3. Officers

1. Unable to contact Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office through the phone, the owner called HDB Headquarters for the numbers to the Branch Office but was still unable to get through. The owner could only contact OIC (Officer-in-Charge) who had given his number when he and a man visited the owner after the owner's first letter. The events that followed their visit also raised the owner's suspicion such as when the man did not want to identify himself when asked. So when OIC said the Branch Office did not receive his second letter, the owner went over to the Branch Office to hand over a draft of the second letter and asked for an acknowledgment. The clerk signed the letter and photocopied it for the acknowledgment but the photocopy showed two lines missing from the letter. The two lines referred to the OIC's visit--rumbling noise for three to four hours just after his visit and quiet period of two weeks after the first letter before his visit. The photocopy was reduced in size presumably to provide space for the clerk's signature. A copy of the acknowledgment and its original was sent to Mr Teo Chee Hean when noise worsen after the owner had seen two other MPs.
 
2. At the Branch Office the owner insisted on meeting HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) or an appointment with him, and he gave a meeting on the same day with OIC in the room. He told the owner there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat and the owner could not establish a link between the first owner and the neighbour. To make the statement he would have to be aware of the owner's first letter that referred to similar noises and an eviction when the flat was with the first owner. The owner left the meeting without resolving the problem.
 
3. A few days later OIC and a fellow officer visited him. OIC said he had been around his flat for 15 minutes and there was no noise, and the officer with him was his witness. As they conversed, the owner asked him for the name of the neighbour then the date the flat was transferred. OIC would not gave the name of the neighbour but gave the date of transfer from his fact sheet. The date confirmed what the owner had suspected. The transfer from the first owner to the neighbour was to their own people immediately after the eviction. The owner had seen the neighbour before the eviction and thought he owned the flat, but he did not before the transfer nine years ago in '99. The transfer was not a recent event as HBO wanted the owner to believe in Item 2.
 
4. The owner wrote two letters to the first MP whom HBO had referred to the owner after his first MPS (Meet-the-People Session) in which no MP was in. The two letters stated an eviction at the neighbour's flat, noise from a maid working in the flat, a force-entry at the flat, and two instances of noise to warn the owner. Also during the meeting with the first MP, the MP said the owner's letters would be attached to his letter to HDB. This was followed by a reply from HBO. He wrote that the owner claimed "noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner" and "neighbour had sublet the flat to unknown owner", which caused the owner to wonder when he said it. He continued there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop and, if noise persisted, the owner may obtain a court injunction, called the Police, seek assistance from Residents' Committee or Community Mediation Centre. The owner went to see the area's MP next but, before HBO replied, HBO sent OIC and a fellow officer to check for noise in the owner's flat and he visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the Chairman (Residents' Committee). The visit was followed by a visit to the owner by the Chairman and Treasurer the same morning.
 
5. Having done that, HBO replied to the owner with copy to area's MP and blind copy to the Chairman. The blind copy was sent to the owner when he went to see Mr Teo Chee Hean at the next MPS. The blind copy stated that during their house visit no noise was detected and asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner. It included the date of the visit and the arrangement for the Chairman and Treasurer to visit the owner.
 
6. The blind copy tells the owner not only HBO was at the-flat-across-the-neighbour the same morning the Chairman and Treasurer visited him but also the incessant knocking of increasing intensity was deliberate some time before their visit. HBO could have seen the owner at his study room from the-flat-across-the-neighbour and communicated with the neighbour in making the noise. He was rebuffed when the owner refused to allow OIC and a fellow officer check for noise in his flat (Item 4) and this was payback.
 
7. During the Chairman and Treasurer's visit the owner mentioned the noise, his refusal to let the OIC and a fellow officer into his flat, and he would be writing to Mr Teo. Before they left, the owner said if they could come without the neighbour knowing about it they may hear the noise. The Chairman replied he would visit in a month time but he did not.
 
8. In the blind copy, the house visit was a visit to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They moved in shortly after the owner's first MPS in Feb 08. In Nov 08, there was a substitution and the owner began to see the same man many times since. They, rather than he alone, ensure that the noise level do not alert passersby and watch the owner. If at first time the owner thought the force-entry at the neighbour's flat was to his advantage, he had to think otherwise when they stayed to protect the neighbour. His confirmations were a CC member (Community Centre member) at MPS who had contact with them, Town Council's letter that he would hear from HDB soon but no officer came because of them and, when the owner wrote about them to the President and Singapore Police Force in Feb 10, NPC (Neighbourhood Police Centre) replied there was no evidence of a problem without any reference to them.
 
