1. The owner wished he did not have to put up post after post, and said so during the last meeting with officers on 12 Mar 10. This was after he posted Discovery when he said he would not pursue further if the noise stop. He decided now to tell it as it was.
2. The Officer-In-Charge(OIC) and an official-looking man visited the owner when he first wrote to HDB Branch Office. The owner asked for the man's name, but the OIC said he only followed. As they had not read his letter, and did not accept the owner's invitation to come in, he passed a copy of his letter to the Branch Office to them.
3. When they went upstairs to talk to the neighbour, the owner left the door of his flat opened and stayed at his living room. Some time later, he heard an under-the-breath shout after the officers from the neighbour's boy showing unity with his father. The owner waited for the officers to come down but they did not, although the two staircases could only lead to the lifts downstairs in which the owner had full view. They must have used the farther staircase and skipped the floor.
4. The owner surmised their talk may not be successful. He inquired of the OIC a few times about the man who followed him, but he kept quiet. The owner thinks the force-entry later was a way to deal with the neighbour.
5. The owner wrote a second letter to the Branch Office, and a week later telephoned to inquire whether they received it. Not able to get through with the numbers he got from HDB Hub, he called the OIC, who informed him they did not receive his second letter. He went to the Branch Office to hand over a copy, asked for an acknowledgment, and requested to meet the Head, Pasir Ris Branch Office(HBO). He was shown the names of two officers to meet, but he insisted on a meeting with HBO. The meeting on the same day was conducted with the OIC in the room, making it less likely the owner would complain against him. The owner asked about mediation and about the neighbour, and HBO said he could rally the residents committee. He also said the owner could talk to the neighbour, and whether he knew there was a recent transfer of the flat. The owner ended the meeting as it was not getting anywhere. Two days later, the OIC and a fellow officer visited him. The OIC said he had been around his flat for 15 minutes but did not hear any noise, and his fellow officer was his witness.
6. Two items to note here. The acknowledgment was a signed photocopy of the owner's letter with two lines missing. The lines referred to a quiet period before the OIC's visit and rumbling noise just after the OIC's visit. He called the owner over the telephone after the rumbling noise to check the noise level. The other item HBO said was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat happened nine years ago at the time of an eviction. This would have implicated the neighbour, since the tranfer just after the eviction was for the purpose of continuing with their works.
7. HBO wrote his first letter to the owner after he went to his first Meet-the-People session. It stated a MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback. They had been unable to detect any undue noise at every inspections, including an inspection after the MP's representations. He would like the owner to know that HDB would take action against lessees only if there was evidence of misuse of HDB flat, and noise from everyday living was not within their control. But the owner had seen personnel shifted into the flat across the neighbour on the fourth day after the Meet-the-People Session. HBO's letter was on the seventh day after the personnel shifted in, and the force-entry was on the third week after his letter. And the neighbour approached the owner on the third day after the force-entry to ask the owner to tell him where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. So HBO wrote the letter after personnel shifted into the flat, and could have known what was going on.
8. Six months later when the owner wrote two letters on maid, force-entry and eviction among other things to the MP and went to see him, HBO replied the owner may seek assistance from the Neighbourhood Police or instruct his solicitors to obtain a court injunction. Alternatively he may seek assistance from the Residents Committee or Community Mediation Centre to settle the matter amicably. He also wrote investigation based on the owner's information was not able to conclude the neighbour had sublet the flat to unknown owner. But the owner never mentioned anything about sublet or used the term unknown owner. The idea behind it was to show there was no record of an occupier (unknown owner) and, therefore, there could not have been an eviction. Hence in Aug 09 when the owner first posted in his blog, an officer wrote no eviction was ever conducted, and it was incorrect to state an eviction had taken place. If there was an occupier he would be an illegal occupant. To be sure the owner knew the occupier lived in the flat for many years, and the occupier was evicted after the owner wrote he came pounding at his door. After the eviction, the owner wrote to HDB Feedback Unit to express his appreciation.
9. About the maid, the owner observed she worked in the flat from the noise made while monitoring the family's comings and goings. With his door open he could see the lift lobby and the stairs to their flat, and he kept watch for eight days spread over a month from 6.00am to 9.00pm. Then he wrote his first letter to the Branch Office on Aug 07, and a poster of a maid appeared on the noticebroad at the void deck of his block sometimes in Dec 07. It showed a maid working in a coffeeshop, and stated the maid was only allowed to work as a domestic help at the place she was registered. This happened at the same time the noise stopped for a few weeks. The owner thinks the maid was stopped because she was not seen from that time on except for one day on Lunar New Year. The maid, however, was not stopped for the four months after he wrote to the Branch Office. Someone else did when they came to know of his letter. Later the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to confirm whether there was a maid under the employ of the neighbour to show not only they used the maid for the works they were doing but also they resided at the place where the maid was registered.
