Head of the Singapore Civil Service, Mr Peter Ong, said good governance is an important ingredient in Singapore's development. He added that tackling corruption with a mix of strong political will, legislation and enforcement was the state's first priority in its initial years. He was launching a book titled "Virtuous Cycles: The Singapore Public Service and National Development" commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
UNDP said other countries could learn from Singapore's example of civil service. These were reported on 24 Mar 11.
10. The owner hopes his case come up during the Presidential Election. The President appears to be one able to help. Being elected he has independence. Although he has only custodian power in specified areas and not executive power in policy matters, he is one to ask question of the government when he thinks there is failure. In principle he could defend values that are in the interest of the people. In all he is a citizen but one with much moral authority.
His view, if accepted, may be debated in Parliament.
2. Because the facts bear checking, the officers would not defend themselves or refute its conclusion.
3. Removal of the officers is the right thing to do because they collaborated with the neighbour. The owner pointed out many instances of wrongdoing on the part of HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and those he has influence over. He is not aboveboard. Removal would sever the connection between the officers and the neighbour, and send a clear signal to the neighbour.
4. The officers have broken the rules. They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour just days after the owner went to his first Meet-the-People Session. Considering what the officers and the neighbour were about back in '98, it was likely there followed a force-entry at the neighbour's flat and a break-in at the owner's flat. They stay to monitor the situation and prevent anyone from assisting the owner. Noise is still heard at various times through the day showing work being carry out.
5. Part of a repertoire arrayed against the owner included noise to force him out of his flat and disabling his computer. The Java program made unworkable prevented him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks prevented him from working from his computer over extended period of time.
6. The statutory board, which is also responsible for discipline, could have taken action. They did not because HBO has connection.
7. There is the ethics Do no harm. There is a saying Corruption and waste are very serious crimes. The government should not risk its reputation.
8. It would be disappointing if the government is quiet. Loyalty to person or group has to be reasonable. Officers are citizens in government, if they shield one of their own above all else, the citizens at large are in trouble.
9. Head of the Singapore Civil Service, Mr Peter Ong, said good governance is an important ingredient in Singapore's development. He added that tackling corruption with a mix of strong political will, legislation and enforcement was the state's first priority in its initial years. He was launching a book titled "Virtuous Cycles: The Singapore Public Service and National Development" commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
UNDP said other countries could learn from Singapore's example of civil service. These were reported on 24 Mar 11.
10. The owner hopes his case come up during the Presidential Election. The President appears to be one able to help. Being elected he has independence. Although he has only custodian power in specified areas and not executive power in policy matters, he is one to ask question of the government when he thinks there is failure. In principle he could defend values that are in the interest of the people. In all he is a citizen but one with much moral authority.
His view, if accepted, may be debated in Parliament.
Monday, July 18, 2011
"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: Proving
1. Findings from an inquiry would solve a problem and provide a record. Insiders stopped the first owner in '98. The flat was then transferred to the neighbour who was stopped by insiders again. Now, officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevent insiders from helping the owner. It is not right there is no inquiry into the events of such nature.
2. The owner spoke to the neighbour several times:
a) The owner went upstairs to the neighbour's flat because of loud noise. A woman answered the door. When she said the husband was not in, the owner requested she informed the husband that the owner would like to meet him. One evening the neighbour approached the owner to ask where the noise was heard inside his flat so he could make adjustment. He asked the owner to compromise, but when the owner refused, he said their conversation never took place. This was much later because the owner remembered saying he could get his full name from HDB, and he replied the owner would not have asked him if he could. By then the owner had kept watch, knew who was in the neighbour's flat and why, wrote two times to HDB Branch Office, and had a meeting with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO).
b) Another time the owner went to talk to the neighbour outside his flat. He denied there was noise coming from his flat and told the owner to get legal advice.
c) After the post Justice in Feb 11 the owner spoke to the neighbour in the lift on the way up. He said he did not understand what the owner was referring to and summed it up by giving the owner two options--either pursued it with HDB or engaged a lawyer.
