1. The types of evidence pertaining to the case would be testimonial and documentary. The proofs are preponderance of evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. Evidences are generally indirect and circumstantial. Indirect evidences could be admission against interest, government records, and letters.
2. A list of evidence is as follows:
a) During a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and OIC (Officer-in-Charge), HBO agreed to give the name of the neighbour to the owner. But two days later when OIC visited the owner, he refused to give the neighbour's name, which was in his fact sheet. Yet he voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour in another meeting. The meeting was with a police officer, a counsellor, an estates officer, and himself at the owner's home after he wrote the people in the flat across the neighbour were watching out for the neighbour.
b) When the owner asked for an acknowledgment before the meeting with HBO, he was given a signed photocopy of his letter. Two lines in the letter that could implicate the OIC were missing. The letter also mentioned the maid who may not have registered at the flat and the eviction of an occupant, both crucial to the case.
c) HBO wrote to the owner in reply to a letter a MP wrote to HDB. The letter written on the owner's behalf included letters the owner wrote to the MP who told him it would be attached. HBO did not address the issues raised, which included the maid and the eviction, but instead asked the owner to seek his own solution.
d) HBO's letter was a clue he knew what the neighbour is doing. He wrote that the owner claimed work was conducted by unknown owner and the neighbour sublet the flat to unknown owner. The sentence made more sense when the words neighbour and unknown owner switched places. He had inadvertently used the term unknown owner, which correctly referred to the first owner of the flat who was never seen, to refer to the neighbour. He probably wanted the owner to say the unknown owner let out the flat to an occupant who sublet it to the neighbour. Anyway, the owner neither mentioned anything about sublet nor used the term unknown owner. He went on to write they were not able to establish there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat in his own words. Also by telling the owner at his office the transfer of the flat to the neighbour was a recent event, he hoped to avoid the connection between the eviction of the occupant and the tranfer of the flat to the neighbour nine years ago. He would have made up a story. What the owner did not say and what HBO did say would be owner's words against his only.
e) From the letters the owner sent to the Branch Office, the dates of the letters could determine the occupant under the first owner and the maid under the neighbour were allowed to work in the flat for many months before insiders stopped them. There would be government records on the transfer of the flat to the neighbour sometime about Mar '99 just after the eviction, and whether the maid was registered at the flat. The eviction of the occupant was a fact. The owner saw the occupant shifted out and an officer came to inform him. However, an officer wrote to the owner when he first posted in his blog there was no record of an eviction. The fact that insiders assisted the owner when it first began in '98 and continue to do even now speaks volume.
f) After HBO wrote the letter in c) there was a broadcast over TV on preceived injustice that lasted the time it took for a voice-over and a display of an address that one could write to. Next, on the day the owner went to a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) to meet the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, he received a letter sent by HBO earlier but with a bcc to the Chairman, Residents Committee. The next time the owner met the Minister at another MPS was on the day he rebuked an official in Parliament. The events leading to the rebuke may have something to do with the case. When the owner emailed the PM the resemblance of name between the HBO and the official, he received an immediate phone call from a friend to visit him. Upon the friend's visit HBO gave his reply to a letter from the area's MP who wrote on behalf of the owner, which he kept for two months, to let the owner know he knew. It all indicates HBO has high standing and is difficult to take down.
g) HBO's powerful and extensive connection could be seen over many instances:
i) They stationed people in the flat across the neighbour to monitor the owner and the neighbour. The details indicated a force-entry into the neighbour's flat and a break-in into the owner's flat.
ii) HBO posted on the front page of a forum hosted by CNA after the owner said to a friend he would bring up his problem at a discussion site. Although the posting was on unrelated matter, it was a reminder to the owner not to publicise. As it happened he was thwarted many times.
iii) The owner's computer was infected to prevent him from trading at a security firm, and denial-of-service attacks stopped him from using the computer over extended period of time.
iv) HBO's network of people included Community Centre members (CC members), Chairman of Residents Committee, the police, a counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and officers at government departments. CC members had tried to stop the owner on two occasions at MPS. They may have spoken to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service who turned the owner away and, at his last MPS, a CC member asked how many times he had seen the area's MP and indicated he could expect noise after 10.00am. The owner was first introduced to the CC member on the matter of the people in the flat across the neighbour at a MPS. Sometime later the owner spoke to him outside his flat. That night just after the owner switched off the light before going to bed, a series of noise was heard from the neighbour. A clear indication the CC member informed the people in the flat across the neighbour who when they saw the light went off informed the neighbour to make the noise.
v) The Chairman was asked to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, a counsellor came to assess the owner for fault, a police officer urged the owner to consider mediation, and officers at HDB Hub referred the owner to the Branch Office knowing full well what was in his blog. One police officer wrote to him HDB had thoroughly investigated, another officer referred him to a directory of lawyers, and still others returned his email with the words spam or suspected spam inserted in the title.
vi) HDB did not response to letters from MPs instead HBO replied to the letters. Therefore the MP who is also the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service wrote to Pasir Ris Town Council, which then wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB and cc to HBO that the letter from the Minister was enclosed for his information. At the next MPS the Minister asked the owner whether anyone visited him and he answered no one. This had to do with the people in the flat across the neighbour who would have spotted them during their visit. Such instances seemed to indicate HDB has washed their hands of HBO.
h) The bcc from HBO to Chairman indicated they were at the flat across the neighbour. Separately, the Chairman arranged to meet the Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. During the meeting the owner mentioned in passing the noise heard that morning and, before they left, asked them to visit him without the knowledge of the officers. The owner inferred they were asked to visit and not as the Chairman said they were on their round.
i) Because of the noise from the neighbour and the people in the flat across the neighbour who watched out for the neighbour, the owner wrote to the Police and the President. The Commanding Officer of Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre was asked to investigate. In his reply to the owner, he did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour. He stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence that referred to the neighbour only.
j) The people in the flat across the neighbour shifted in four days after the owner's first MPS. He knew the flat was used to stop the neighbour about four years earlier. From the behaviour of the officers and those connected to the flat, the owner deduced they abetted the neighbour. He noticed workers, noise from machine-tools, and work was through the day including at times late at the night and very early in the morning. Some of the noises were similar to those made when the flat was with the first owner. On several occasions they used noise to intimidate the owner.
3) It will be four years come Jun 11 since the noise began. It will be two years come Aug 11 since the owner published it in his blog. The neighbour persisted because of the people in the flat across the neighbour and their influence. The post Petition on Jan 11 was addressed to high officials with the result noise was reduced. For the last four weeks noise was lowered but the knock, ramble and sometime thump prevented the owner from taking nap and concentrating on his work. As long as the owner is set up, it will be as if the neighbour is given licence to carry on. Future owner of his flat will face the same problem.
4) There are two different things to Government: the Ministers who represent general will and legislative capacity, and the high officials who represent executive power. As noted elsewhere, three Ministers responded in their own way through the media. Also, the Minister for National Development requested the owner to acknowledge receipt when he replied he would ask HDB to look into it in an email to the owner on 1 Feb 10. But HDB has been consistent in not responding precisely because they understood the problem. Would the Minister open an inquiry since the Ministry of National Development is the parent of HDB?