10. Following the letter from HBO in Item 8, the owner went to see his area's MP. Noise was heightened, and the owner refused to let the OIC and a fellow officer check for noise in his flat. HBO then met Chairman, Residents Committee, at the flat across the neighbour. In the bcc to the Chairman, he wrote during their house visit there was no noise nuisance being detected and asked him to explain good neighbourliness to the owner. The bcc also stated the date of the house visit, and an arrangement for the Chairman and the Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. Before their visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room. The increasing intensity of the noise, for several minutes, let the owner to suspect the noise was because of HBO who could see the owner in his study room from the flat across the neighbour.
11. HBO replied to seven letters written by MPs on behalf of the owner. Each time he wrote there was no excessive noise, and referred the owner to the Police, Residents Committee, Community Mediation Centre or his solicitor. The whole time that the owner requested the MPs to bypass him, and wrote in his blog letters to HDB to which MPs had responded, he kept up with similar replies. No further investigation was carried out although certain facts were known about the neighbour. For examples, the owner showed dealing with the first owner allowed the flat to be transferred to the neighbour, and just after his first Meet-the-People Session people shifted into the flat across the neighbour to keep the situation under their control. A number of statements made by Ministers and quoted by the owner could be an acknowledgment, since it have to do with the civil service. New appointments of high official that were reported could be the result.
12. HBO's last letter to the owner with copies to two MPs on Mar 10 was followed by letters from estates officers on May 10 and Aug 10. In the estates officers' replies they named PM, MP and high officials the owner emailed to inform them of new postings. They referred the owner to Community Mediation Centre again, but four letters written by MPs on his behalf remain unanswered. In his case, reply to the owner is not as important as having copies to the MPs, who represent the people in the constituencies.
13. Other matters to highlight on the trail of OIC:
a) When OIC and a fellow officer visited the owner two days after his meeting with HBO, the owner asked for the name of the neighbour but he refused. The owner reminded him he was at the meeting, and HBO had agreed. Next the owner asked the date the neighbour's flat was transferred, which he gave from his fact sheet.
b) After the owner's first meeting with his area's MP noise was heightened, and the OIC and the fellow officer visited. He asked why he was not allowed to enter his flat to check for noise. In reply, the owner said the OIC knew as well as the owner did why not. A week later, HBO's joint visit with the Chairman in the flat across the neighbour was a tic for tac to discredit the owner.
c) After the owner wrote in his blog the post Prospect, the OIC and an estates officer visited him to inform they had conducted an inspection of the neighbour's flat and found no machine-tools. Why took the trouble when the owner already distrusted the OIC? The estates officer was new as he did not even know the name of HBO, and he was eager to find out more from the owner. He hinted he knew something about the owner. He asked and agreed when the owner said the neighbour was working on jewellery or fashion accessory. It may not be a ploy in the first place but became one with the OIC alongside. The neighbour would have been informed beforehand, and the OIC could keep tag on what was said between the owner and the estates officer. The estates officer was to change his tune shortly, but the owner does not blame him.
d) By elimination the owner suspected the OIC called the owner's mother on pretext to obtain information about him. This was a day after the owner went to the Neighbourhood Police Centre(NPC) some time after he posted Discovery. He wrote an email to NPC to confirm whether a police officer called his mother over the telephone, but there was no written reply. Instead a person called his mother a few times. He did not give his full name when asked, mentioned the email the owner sent, and gave a telephone number from NPC for the owner to call back. The OIC was to call the his mother again, this time to speak to his sister.
e) Some time later, OIC called the owner over the telephone to said they wanted to talk . The meeting at the owner's home was with a counsellor, an officer from the neighbourhood police, the estates officer and the OIC. There was nothing new except the OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person who occupied the flat across the neighbour and, before they left, interviewed the owner's mother and asked for his sister's mobile number. Having sent the officers, HBO wrote to the owner he had exhausted all forms of assistance with copies to two MPs. He did not, however, copy to the area's MP either because the MP wrote to the Branch Office instead of HDB as usual or because the MP knew what he was up to.
f) One time the OIC called the owner to ask who was working in the flat upstairs, and let on the man of the house did not because he worked outside. Another time he asked why the owner did not make a police report on the break-in at his flat. (The owner did suspect a break-in and call the police.) Talking to him often, the owner could take his cue from what was said and the manner it was said.
14. The Chairman's term of office from Apr 07 to Mar 09 may have been extended for another two years. This rules out help from a new Chairman. The Chairman was sent the bcc asking him to explain good neighbourliness to the owner on Oct 08, and he spoke to the owner who he met at the void deck on Dec 09. The owner asked him whether he or members of his committee could make random check at his flat. He replied he would only visit him with officer.
15. During one of the Meet-the-People Session the owner saw an elder who was greeted warmly as he entered the hall, and the owner saw him again during the next Meet-the-People Session when he went into the end room where the MP was to held his meeting. From the events that followed, the owner thinks the elder was there each time to influence the outcome of the meeting the owner had with the MPs.