3. The owner went to HDB Branch Office with a copy of his letter because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) confirmed his second letter was not received. After insisting on a meeting with HBO, the owner asked HBO for the name of the neighbour which he said he would allow it. During the exchange, HBO asked the owner whether he knew about a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat.
4. The first instance where HBO allowed the name OIC refused when he visited the owner two days later. He had the name in his fact sheet and the owner reminded him he was at the meeting in which HBO allowed it. The second instance was intended to throw the owner off. HBO knew from the owner's letters the owner saw a connection to the first owner in a complaint nine years ago. By saying the transfer was recent he hoped to distant any connection to the first owner.
5. To prove OIC gave the date of the transfer in '98 from his fact sheet, and the owner saw the neighbour (husband and wife) a number of times when the flat was with the first owner. Thereafter the next occupier was with the flat for many years until he was evicted after the complaint.
6. The people sent to persuade the owner were in thrall to HBO:
a) OIC would not have said the neighbour's wife was pregnant unless it was an appeal and, from the other instances when he called, the owner noted he knew what the neighbour was doing.
b) During a visit with OIC, an estates officer informed the owner their inspection of the neighbour's flat found no machine-tools.
c) Another visit with officer from Neighbourhood Police Centre, Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the estates officer, OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour.
d) Yet another visit with OIC, an estates officer from HDB Hub said if there was an internal inquiry would the owner be satisfied.
In contrast when Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote that the owner would hear from HDB soon, the officer from HDB refrained. He did not want to appear to be helping when he knew he could not. It is to be noted the letter from the Town Council was written in conjunction with a letter from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service to by-pass HBO.
7. One could determine motive from event:
a) HBO arranged a house visit with Chairman of Residents Committee at the flat across the neighbour and asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner.
b) The Chairman visited the owner on that occasion during his term of office from Apr '07 to Mar '09. Two other times he spoke to the owner were at recyclables-for-food-program during his chairmanship for the second term from Apr '09 to Mar '11. During the visit in Oct '08 the Chairman he said he would visit the owner again a month later but did not. At the recyclables-for-food-program in Dec '09 the owner said other committee members could also visit him, the Chairman replied he would visit in the presence of officer. He is still the Chairman for the third term from Apr '11 to Mar '13 as seen from the name list on the notice board that replaced the name list of the first term just this month. (No name list for the second term was displayed.)
c) In the owner's opinion there was admission against interest by a Community Centre member (CC member) who had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The owner met and spoke to him three times, two times at Meet-the-People Session and one time outside his flat. The details are in this blog.
d) The behaviour of officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour showed they communicated with the neighbour to undermine the owner. Together with officers in other government departments, the owner was blocked from access to help and forced to leave his flat.
8. Noise was used to warn or let the owner know. When HBO visited the flat across the neighbour, the owner heard increasingly intense knocking. HBO would have seen the owner in his study room from the flat across the neighbour, the bcc he sent to the Chairman showed he was there at the time. After the owner emailed the PM, which was followed immediately by a phone call from an old friend, he heard knocks spaced apart at regular interval just before his friend visited. After the owner spoke to the CC member outside his flat, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour when he switched off the light and went to bed. Since the owner has kept up his complaint, there were instances of loud noise and noise through the night.
9. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevents the neighbour from getting caught thereby allowing them to work. The owner observed that after a force-entry a deal was made with the neighbour so they could work the day long where an independent inspection at any one time would uncover workers, tools, and materials. Whoever staged it has the influence to carry it off and to justify the action and use of resource.
10. Officers could have demolished the owner's argument or forced him to stop. They did not because of insiders. MPs, Ministers, Police and President may have also supported. There are firm bases for looking into the officers, the neighbour, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
11. The owner continues to write because noise has not stop. Work is carry out through the day from noise heard in the morning, afternoon and night. Knowing that officers collaborate with the neighbour and local Residents Committee members are not playing their part, it is clear to the owner the neighbour would continue. If there is to be policy changes, it would have to be made effective here.
