1. It is one thing for Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO), to cover up past mistakes at the time of the eviction in '99, and another when he continues to do so the activities of the neighbour since '07.
2. An officer wrote there was no eviction when the owner knew first-hand there was one: the owner wrote about the occupier who was evicted in his letters to the HDB Branch Office and HDB Feedback Unit. Back then, the estates officer told him she knew what the occupier was doing; and the letter of Sep 08 from HBO, which indicated the neighbour's flat had not been sublet, would shows the occupier occupied the flat illegally. So the eviction was not recorded, instead the first owner was allowed to transfer the flat to his own people soon after.
3. The cover-up began to show when Officer-in-Charge(OIC) told the owner the Branch Office did not received his second letter, then two lines was missing from a photocopy of his second letter when the owner asked for an acknowledgement, during the meeting HBO said there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat when it was nine years ago, and he conducted his meeting with OIC in the room so the owner did not made a complaint against him. The two missing lines indicated the OIC contacted the neighbour to adjust the noise level, and saying there was a recent tranfer of ownership misled the owner to think the neighbour was not related to the eviction nine years ago.
4. When the owner wrote to a MP on the maid, force-entry, and eviction and HBO replied for the owner to seek his own solution, he had crossed the line for ethical behaviour and his actions from then on indicated the extent of his influence.
5. Two facts need to be mentioned here. The bcc, from HBO to Chairman, Residents Committe, indicated a flat is use to monitor the neighbour. HBO wrote he had a joint house visit with the Chairman, and there was no noise nuisance being detected. He asked the Chairman to explain to the owner on being a good neighbourliness in length, and he really appreciated the Chairman's effort and assistance. The other fact is the letter from Town Council that the owner would hear from HDB soon but no officer came to visit him. The dates to note are the owner saw personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on Feb 08 before HBO wrote the bcc on Oct 08 for its own reason. And the letter from Town Council was sent on Jan 09 two months after the owner saw the person who occupied the flat across the neighbour on Nov 08, and he was last seen on Jun 10.
6. There was a motive behind the bcc. When the owner went to see his area's MP for the first time, noise was heightened, and the OIC and a fellow officer visited him. His refusal to their request to check for noise in his flat was followed by the joint house visit between HBO and the Chairman in the flat across the neighbour. It was the morning of their house visit that the owner heard incessant knocking, but HBO wrote no noise nuisance was detected. It was also the same morning that the Chairman and the Treasurer visited him, and the owner told them he would be writing to Mr Teo Chee Hean. HBO replied to the owner, cc to the area's MP and bcc to the Chairman a week later; his reply was about a month from the time the owner saw the area's MP. The plan was for HBO and the Chairman to cast the owner as unreliable.
7. Just as he sent the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to him, HBO sent a counsellor to visit the owner to help him cope with his difficulty. Either he presumed the owner is at fault, or he wanted attention away from the neighbour. He would also prefer not to know what the owner wrote about him in his blog. Therefore after the owner posted Discovery, HBO sent the counsellor, a police officer, the estates officer and OIC to visit the owner. Next he wrote he had exhausted all forms of assistance, and asked the owner to go for mediation or engage his own solicitors. The letter was copied to two MPs, who wrote to HDB. The area's MP who wrote to the Branch Office, however, was not sent a copy. Since the area's MP informed the owner he had referred his complaint to the Branch Office, HBO would have his reason for not giving a reply.
8. The owner is sure the neighbour uses his flat for their works. Some of the noises were similar to the noises he heard from the occupier who was evicted many years earlier. He had seen other persons going into the flat themselves and heard noises. They had used noise to intimidate and to signal to the owner. His encounters with HBO, OIC, the Chairman from Residents Committee, the personnel in the flat across the neighbour,and the two volunteers from the Meet-the-People Session, showed they shielded and kept the neighbour informed. It may seemed far-fetched if there were no history on the neighbour, and no one knew and assisted the owner.
9. The owner could see HBO has influence over the two volunteers, the personnel, the Chairman, the counsellor (an officer wrote the owner was referred to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) and officers from the neighbourhood police. It could be assumed HBO knew about the maid, neighbour, occupier and first owner; the personnel across the neighbour, force-entry and break-in; the TV broadcast on perceived injustice; and the owner's letters to MPs and emails about his posting in the blog. He knew from the actions he took.
10. No issue is seen to have been taken with HBO or OIC. And, personnel has occupied the flat across the neighbour for a period of two and a half years now. To the owner both are contrived, placing him at a disadvantage. Instances listed in Discovery, with more details in subsequent posts, would show the case. Lately the neighbour has reduce noise. They complied because they are kept up-to-date on development. Noises are still heard through the day.
11. An ethical code of conduct for officers is essential. It is relation with the public, and immediacy between person. Using one's influence to obstruct is not one of its value. The Personnel Boards or a committee on ethics could look at the problem.
12. A number of MPs had assisted the owner by writing to HDB. HBO always replied to the letters, even as the owner requested two of the MPs to bypass him. Later the owner wrote to people he found from the Singapore Government Directory and Who's Who in Singapore 2006. The replies he received referred him to the relevant authorities, thanked him for his feedback and a few others.
13. The owner had quoted PM Lee Hsien Loong on "government misbehaviour", SM Goh Chok Tong on "trust deficit" and "morally upright government", and DPM Teo Chee Hean on " logical rather than ideological path and stay pragmatic in making policies - an approach that has produced many innovative solutions in the past". They may not be related to his case, but it was timely and pertinent when he wrote in his blog.
14. The owner had also quoted DPM Teo Chee Hean earlier on "the government is on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments" and "the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments". This was in the Prime Minister's Office's addendum to the President's address.
15. A year later on 2 Jun 10 and 15 Jun 10 the Business Times reported new permanent secretary appointments, and three statutory boards under the Ministry of National Development were set to get new CEOs respectively. On 10 Jul 10 the Straits Times reported new chief executive director of the People's Association in June. These could be the development referred in Item 10 above.
16. An inquiry into the volunteers and officers involved is required. How else to stop the noise when they have an arrangement with the the neighbour. The owner is reminded of a number of occasions the people in the flat across the neighbour had guided the neighbour to lower the noise, and of other instances that supported such an observation.
17. The people at the flat across the neighbour has so far prolonged the situation. Some forms of random checks with different officers could be put in place to prevent the neighbour from being informed.
18. The owner has provided details to prove the neighbour carried out works in their flat, and to show the problem has been long-standing. These details could be corroborated.
