1. Continuous noise, continual noise, and some loud noise could be heard through the day. The neighbour worked a trade and operated it like a business. Different workers, besides the husband and the wife, were seen.
2. The people in the flat across the neighbour made sure noise was not noticable to passers-by, informed the neighbour should there be visitor to the owner's flat, and prevented independent check to verify for noise. They have connection, and an interest to maintain the status quo.
3. The problem requires investigation. The first owner and the present owner used the flat for their work. Two events separated by nine years showed similarities. Officers allowed the occupier and the maid to carry on even though the occupier was an illegal occupant and the maid was not at her registered place of work. Each time they were stopped by someone else many months after the owner wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. The eviction of the occupier was not recorded to enable the first owner to transfer the flat to the present owner. The occupier in '98 and the maid in the present case indicated continuation of a line work over a long period of time. Do HDB officers take advantage of such situation?
4. The Branch Office replied their investigations did not find excessive noise and asked the owner to seek his own solution. He was, however, blocked at every turns. Included were all letters written on behalf of the owner from MPs to HDB that Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO), took to reply. An example, the area's MP would have written to HDB when the owner wrote HBO did not refer to the issue raised about the force-entry and eviction. In the meantime HBO set the stage for heightened noise, sent the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) to check for noise in the owner's flat, visited the flat across the neighbour with Chairman, Residents Committee, then sent a reply to the owner with a copy to the area's MP. It may not be right for his superiors at HDB not to reply but they could be under constraint. HBO took over while HDB receded into the background. It was the same when the owner emailed HDB each time he wrote an open letter in his blog. Officers from HDB and Police filled in by writing to the owner in support of the Branch Office. Later after a series of posts in his blog, statement made by Ministers and change of high official appointments may have been the result.
5. Two MPs wrote directly to the Branch Office referring them to the blog instead of HDB. Being a public officer HBO should reply, especially where the complaint refers to him.
6. HBO sent a counsellor, a police officer, an estates officer and the Office-in-Charge(OIC) to talk to the owner after he posted Discovery. Although he wrote in the post and spoke to the police officer over the phone that mediation was not going to help, they came to persuade the owner to mediate with the neighbour. More importantly, the estates officer wanted the owner to know the people in the flat across the neighbour was not the problem. OIC volunteered a name of a person from the flat. In fact the people in the flat across the neighbour are an evidence, and the crux of the problem.
7. The owner saw the same person in the flat across the neighbour from Nov 08 and on Sep 10 recently. During the period, the owner saw him, his wife and his son. They wanted to show legitimacy but most of the time the owner only saw him. At time the owner could relate the level of noise the neighbour made to the person showing himself to the owner. The first time the owner saw him a number of events happened: 1) HBO sent his first letter to ask the owner to seek his own solution on 25 Sep 08; 2) The owner saw flashed on TV screen an address he could write to on perceived injustice; 3) The owner met the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service because noise was heightened after meeting the area's MP; 4) Someone sent to the owner the bcc HBO wrote to the Chairman, Residents Committee, after their visit in the flat across the neighbour; 5) And Town Council informed the owner he would hear from HDB on 15 Jan 09. Of the last item the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, who wrote to the Town Council, asked the owner whether someone came to see him. No one came because they knew the people in the flat across the neighbour would have watched them during their visit. Going for the visit would do no good and compound the problem.
8. Two instances wtth a Community Centre member (CC member) showed he knew about the people in the flat across the neighbour. Before meeting the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, the interviewer introduced the CC member to the owner. From what the interviewer said to the CC member, the CC member knew about the flat across the neighbour. The next instance, when the owner saw the CC member burning incense outside his flat, he challenged the owner who had began posting in his blog to contact the newspaper. Then he contacted the people in the flat across the neighbour who contacted the neighbour to make a series of loud noise just as the owner went to bed. The two instances were on Feb 09 and Aug 09 respectively.
9. On 1 Feb 10, the owner wrote to the President and the Police pointing out the people in the flat across the neighbour was the problem. The SPF Customer Relations Branch, Bedok Police Division and Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre(NPC) replied. SPF Customer Relations Branch stated the owner's feedback would be referred to the Bedok Police Division for appropriate action as necessary, and Bedok Police Division stated they acknowledged the concerns raised and had since referred the matter to relevant officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action. The Commanding Officer from NPC, in his reply to the letter the owner sent to the President, stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. He, however, made no reference to the people in the flat across the neighbour.
10. The neighbour persisted because they work for a profit, and they are a group. Recently, the person in the flat across the neighbour showed himself to the owner one evening and the same evening the neighbour did too. The owner knew well, these have been one of many, to indicate the owner allow for the noise from the work the neighbour was doing. Although the amount and level of noise has been reduced, he hears loud noise, low-level noise, heavy thump and rumbling. Noise could be heard very early in the morning and through the day. The situation has not change.
11. The source of the problem is the neighbour but the cause is the officers. As long as the owner complained, they would have to protect the neighbour. They know the neighbour could be caught as they have been doing it for years and are known to officers. The officers kept referring the owner to the Community Mediation Centre because that would stop the complaint and, as a consequence, no reason for anyone to take action against the neighbour. Further, the complaint against the officers could potentially expose them. Meantime the people in the flat across the neighbour ensures no one would verify for noise and thus maintain the status quo. In their official capacity, their influence prevented any action that would stop the neighbour.