9. The man in the-flat-across-the-neighbour and the neighbour seemed to be telling the owner there was not much he could do. The owner noticed noise was used to signal and to threaten, no noise when there was visitor to his flat and, at times, the man or the neighbour would appear before him to indicate something or other. There was a two-week period in which there was very little noise when the neighbour turned cautious because the-flat-across-the-neighbour was unoccupied. Also the recording device, which the owner thought was in the-flat-across-the-neighbour, was the only item that HBO and estates officers had made their reply among all other items in the owner's letters to MP and in his blog. To the owner it was a giveaway in that they stated there was no recording device without any mention of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They could have stated the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour had nothing to do with his problem instead of no recording device without the context. It would have been a more definitive reply.
 
10. The owner could not prove break-in at his flat but insiders probably knew about it and took preventive action. The break-in would have been a complex operation requiring preparation and expert knowledge. Preparation in term of manpower to monitor the routine of the owner and the surrounding area. They would also need many watchers to cover the lifts, corridors and staircases while they were at it because occupants of two floors shared the lifts in front of the owner's flat. Expert knowledge in lock because they had to pick two locks, the iron gate and the wooden door, and reversed the process in three hours before the owner came back. On that day the owner came back in an hour and found the door lock jammed.
 
11. Some time after HBO's first letter to state that the owner may engage his solictors, a message on perceived injustice with a return address was broadcasted over TV. As the owner was not paying attention at the time, he called and wrote to the company but they did not gave him the address. He then talked to a friend about checking out discussion groups and found HBO's posting on car-parking at CNA Forums (Channel NewsAsia Forums). The posting was out of place and was removed after the owner mentioned it to two volunteers from civicadvocator.net who visited him. Mediacorp owned both TV and CNA and it would seem HBO have influence there. HBO knew the owner was trying to reach out to the public and wanted him to know they were ready.
 
12. The owner asked the MPs to bypass HBO, but HBO always replied to their letters they wrote on behalf of the owner. So it was that when he asked Mr Teo to bypass HBO, Mr Teo wrote to the Town Council instead. The reply from Town Council stated HDB was already looking into the matter and the owner would hear from them soon (Item 8). A copy was sent to HBO with a note that the letter from Mr Teo was enclosed for his information. It was clear HBO was not to reply and he did not. But to the letter that Mr Teo wrote to HDB during the next MPS, HBO replied to the owner with a copy to Mr Teo. As to officers who were to visit soon, no one came. The owner thought it was right of them not to come if they could not resolve the problem, besides they would have been seen by the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
13. At the last MPS the area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day. The owner presumed he had been asked to pass a message to HBO. Before the meeting with the area's MP, the CC member (Item 8) indicated the owner was seeing the area's MP too many times and he could expect noise after 10.00 am.
 
14. It was obvious HBO knew of the problem from the owner's first letter to him. He was not a passive observer but had extensive contacts and backing of high officials in his collaboration with the neighbour.
 
15. When the owner wrote directly to HDB and PSC (Public Service Commission) after he began blogging in Aug 09, he received automatic email reply. No investigation was conducted even as the problem continued over many years. The post Authority (16) was emailed to PSC on Dec 10.
 
16. Who would you base your argument? The neighbour and officers or the owner. The neighbour has a family and workers under them and the officers have their dependents while the owner is a retiree. It is rational for a maximiser to choose the former since it would affect more people although at the expense of the owner. But regulation would prevent the neighbour and workers from working in the flat and allow the officers to conduct themselves better. The owner would not have to put up with the noise, only there would be less profit for the neighbour and no exchanging of favours with the officers. It is a higher good. Whether it was the greater number of people affected or other preferences, high officials chose the former. It was not that high officials did not know of the problem, but they kept silent. It is doubtful they would have made the same decision as an individual or in a committee. Should we be concerned? Do we want a government where a signal from the top let the whole system to disengage from a problem? 

 
Note: Comment is allows at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller. Comment is not allows here because I am one person and not up to the task. (Except for a few initial comments, the site was closed down sometime later.)

2. Short Version

1. The owner suspects collaboration between officers and the neighbour when the neighbour signalled with loud noises they were restarting work in '07. The neighbour could not have been unprepared since they were stopped by an insider four years earlier. But despite the many events detailed by the owner, which included insiders, the problem is no closer to being resolved. The owner had been muzzled. How did the officers do it? 
 
2. The officers and neighbour's position seem to be that if the owner could not prove his case by the court of law, then he has no real evidence. With backing of high officials, the officers are not going to refer to the events as described by the owner. HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) had just to give the same replies to all letters written by MPs on the owner's behalf by referring him to other government agencies and his solicitors even after he asked that their letters bypassed HBO. Later the owner wrote to President and Ministers but, except for some public pronouncements that indirectly referred to the case, it would seem they were having trouble with the system itself.
 
