1. After the owner wrote to the President, Police and Minister for National Development on 1 Feb 10, the Neighbourhood Police emailed telephone numbers and a name of an officer to contact and Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office emailed a reply.
2. Although noise was reduced it was lengthened, and the owner went to the Neighbourhood Police Centre on 16 Feb 10. He wanted to meet the officers named in the email, but since it was a public holiday they were not in.
3. The next day someone called the owner's mother who was at his sister place. He introduced himself as a police officer and asked questions about his mother and the owner. He called again another day to ask to talk to his sister. Another person, who did not gave his full name when his mother asked, also talked to her several times over the telephone. He left a telephone number, which was from the Neighbourhood Police Centre, for the owner to call back. The owner had emailed the Neighbourhood Police early the next morning after the first person called to confirm whether there was a police officer who called his mother, except for the second person who called his mother and mentioned the email there was no reply.
4. Later a police officer visited the owner twice, one to take a 3-hours statement, and called him over the telephone a few times.
5. A final visit was with officers from Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office, Community Development and Neighbourhood Police after the owner posted Discovery in his blog on 4 Mar 10. The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) had called over the telephone to said they wanted to talk. But there was nothing new during their visit. Before they left they interviewed his mother and ask for his sister's mobile telephone number.
6. It seemed they wanted more information on the owner after his recent letter, emails and posts.
7. The owner's complaint about continuing noise is up against groups of volunteers and officers who opposed him. The matter is clear to the owner. Consider the period Mar'99 to Apr'99 in which the occupier was evicted, and the tranfer of the flat from the first owner to the present owner took place. He observed one evening after the eviction a contractor informing the present owner about an inspection by HDB officer, which would be the compulsory handover inspection just before the tranfer of ownership to him. The owner had seen the present owner, his wife and the occupier when the flat was with the first owner.
8. The owner is quite certain there was a force-entry not only from what is outlined in his first post but also from signs he observed during the first visit by OIC who was with a man, and when they went upstairs to talk to the neighbour. Also, the present owner spoke to him a few days later after the force-entry to ask him where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment.
9. The force-entry was an ultimatum, and they shielded the present owner when the owner brought out the past. It was not expected after an intervening eight years. A possible break-in at the owner's flat to seach for documents for traces to be removed could be seen in this context. It happened after the owner signalled to the neighbour he knew there was a different person working in the flat and was in the process of writing to a MP.
10. The bcc from Head,Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO) to Chairman,Residents Committee, and the letter Town Council sent to the owner that he would hear from HDB, gave weight there was a forced-entry and a break-in. The bcc indicated a flat is used to monitor the neighbour, and no officer came to see the owner indicated they know something is going on.
11. From observations the neighbour has a place to live elsewhere and uses the flat as a workplace. At any one time there may be one or two persons working through the day. Noises made are of various types and they use machine-tools. By varying their works or reducing the noise when there is complaint they could keep going. They have continued over the years and possibly in other places. That is how officers come to know about them. The officer who came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period anticipated it and he stopped the noise. In contrast the personnel who presently occupied the same flat for more than two years did not.
12. There has been less noise since 19 Apr 10. For a month after, some days are worse than others. Muffled sounds and also clear, heavy or loud noises. Due to the different type of works and, considering the length of time from early morning to night, from a change of person. They have shown to be determined. Even as the owner showed that officers are involved the neighbour maintains the status quo. It meant that they do not fear enforcement by personnel in flat across them. The owner has been writing to HDB because a) the activities of the neighbour are known to officers, b) HBO has been putting up a front, c) personnel in the flat across the neighbour allows them, d) HDB has the authority to enter flat, and e) the owner cannot take effective action.
13. Are the observations made by the owner flawed and the officers and neighbour wronged. In the past there was the kampong spirit, now we depended on officers and volunteers to be seen in a position of trust. There could be a standard for propriety for officers who do not measure up and no offence is found. What do our state, parliament, government bodies, civil society organisations and media recommend?
14. The owner posted Civics on 12 Apr 10, and the Business Times reported on 16 Apr 10 a wide-ranging interview between the veteran journalist Charlie Rose and PM Lee Hsien Loong in Washington. Mr Lee said "...Singapore cannot 'afford a bump in the night', whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem...". It was also reported on 17 Apr 10 SM Goh Chok Tong said "Many governments around the world face a trust-deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on government. These may have their place in certain contexts." "In Singapore, our starting premise is that given our unique characteristics and vulnerabilities as a little nation, a strong, competent and morally upright government is essential to Singapore's survival". Mr Goh was speaking at the second annual Singapore-China Forum on Leadership.
15. It may be a stretch to think the two news items above are related to his case, but leaves the reader to see how well it fits.