12. Someone may have helped on 28 Jun 11. This followed the post Behaviour on officers' intent to cover-up published a week earlier. Noise is down but work is day long. When this is passed, noise would be up again as has happened many times before.
13. On 13 May 11 after the General Election, Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said politicians were forced to admit they need to connect to people, and Public Service was forced to re-look at the way in which it formulated policies with respect to citizens.
14. On 18 May 11 PM announced his cabinet lineup. PM said it was a comprehensive reshuffle and Ministers would have a free hand to rethink and reshape policies.
2. The owner spoke to the neighbour several times:
a) The owner went upstairs to the neighbour's flat because of loud noise. A woman answered the door. When she said the husband was not in, the owner requested she informed the husband that the owner would like to meet him. One evening the neighbour approached the owner to ask where the noise was heard inside his flat so he could make adjustment. He asked the owner to compromise, but when the owner refused, he said their conversation never took place. This was much later because the owner remembered saying he could get his full name from HDB, and he replied the owner would not have asked him if he could. By then the owner had kept watch, knew who was in the neighbour's flat and why, wrote two times to HDB Branch Office, and had a meeting with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO).
b) Another time the owner went to talk to the neighbour outside his flat. He denied there was noise coming from his flat and told the owner to get legal advice.
c) After the post Justice in Feb 11 the owner spoke to the neighbour in the lift on the way up. He said he did not understand what the owner was referring to and summed it up by giving the owner two options--either pursued it with HDB or engaged a lawyer.
3. The owner went to HDB Branch Office with a copy of his letter because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) confirmed his second letter was not received. After insisting on a meeting with HBO, the owner asked HBO for the name of the neighbour which he said he would allow it. During the exchange, HBO asked the owner whether he knew about a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat.
4. The first instance where HBO allowed the name OIC refused when he visited the owner two days later. He had the name in his fact sheet and the owner reminded him he was at the meeting in which HBO allowed it. The second instance was intended to throw the owner off. HBO knew from the owner's letters the owner saw a connection to the first owner in a complaint nine years ago. By saying the transfer was recent he hoped to distant any connection to the first owner.
5. To prove OIC gave the date of the transfer in '98 from his fact sheet, and the owner saw the neighbour (husband and wife) a number of times when the flat was with the first owner. Thereafter the next occupier was with the flat for many years until he was evicted after the complaint.
6. The people sent to persuade the owner were in thrall to HBO:
a) OIC would not have said the neighbour's wife was pregnant unless it was an appeal and, from the other instances when he called, the owner noted he knew what the neighbour was doing.
b) During a visit with OIC, an estates officer informed the owner their inspection of the neighbour's flat found no machine-tools.
c) Another visit with officer from Neighbourhood Police Centre, Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the estates officer, OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour.
d) Yet another visit with OIC, an estates officer from HDB Hub said if there was an internal inquiry would the owner be satisfied.
In contrast when Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote that the owner would hear from HDB soon, the officer from HDB refrained. He did not want to appear to be helping when he knew he could not. It is to be noted the letter from the Town Council was written in conjunction with a letter from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service to by-pass HBO.
7. One could determine motive from event:
a) HBO arranged a house visit with Chairman of Residents Committee at the flat across the neighbour and asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner.
b) The Chairman visited the owner on that occasion during his term of office from Apr '07 to Mar '09. Two other times he spoke to the owner were at recyclables-for-food-program during his chairmanship for the second term from Apr '09 to Mar '11. During the visit in Oct '08 the Chairman he said he would visit the owner again a month later but did not. At the recyclables-for-food-program in Dec '09 the owner said other committee members could also visit him, the Chairman replied he would visit in the presence of officer. He is still the Chairman for the third term from Apr '11 to Mar '13 as seen from the name list on the notice board that replaced the name list of the first term just this month. (No name list for the second term was displayed.)
c) In the owner's opinion there was admission against interest by a Community Centre member (CC member) who had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The owner met and spoke to him three times, two times at Meet-the-People Session and one time outside his flat. The details are in this blog.
d) The behaviour of officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour showed they communicated with the neighbour to undermine the owner. Together with officers in other government departments, the owner was blocked from access to help and forced to leave his flat.
