1. Findings from an inquiry would solve a problem and provide a record. Insiders stopped the first owner in '98. The flat was then transferred to the neighbour who was stopped by insiders again. Now, officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevent insiders from helping the owner. It is not right there is no inquiry into the events of such nature.
2. The owner spoke to the neighbour several times:
a) The owner went upstairs to the neighbour's flat because of loud noise. A woman answered the door. When she said the husband was not in, the owner requested she informed the husband that the owner would like to meet him. One evening the neighbour approached the owner to ask where the noise was heard inside his flat so he could make adjustment. He asked the owner to compromise, but when the owner refused, he said their conversation never took place. This was much later because the owner remembered saying he could get his full name from HDB, and he replied the owner would not have asked him if he could. By then the owner had kept watch, knew who was in the neighbour's flat and why, wrote two times to HDB Branch Office, and had a meeting with Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO).
b) Another time the owner went to talk to the neighbour outside his flat. He denied there was noise coming from his flat and told the owner to get legal advice.
c) After the post Justice in Feb 11 the owner spoke to the neighbour in the lift on the way up. He said he did not understand what the owner was referring to and summed it up by giving the owner two options--either pursued it with HDB or engaged a lawyer.
3. The owner went to HDB Branch Office with a copy of his letter because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) confirmed his second letter was not received. After insisting on a meeting with HBO, the owner asked HBO for the name of the neighbour which he said he would allow it. During the exchange, HBO asked the owner whether he knew about a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat.
4. The first instance where HBO allowed the name OIC refused when he visited the owner two days later. He had the name in his fact sheet and the owner reminded him he was at the meeting in which HBO allowed it. The second instance was intended to throw the owner off. HBO knew from the owner's letters the owner saw a connection to the first owner in a complaint nine years ago. By saying the transfer was recent he hoped to distant any connection to the first owner.
5. To prove OIC gave the date of the transfer in '98 from his fact sheet, and the owner saw the neighbour (husband and wife) a number of times when the flat was with the first owner. Thereafter the next occupier was with the flat for many years until he was evicted after the complaint.
6. The people sent to persuade the owner were in thrall to HBO:
a) OIC would not have said the neighbour's wife was pregnant unless it was an appeal and, from the other instances when he called, the owner noted he knew what the neighbour was doing.
b) During a visit with OIC, an estates officer informed the owner their inspection of the neighbour's flat found no machine-tools.
c) Another visit with officer from Neighbourhood Police Centre, Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the estates officer, OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person at the flat across the neighbour.
d) Yet another visit with OIC, an estates officer from HDB Hub said if there was an internal inquiry would the owner be satisfied.
In contrast when Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council wrote that the owner would hear from HDB soon, the officer from HDB refrained. He did not want to appear to be helping when he knew he could not. It is to be noted the letter from the Town Council was written in conjunction with a letter from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service to by-pass HBO.
7. One could determine motive from event:
a) HBO arranged a house visit with Chairman of Residents Committee at the flat across the neighbour and asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner.
b) The Chairman visited the owner on that occasion during his term of office from Apr '07 to Mar '09. Two other times he spoke to the owner were at recyclables-for-food-program during his chairmanship for the second term from Apr '09 to Mar '11. During the visit in Oct '08 the Chairman he said he would visit the owner again a month later but did not. At the recyclables-for-food-program in Dec '09 the owner said other committee members could also visit him, the Chairman replied he would visit in the presence of officer. He is still the Chairman for the third term from Apr '11 to Mar '13 as seen from the name list on the notice board that replaced the name list of the first term just this month. (No name list for the second term was displayed.)
c) In the owner's opinion there was admission against interest by a Community Centre member (CC member) who had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The owner met and spoke to him three times, two times at Meet-the-People Session and one time outside his flat. The details are in this blog.
d) The behaviour of officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour showed they communicated with the neighbour to undermine the owner. Together with officers in other government departments, the owner was blocked from access to help and forced to leave his flat.
8. Noise was used to warn or let the owner know. When HBO visited the flat across the neighbour, the owner heard increasingly intense knocking. HBO would have seen the owner in his study room from the flat across the neighbour, the bcc he sent to the Chairman showed he was there at the time. After the owner emailed the PM, which was followed immediately by a phone call from an old friend, he heard knocks spaced apart at regular interval just before his friend visited. After the owner spoke to the CC member outside his flat, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour when he switched off the light and went to bed. Since the owner has kept up his complaint, there were instances of loud noise and noise through the night.
9. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prevents the neighbour from getting caught thereby allowing them to work. The owner observed that after a force-entry a deal was made with the neighbour so they could work the day long where an independent inspection at any one time would uncover workers, tools, and materials. Whoever staged it has the influence to carry it off and to justify the action and use of resource.
10. Officers could have demolished the owner's argument or forced him to stop. They did not because of insiders. MPs, Ministers, Police and President may have also supported. There are firm bases for looking into the officers, the neighbour, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
11. The owner continues to write because noise has not stop. Work is carry out through the day from noise heard in the morning, afternoon and night. Knowing that officers collaborate with the neighbour and local Residents Committee members are not playing their part, it is clear to the owner the neighbour would continue. If there is to be policy changes, it would have to be made effective here.
12. Someone may have helped on 28 Jun 11. This followed the post Behaviour on officers' intent to cover-up published a week earlier. Noise is down but work is day long. When this is passed, noise would be up again as has happened many times before.
13. On 13 May 11 after the General Election, Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said politicians were forced to admit they need to connect to people, and Public Service was forced to re-look at the way in which it formulated policies with respect to citizens.
14. On 18 May 11 PM announced his cabinet lineup. PM said it was a comprehensive reshuffle and Ministers would have a free hand to rethink and reshape policies.