12. Insider assisted the owner but could not prevent it. Ministers helped with policy changes but it come down to the people who operate the system. What the owner has are evidences that would check out. There are leads within the government the neighbour operated a business and the people in the flat across the neighbour colluded with them. These would include the force-entry, the break-in and the long period of time they used the flat to watch out for the neighbour. Could investigation and enforcement agencies act on the leads?
13. HBO has influence, and there is a summary under Note. When the owner sent an email to the PM that guess where he got his connection, the owner immediately got a phone call from an old friend to say he would pay him a visit. Then he received a letter from HBO with a copy to the area's MP in reply to the letter the MP wrote on his behalf earlier. HBO wanted to let the owner know he knew about the email to the PM because he timed his letter one day after his friend visit, while the copy to the MP would have been two months late.
14. If HBO is removed, it would be seen he could no longer hold onto his position because of his connection, and it followed no one would protect the neighbour. Does the foregoing provides for such an argument?
Note
A summary of events on HBO:
a) It was not coincidence, the owner could not get through to HBO with the phone number he obtained from HDB Hub and the Branch Office did not receive the second letter the owner sent by post. Nor, the officer who acknowledged by signing on a photocopy of the owner's letter which had two lines missing that referred to the OIC and HBO who conducted the meeting with the OIC in the room after the owner insisted on meeting HBO.
b) The maid mentioned in the owner's two letters also had something to do with it. They allowed the maid to continue working for four months. The owner was given an indication someone other than the Branch Office stopped the maid. HBO could simply reply whether he did or did not stop the maid. A check with the Ministry of Manpower would confirm whether the maid was employed by the neighbour and her registered place of work.
c) During the meeting HBO asked the owner whether he knew of a recent tranfer of the neighbour's flat. In fact the tranfer was nine years ago at the time of an eviction. He also said the owner could talk to the neighbour to solve the noise problem. Later, in his letters, he would be asking the owner to settle through mediation while ignoring complaint against him. All the time he avoided questions referring to himself and the neighbour.
d) HBO's letter to the owner, after his first Meet-the-People Session where no MP was in session, stated on a MP's representation they had been unable to detect any undue noise from the neighbour's flat. The letter was dated seven days after the owner noticed people shifting into the flat across the neighbour. They shifted into the flat four days after the Meet-the-People Session. From the flat, the owner inferred a force-entry into the neighbour's flat and a break-in into the owner's flat. The people in the flat across the neighbour may have deferred to HBO who with his connection may have staged it.
e) HBO's second letter was to ask the owner to seek his own solution after the owner wrote to the MP about the maid, force-entry and eviction among other things. In his own words he wrote the owner "claimed that noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner". In the next paragraph he wrote "were not able to conclude that your upper floor neighbor had sublet the flat to unknown owner. Neither were we able to establish that there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat." And in the next paragraph " we have not found any evidence to suggest that your neighbour were using their flat as a workshop." As the owner explained in the post Encounter Item 8 he never mentioned anything about sublet or used the term unknown owner. It was intended to hide an eviction followed by the transfer of the flat to allow the neighbour to continue with their work. HBO's wording on the work carried out by the neighbour, although in negation, actually described the situation. He knew what he was doing.
f) Because HBO did not take issue on the maid, force-entry and eviction, the owner went to see the area's MP. In the time before HBO reply to the area's MP's letter to HDB, he staged heightened noise at the owner's flat, sent the OIC to visit the owner to check for noise inside his flat, and visited the flat across the neighbour with the Chairman after the owner refused the OIC entry into his flat. Next, he replied to the owner with a cc to the area's MP and a bcc to the Chairman. Someone sent the bcc to the owner later. And he found the Chairman's term of office may have been extended for another two years to prevent him from asking help from a new Chairman.
g) At the owner's last meeting with the area's MP, the MP said he would meet HBO the next day and noise was reduced. The owner thinks someone passed a message to the MP to take to HBO. He is central to the problem. The MP also referred him to the blog after the owner posted Discovery. The post has a list of complaint against him but he did not reply.
h) The owner's mother received phone calls after the owner went to the neighbourhood police because of the noise. The phone calls were most likely from HBO and OIC. They have his mother phone number the owner gave to the OIC and the estates officer during their visit. They did not reveal their names only that they were from the police. OIC spoke English then Malay to his mother who could not understand. Without putting down the phone he shouted for HBO who conversed in dialect and was friendly with his mother. As a ruse HBO asked for the owner phone number, but knew the question to ask. HBO and OIC each called a few times because they wanted information on the owner. The owner emailed the neighbourhood police early the next day after the first call from OIC to confirm whether their officers did call but there was no written reply. This was a critical period for HBO because the owner chose 1 Feb 10, the date the new Commissioner of Police was appointed, to write to the President and the Police earlier.