8. Noise was used to warn or let the owner know. When HBO visited the flat across the neighbour, the owner heard increasingly intense knocking. HBO would have seen the owner in his study room from the flat across the neighbour, the bcc he sent to the Chairman showed he was there at the time. After the owner emailed the PM, which was followed immediately by a phone call from an old friend, he heard knocks spaced apart at regular interval just before his friend visited. After the owner spoke to the CC member outside his flat, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour when he switched off the light and went to bed. Since the owner has kept up his complaint, there were instances of loud noise and noise through the night.
9. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevents the neighbour from getting caught thereby allowing them to work. The owner observed that after a force-entry a deal was made with the neighbour so they could work the day long where an independent inspection at any one time would uncover workers, tools, and materials. Whoever staged it has the influence to carry it off and to justify the action and use of resource.
10. Officers could have demolished the owner's argument or forced him to stop. They did not because of insiders. MPs, Ministers, Police and President may have also supported. There are firm bases for looking into the officers, the neighbour, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
11. The owner continues to write because noise has not stop. Work is carry out through the day from noise heard in the morning, afternoon and night. Knowing that officers collaborate with the neighbour and local Residents Committee members are not playing their part, it is clear to the owner the neighbour would continue. If there is to be policy changes, it would have to be made effective here.
12. Someone may have helped on 28 Jun 11. This followed the post Behaviour on officers' intent to cover-up published a week earlier. Noise is down but work is day long. When this is passed, noise would be up again as has happened many times before.
13. On 13 May 11 after the General Election, Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said politicians were forced to admit they need to connect to people, and Public Service was forced to re-look at the way in which it formulated policies with respect to citizens.
14. On 18 May 11 PM announced his cabinet lineup. PM said it was a comprehensive reshuffle and Ministers would have a free hand to rethink and reshape policies.
Monday, June 20, 2011
"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: Behaviour
1. No crime without intent. The converse is crime with intent to cover-up as in the case.
2. The neighbourhood police left out in their investigation the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour mentioned in the owner's letters to the President and the Police.
3. Their letter stated they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence but reminded the neighbour to exercise consideration and tolerence. There was nothing on the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who watched out for the neighbour that caused the owner to write to the President and the Police in the first place.
4. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour has much significance. It implied they knew about the neighbour and were there to catch them. Once a deal was made with the neighbour their attention turned to the owner. Since moving into the flat after the owner's first Meet-the-People Session in '08, they remain there for more than three years now.
5. All letters from HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) was a pretence. His letters stated no excessive noise during their inspections and the owner may engage his solicitor if the noise persisted. He did not address any of the issue raised to MPs; in a bcc to the Residents Committee Chairman after their visit to the flat across the neighbour, he asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner; and after the owner's email to PM he replied to a letter from the area's MP, which he kept for two months, just to let the owner know he knew about the email.
6. To the owner it is a fact the neighbour works from their flat, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protects them, and HBO has considerable influence in the matter. Their behaviours show intent at cover-up. The government needs only check the background of the neighbour and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to understand.
7. Although noise is down, the neighbour continues with their work. Noise could be heard early in the morning, late at night, in the small hours, and most in the afternoon; noise is sharp or muffled; noises are rumble, knock, drag and thump. The causes: a) the flat is a place of work as the neighbour does not live-in, b) work is carried out around the clock, c) machine-tools are used, and d) the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour maintains a hold of the situation.
8. High officials could take down the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour since they are a problem not a solution. The owner heard much less noise when they were not around for two weeks from 5 Aug 10 to 18 Aug 10. The possibility of enforcement caused the neighbour to be cautious.
9. The owner is certain of cover-up from events since '97. He kept faith with the system by going to HDB Branch Office, Meet-the-People Session, and writing up his observations. But there was no response from HDB or the Ministry of National Development. He also wrote to Public Service Commission and the post Petition was addressed to high officials.
