1. Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) should be held accountable for his action yet isn't. He wrote in reply to the owner's letter to a MP without referring to the issue raised. He avoided and actively seek to mislead.
2. One was an eviction and tranfer of flat in '99. The eviction was not recorded, and the flat was tranferred between own people. Another, a maid who was not at her registered place of work, was allowed to continue after a complaint in '07. HBO misled in the first and avoided the second.
3. A clear example of collusion is the people in the flat across the neighbour who watch out and protect the neighbour. HBO wrote his first letter to the owner they had not detected any excessive noise, a number of days after the people shifted into the flat. He wrote the second letter for the owner to obtain a court injunction as one possible solution, and visited the flat with Chairman, Residents Committee. A Community Centre member at the Meet-the-People Session had contact with the people in the flat. A neighbourhood police officer did not refer to the flat in his reply to the owner's letter to the President, although the letter specifically mentioned the flat. They did not reveal the people in the flat across the neighbour after it was pointed out because it was hard to justify. The owner's first Meet-the-People Session, shifting into the flat, HBO's first reply, and force-entry into the neighbour's flat all happened in about a month. The people in the flat then stayed on for over two and a half years. During the time the owner went to see the MPs and later wrote in his blog. Some of his observations are based on fact that would check out.
4. Anyone reading the case would find some things obvious. HBO attempted to show the owner as unreasonable when he asked the Chairman and a counsellor to talk to him. HBO, HDB officers, and neighbourhood police officers asked the owner to contact Community Mediation Centre sounded good, but Item 11 of Comment gave reasons why it was a trap. HBO said to the owner he could have the name of the neighbour during an early meeting, yet the Officer-in-Charge refused to give when he had it in his fact sheet. He is the person on the ground, knew what the neighbour was doing, and giving the neighbour's name was detrimental. The post Encounter listed the people who prevented the owner from a solution against insiders who assisted. These may have resulted in a change of government policy in an addendum to President's Address from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service.
5. Noise was reduced after the post Comment last month. The owner heard continual noise in the morning and afternoon. There may be more or less noise depending on workers who work through the day. Rumbling, thump, whine, drag, knock were heard. Some were from machine-tools.
6. There was a further reduction last week, but one day when noise worsen and noise was heard in the night. Their best effort have been low rumbling,muffled and some distinct sounds. There are quiet periods, but they decide on the types of work and workers. If the past is any guide, they do not let up and reduced noise may be for a time only because they do not expect enforcement.
7. Officers had relationship with the group in which the neighbour was part in '99, and the neighbour has come to expect the same treatment in '07. Noise is associated with a trade, and officers would try to ameliorate by asking the neighbour to reduce noise and his affected neighbour to be reasonable. This is what happened to the owner, except this time they stationed people in the flat across the neighbour to prevent the neighbour from being caught because insider had stopped them before. The post Record asks why the man from the flat across the neighbour was able to stop the noise for four years but not the present group of people.
8. HBO is the cause because he has a network of connection as seen from the posts Encounter and Comment. His removal will solve the noise problem. Conversely, his presence prevents action to stop the neighbour.
9. HBO would like to show the owner as unreliable, but there is no lack of evidence from his observations.
10. The two posts give sufficient details for the authorities to make an assessment. The authorities could ask HBO for an explanation first. The question remains whether officers knew about the neighbour, and allowed them to carry out a trade in their flat. The items above lay out some of the details.
11. The Business Times of 7 Sep 10 reported Public Service Commission(PSC) " will now have 12 members. The body's aim is to be independent and neutral to safeguard integrity, impartiality and meritocracy in the civil service." The owner has written to PSC to look into his case.
