1. The neighbour is not the main problem because they could be stopped. It is the officers who perpetuate it.
2. In trying to cover up a long relationship, their behaviours made that clear to the owner. The role of the people in the flat across the neighbour to prevent inspection at the neighbour's flat is a case in point. The owner has supported his claim, but there has been no reply from the authorities.
3. Through no fault of his, the owner has been subjected to noise each day. It restarted in Jun '07, and noise was reduced in Apr '10 after PM mentioned "government misbehaviour". After the post Petition in Jan '11, there was a further reduction in noise. However in the first week after the next post Justice, there were huge thump and sharp noise. It stopped the second week, but the usual knock, thump and rumble continued through the day. About the third week after a contractor told him repair was carried out on the floor of the neighbour's unit, a different set of noise was heard. They have reduced the amount and level of noise so that their works would continue--the huge thump, loud knock and rumble, still there, are muffled.
4. Higher authority could have intervened because there are much less noise now. Knock and muffled noise are heard in early morning and the rest of the day. The authority should not stop here, what counts is why the neighbour is doing it.
5. Except for the change there is no real solution. The officers and neighbour have an interest to see the owner forced out of his flat. He writes a blog about them and, to show who is in charge, they had used noise to let him know.
6. The first time the owner went to see the area's MP, HDB may have investigated but prevented from taking action. The owner could see the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was feeling the heat when he asked the owner to allow him to check for noise in his flat, which was refused. An officer, who called the owner over the phone, had also replaced OIC for a time.
7. It started with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO), when he wrote to the owner on things he did not say and on what the neighbour was not. That was followed by the TV broadcast on perceived injustice probably directed at the owner, then he received the bcc from HBO to Residents Committee Chairman, some time later Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB but no one came, and Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service rebuked an official in parliament the same day he met the owner at a Meet-the-People Session. The chain of events could have been stopped at HBO. But he was not taken to task because of his standing. His network supported him, and letters to HDB he took to reply. Similarly letters to the President, Police, and Public Service Commission had no effect. No one seemed to be responsible for HBO.
8. An inquiry is required. It is necessary because events happened over many years, many people are involved, and there is cover-up. It is a duty given that insiders have assisted.
9. The truth in the facts is as follows:
a) The first owner transferred the flat to the present owner after an eviction to continue with their works. The date of tranfer was some time before 17 Apr 99 when a contractor, who did some renovation in the flat, slipped a note on noise from their works to the owner. The owner wrote his complaint to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office on 8 Dec 98, 11 Jan 99 and 10 Mar 99 and, after the eviction, wrote to HDB Feedback Unit on 21 Mar 99. Although an officer later wrote no eviction was ever conducted, there remains the date of the tranfer, letters from the owner, replies from an estates officer at the Branch Office, and names of officers the owner wrote to nine years ago to show the event did take place. Besides, the owner saw the occupier shifted out of the flat and a techical officer came to inform him of the eviction.
b) The dates of the complaint from Dec 98 to Mar 99 was a period of three months during which the occupier continued with his work. During this period the estates officer and the techical officer visited the owner. The estates officer said she had an idea what the neighbour was doing though she was not saying. After the eviction of the occupier, who was an illegal occupant, the techical officer visited the owner to inform him and to inquire what the owner did to cause the eviction.
c) Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) did not stop the maid mentioned in two letters to the Branch Office. HDB would have in their record whether the maid was an occupant of the flat. Officers also visited the flat, but four months passed before someone else stopped the maid. An indication given to the owner earlier let him to notice noise stopped at the same time the maid was not seen. Later, he wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to check whether a maid was with the neighbour. It could be that the maid was not employ by the neighbour or, if she was, her registered place of work was at another address. It goes to show the maid and the flat were used for their works.
d) As officers protected the neighbour, insiders assisted the owner. An insider had stopped the neighbour for four years before they restarted works. This time round the officers
stationed people in the flat across across the neighbour to spot anyone who dare goes to the owner's flat or the neighbour's flat. It was necessary because the neighbour works through the day with change of workers, and the officers have the influence to prevent anyone from assisting the owner.
e) The owner wrote to the President about the people in the flat across the neighbour, and the Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was tasked with the investigation. In his reply he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour, and may have considered it an internal matter.
f) The Officer-in-Charge(OIC) refused to give the name of the neighbour to the owner although he was at the meeting when HBO agreed. Obviously he needed to protect the neighbour or to cover his trail. Details showing the neighbour operates a business and officers are involved were described.
g) The HBO's doings are detailed. The issue is at the least clear to Ministers, MPs, Community Centre members, Residents Committee members, personnel from HDB, Police, and insiders. That many people knew, and yet not set right, is an injustice writ large.
h) Foods for thought. W. D. Ross classified duties into six major kinds: of fidelity (which includes truth-telling), of not causing harm (which includes not killing), of doing good, of justice, of gratitude, and of reparation. He insists that the determination of which duty takes precedence over another is only revealed to us by reasoning through the particulars of the concrete situation. In the owner's case think from the standpoint of insiders, HDB, People's Association, high officials and Ministers, which of the six kinds take precedence. Choose one kind for each without repeating your choice, and see how it goes.
i) Immanuel Kant claims your ability to rule your life should be respected even if you might hurt yourself and others in the process. His respect for your person is as if you will your punishment when you make the wrong choice. In other words, you take responsiblility for it. Since '07 when OIC and a man, who did want to be identified, visited the owner and neighbour, they colluded with the neighbour to allow them to carry on with their works. They were not faulted the whole time because HBO has powerful connection, which he uses to abet the neighbour.
j) The two quotes above are from Understanding Ethics, David Bruce Ingram and Jennifer A. Parks, The Complete Idiot's Guide.
Accompanying Email
Dear Mr, Mrs, Ms and Mdm,
Open Letter To HDB
The post Case is of a person who knows noises from the neighbour are from the working of a trade, and the people in the flat across the neighbour with connection to officers prevent anyone from inspecting the neighbour's flat.
He hopes you will give your opinion on the case. Agreement and disagreement would be discussed, and a position reached. If it happened, it would be a community effort.
He needs the help, having done all he could do.
You could start with any items, the previous post Justice has a summary of the main events.
Give your opinion at Civic Advocator. Google the site and look for his post under Housing, Activism, Forum, or search under HDB. Linked address to the site could also be found at the end of the post Officers, Neighbour, Prevasive Case, or Prospect, in his blog.
His blog is at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com and http://complainproper.wordpress.com
(The blogs could be google by name; at the name complainproper, each post is listed separately. Please forward this email if you think it would help.)
Regards,
hh