10. It was somewhat of a relief the President and Ministers responded and insiders assisted although the problem is not solved. A characteristic of a bureaucratic organisation is that if they do not want to act they could find ways not to do it. It then depends on the top people to uphold good practice. Practice is the first part of a three-parts virtue. The other two are narration and tradition according to MacIntyre.
11. Insight. The term 'political culture' refers to an underlying set of values held by most people living in a particular country concerning political behaviour, one important aspect of which is the degree of trust which citizens have in their political leaders.
Alternative views concerning political culture. Liberal theorists suggest that a country's political culture is fashioned by its unique historical development and is transmitted across the generations by a process termed 'political socialization'. Agencies such as the family, schools, the media and political parties are responsible for instructing citizens in such beliefs and values.
Marxists, however, tend to view political culture as an artificial creation rather than the product of history. They view political culture as an ideological weapon through which society is indoctrinated to accept views which are in the interests of its dominant classes (defined as those who own the means of production).
Understand Politics (2010), Peter Joyce, Teach Yourself series.
2. The neighbourhood police left out in their investigation the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour mentioned in the owner's letters to the President and the Police.
3. Their letter stated they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence but reminded the neighbour to exercise consideration and tolerence. There was nothing on the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who watched out for the neighbour that caused the owner to write to the President and the Police in the first place.
4. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour has much significance. It implied they knew about the neighbour and were there to catch them. Once a deal was made with the neighbour their attention turned to the owner. Since moving into the flat after the owner's first Meet-the-People Session in '08, they remain there for more than three years now.
5. All letters from HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) was a pretence. His letters stated no excessive noise during their inspections and the owner may engage his solicitor if the noise persisted. He did not address any of the issue raised to MPs; in a bcc to the Residents Committee Chairman after their visit to the flat across the neighbour, he asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner; and after the owner's email to PM he replied to a letter from the area's MP, which he kept for two months, just to let the owner know he knew about the email.
6. To the owner it is a fact the neighbour works from their flat, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protects them, and HBO has considerable influence in the matter. Their behaviours show intent at cover-up. The government needs only check the background of the neighbour and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to understand.
7. Although noise is down, the neighbour continues with their work. Noise could be heard early in the morning, late at night, in the small hours, and most in the afternoon; noise is sharp or muffled; noises are rumble, knock, drag and thump. The causes: a) the flat is a place of work as the neighbour does not live-in, b) work is carried out around the clock, c) machine-tools are used, and d) the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour maintains a hold of the situation.
8. High officials could take down the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour since they are a problem not a solution. The owner heard much less noise when they were not around for two weeks from 5 Aug 10 to 18 Aug 10. The possibility of enforcement caused the neighbour to be cautious.
9. The owner is certain of cover-up from events since '97. He kept faith with the system by going to HDB Branch Office, Meet-the-People Session, and writing up his observations. But there was no response from HDB or the Ministry of National Development. He also wrote to Public Service Commission and the post Petition was addressed to high officials.
10. It was somewhat of a relief the President and Ministers responded and insiders assisted although the problem is not solved. A characteristic of a bureaucratic organisation is that if they do not want to act they could find ways not to do it. It then depends on the top people to uphold good practice. Practice is the first part of a three-parts virtue. The other two are narration and tradition according to MacIntyre.
11. Insight. The term 'political culture' refers to an underlying set of values held by most people living in a particular country concerning political behaviour, one important aspect of which is the degree of trust which citizens have in their political leaders.
Alternative views concerning political culture. Liberal theorists suggest that a country's political culture is fashioned by its unique historical development and is transmitted across the generations by a process termed 'political socialization'. Agencies such as the family, schools, the media and political parties are responsible for instructing citizens in such beliefs and values.
Marxists, however, tend to view political culture as an artificial creation rather than the product of history. They view political culture as an ideological weapon through which society is indoctrinated to accept views which are in the interests of its dominant classes (defined as those who own the means of production).
Understand Politics (2010), Peter Joyce, Teach Yourself series.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
"Strange" business going around at HDB flat: Reason
1. 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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)