i) Following the post Discovery, the OIC called the owner over the phone they wanted to talk. In his flat, the counsellor, the police officer, the estates officer and the OIC persuaded the owner to go for mediation. OIC volunteered the name of a person in the flat across the neighbour, and the estates officer said he was going up to the flat in an offer for the owner to check himself. It was important to them the owner think the people in the flat across the neighbour had nothing to do with his problem. Thus, people in the flat across the neighbour could watch out for the neighbour and maintain the status quo.
j) Examples HBO had contacts with the neighbour, CC members and the people in the flat across the neighbour:
i) On the morning that HBO visited the flat across the neighbour there was incessant knocking. HBO could see the owner in his study room from the flat. The nature of the noise let the owner to believe it was his doing. The owner would not have known if not for the bcc, which indicated the date HBO and the Chairman visited the flat to be followed by the Chairman's visit to the owner the same day. Related events are in Item f) above.
ii) OIC and the estates officer visited the owner after he posted Prospect to inform they inspected the neighbour's flat and found no machine-tool. The owner had no reason to believe the OIC did not inform the neighbour before the inspection. Some time back the owner did not allow the OIC to check for noise in his flat because he distrusted him. HBO knew about the event, which let him to set up a visit to the flat across the neighbour with the Chairman. As explained in the post Encounter Item 13c the estates officer was new, and the inspection was a ploy for others to see.
iii) A chance meeting with the CC member outside his flat. He challenged the owner to contact the newspaper as he had just posted on his blog. That night as he went to bed, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour. The CC member had contacted the people in the flat across the neighbour who contacted the neighbour to make the noise once the owner switched off the light to go to bed. HBO is in contact with CC members and the people in the flat across the neighbour could be seen from followings: 1) During the first Meet-the-People Session the brother of the CC member pointed to the name of HBO when asked who the matter would be referred to as no MP was in session, 2) From the conversation between the CC member and an interviewer, who introduced the CC member to the owner, the CC member knew about the flat across the neighbour and so did HBO who with the Chairman visited the flat.
k) HBO posted a car parking problem on the front page of CNA forum. It was not as it seemed. He intended to let the owner know his attempt at publicity from the blogsphere would fail. This was after HBO knew about the TV broadcast on perceived injustice as the owner told a friend and said he would look at discussion group instead. Earlier he wrote to the company, that also hosted the CNA forum, to get the address he saw flashed on the screen during the broadcast. He could not get the address. (It may not have helped even if he could. Even so the broadcast was an important signal.) The owner began looking at other blogsites. A meeting was arranged with one at the owner's flat but they did not turn up. Two volunteers from another blogsite visited the owner, one was ready to listen the other kept contradicting. One thing was clear, he insisted he would publish the report the owner requested together with his photograph. It meant the owner would have difficulty selling his flat. These go to show the extent of HBO's reach.
l) The owner sent to the PM an email with a name that resembled HBO's to show there might be a connection. He was surprised by the immediate response because an old friend called over the phone, and he arranged to meet the owner at his flat. The owner came across the name first from blogsites, and later in the newspaper when he was rebuked by the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service. It may have started with the TV broadcast, and may have been related to the bcc the owner received a day after the owner went to see the Minister. Subsequently the Minister wrote to the Town Council, and enquired of the owner whether someone visited him. Following which was the rebuke in Parliament. The rebuke was about the expensive cooking lesson he took and wrote about in a newspaper during an economic downturn. But some questioned whether he deserved being put on record. HBO may provide a clue. His reply to the letter the area's MP wrote on the owner's behalf was timed one day after his friend visit while the copy to the MP would have been two months late. He wanted the owner to know he knew about the email to PM. To the owner, there is a connection.
m) PM said Singapore cannot "afford a bump in the night",whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem, in an interview with American television on 15 Apr 10. After which there a number of new appointments in the government from Jun 10 onward. It may somehow be related to the Item l) above, considering the problem the owner had.
n) The MPs wrote to HDB on the behalf of the owner. HBO would reply to the owner with a copy to the MP even as the owner asked the MPs to bypass him. His superiors may be under constraint and so left the answering to HBO. Of late he stop replying, especially when MPs referred him to the blog which listed the complaint against him. In its place other officers responsed to email the owner sent to PM, MP, and other high officials to inform them of new posting in his blog. It was pretension when they named them in their reply. After the owner posted Encounter, a HDB officer stated in her reply their staff visited him, and the owner "rejected our offer and refused to reveal more information pertaining to your feedback". Only no one visited.
o) HBO asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner. He sent a counsellor to help him cope with his difficulty. When required, they could be turned round to show the owner in bad light. HBO also had police officers involved. Two police officers who took the line of HBO when they wrote to the owner, although one in reply to a letter to the President and the other to an email of 18 Sep 09 to the Commissioner of Police to inform him of new posting. A police officer who took a 3-hour statement in his flat, and persuaded him to take up mediation over the phone. The police officer, the counsellor, the estates officer and the OIC visited the owner to persuade him to mediate, and to let him know the people in the flat across the neighbour was not the problem. After the meeting, HBO wrote to the owner he had exhausted all forms of assistance with a copy to two MPs.