16. At the first Meet-the-People Session, the owner asked the interviewer who the matter would be referred to as no MP was in session. He pointed to the name of HBO in a letter. When the owner asked for his name it was the name of his brother he gave. The owner saw him twice around owner's neighbourhood, and in later sessions he only saw the brother. After the first Meet-the-People Session, HBO wrote to the owner that a MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback as Item 7 above.
17. At one of the Meet-the-People Session the owner was introduced to the brother by another interviewer. The brother said he may have interviewed the owner, and he was the only person with that name. From what was said between the interviewer and the brother, the brother already knew the owner's case.
18. During the last Meet-the-People Session the interviewer was the brother. He asked how many times the owner had seen the MP to mean it had been too many times, and said 10.00am with a move of his hand to indicate the owner could expect noise after that time.
19. Some time after the first posting in his blog on Aug 09, the owner met the last interviewer burning incense outside his flat. He said his brother was not in, and challenged the owner to contact the newspaper. That night, just after the owner went to bed, there was a series of loud noise made by the neighbour upstairs. The last interviewer had contacted the people in the flat across the neighbour, who then contacted the neighbour when the owner switched off his light to go to bed. A clear instance of contact between them.
20. Of the people in the flat across the neighbour, the situation is more complicated. They moved in just after the owner went to his first Meet-the-People Session, and stayed for two and a half years. They keep an eye on the neighbour to prevent them from making too loud a noise, and watch out for them at the same time. The person the owner saw in Nov 08 till Jun 10, who the OIC may have volunteered his name, may be the register occupant but this did not preclude other persons who used the flat. Two events of consequence happened during this period: on Jan 09 Town Council informed the owner he would hear from HDB but no one came, and on Aug 09 the event in Item 19.
21. Four more events to do with the flat: a) a man who lived there for a short period gave warning that caused the neighbour to stop for fours years, b) the flat as staging area for a force-entry to deal with the neighbour the second time round, c) the flat as a staging area for a break-in into the owner's flat in search of incriminating letter and personal detail, and d) HBO and the Chairman's house visit at the flat with a plan to discredit the owner. These events were inferred from observation, which included noise heard each day and insider who assisted him.
22. The main reason the people in the flat across the neighbour stayed over the years is not clear to the owner, but his observations make a case. For examples: noise through the day, including early morning and night each day of the week, indicated workers take shift; thump and rumbling noise indicated tools; appearance of the neighbour and his wife separately indicated they work at the same trade, but do not live in; and family routines such as being with their two children, grocery and outing would have indicated whether they do. Besides the owner had seen the workers, and he noted the neighbour was kept informed. One reason could be the people in the flat across the neighbour prevented the neighbour from getting caught until such time the owner sold his flat. It would be less trouble without the owner to complain the neighbour took over the flat just after the eviction to continue with their works, and the maid found working was not registered to work in the neighbour's flat for examples. It would not be an exaggeration that at any one time an inspection of the neighbour's flat would find tool, material, and worker who may not be an occupant of the flat.
23. The people in the flat across the neighbour have a view of the entrance and into the study room of the owner's flat. Because of their influence, they prevented independent check to verify for noise. All these times no one visited the owner to conduct check this way. Where there were visits the noise stopped. An example was the letter from Town Council that he would hear from HDB officer but no one came. Also the two weeks from 5 Aug 10 to 18 Aug 10 that the flat was not occupied the noise was tolerable, but the noise was louder and more frequent after it was re-occupied. In the post Ethics on 1 Aug 10, the owner may have correctly suggested random checks are required, and pointed out the people in the flat across the neighbour prolonged the situation.
24. When they re-occupied the flat across the neighbour, knocks were heard as early as 4.30am in the morning and most of the noise were rumbling and knocks the whole afternoon. Before they started, there were testings for noise level to ensure the noise would not be obvious from outside the flat. Although there are relatively quiet period in the morning and quiet after certain hours at night, it bears repeating the neighbour used the flat to carry out a trade and, since works are through the day each day of the week, there are other workers. The owner could only hope the authorities do something as there is nothing the owner could do. Not doing something in effect allows them to continue.
25. The neighbour himself approached the owner a few days after the force-entry. He said he had reduced the noise, and there had not been any noise from his flat for a period was it not (Item 21a). When the owner asked him for his full name he would only give a shorten form, and said the owner would not have asked if he could get it from HDB. He asked the owner to compromise by letting him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. Since the owner did not accept, he asked the owner not to knock on his door too loudly. This in reference to the occupier who would not answer the door just before he was evicted. Earlier when the owner talked to the neighbour, he said there was no noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice.
26. The owner has shows directly the behaviour of the officers allowed the neighbour to continue with their works. He has shows indirectly the neighbour operated a business and the officers knew that for a fact. They make sure the noises are not noticable from outside the flat, but the noises heard inside the owner's flat are another matter. So when the owner complained, the neighbour obliged by reducing the noise for a time but started up later. This has been going on for over three years with the owner trying to get help. He has been forced to leave. Shouldn't the authorities first take to task the officers who are in contact with the public?