3. Why are the officers protecting the neighbour? Because there are evidence to prove wrongdoing ten years ago in '99. The owner described events leading to an eviction of an occupier, a transfer of the flat to the neighbour afterwards, and an insider who stopped the neighbour in Item 1. HBO never mentioned any of these in his replies and his behaviour showed intent at covering up.
 
4. How did the officers carry it off? They could call upon a network of contacts in and out of government. When the owner went to government agencies and to companies with connection to the government, he noticed that there were people making things difficult for him. At its worst, they stationed people in the-flat-across-the-neighbour to watch the owner and to protect the neighbour. At first the-flat-across-the-neighbour was used in a forced-entry into the neighbour's flat, in which they could have stopped the neighbour, then later, in a possible break-in at the owner's flat to search for document. They monitored noise level and workers at the neighbour's flat while keeping an eye on the owner. Moving in shortly after the owner's first MPS (Meet-the-People Session), they stayed through the whole affair to protect the neighbour from insiders.
 
5. What evidence does the owner has about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour?

a) HBO was at the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the Chairman (Residents' Committee) as indicated by the bcc he sent to him.
 
b) A CC member (Community Centre member), who the owner spoke to on three separate occasions, showed that he was in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
c) Town Council's letter that officers from HDB would come to see the owner soon, but no one came. In this instance the owner asked Mr Teo Chee Hean to bypass HBO, and he wrote to the Town Council instead. Town Council then transmitted to HDB and replied to the owner with cc to HBO. The cc stated Mr Teo's letter was attached for his information to mean no action was needed on his part. As to officers who did not come to see the owner, they knew about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
d) The Commanding Officer of Neighbourhood Police Centre in a reply to the owner's letters to the President and SPF (Singapore Police Force) stated they found no evidence of alleged noise and no criminal offence. Nowhere in his letter did he refer to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They were the reason the owner wrote to the President and SPF in the first place.

6. What evidence does the owner has about the neighbour?

a) A few days after the forced-entry the neighbour approached the owner to ask for a compromise. Previously when the owner called on him, he asked the owner to seek legal advice.
 
b) The maid was not registered at the neighbour's flat. They substituted the maid for the workers once they knew the owner was watching. Insider removed the maid a number of months after the owner wrote to HBO. The owner took note of it because a poster showing a maid working at a coffeeshop appeared at the noticeboard downstairs at the same time noise stopped and the maid was not seen.
 
c) The neighbour did not need the flat to live in as they intended to sell the flat some time before they restarted work. A real estates agent's flyer gave a good description of the flat including its floor area.
 
d) The first owner of the flat also intended to sell the flat when he placed a classified advertisement. He did not live in the flat and the neighbour and his wife were seen before the occupier's eviction. It showed the first owner and the neighbour knew one another, they were in the same line of work, and the transfer of the flat just after the eviction was facilitated by officers.
 
e) The neighbour used noise to threaten and signal the owner after meetings with MP and postings in his blog. He indicated many instances where the neighbour were kept informed by the officers. The neighbour would not have risked repossession of their flat if not for the officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watching out for them.

7. The objective of the first owner and the neighbour was the use of their flat for profit. Leaving aside the officers and their contacts for a moment, how difficult would it have been for HDB to check them out? Does the owner need lawyer and private investigator to resolve the problem? Could he afford it? In the case he would have to bring a suit against the government, is it not?
 
8. The authorities knew there was wrongdoing by the officers but did not remove them. Left to themselves the officers maintained there was no excessive noise and let the neighbour continued with their works. The owner was forced into writing this blog to get his message across and to persist over many years since the officers and their contacts have the media covered as well. No one mentioned the case directly. The authorities have set a bad example to the public.

1. Report

Call to HDB
 
A Pervasive Case
 
Summary
 
The owner complained about noise from an upper floor neighbour. He thinks the noise is a continuation of the same line of works starting from the first owner. The first owner had transferred the flat to the neighbour shortly after an eviction of an occupier.
 
The owner wrote and met HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office), but there was no written reply and a meeting with him was unsatisfactory. However, he appreciated the assistance given at Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).
 
He hopes to present his case to the public.
 
Content
 
1.Introduction
2.Background
3.Findings
4.Conclusions
5.Recommendations
 
Introduction
 
The owner posted "'Strange' business going around at HDB flat?" at civicadvocator.net on 11 May 09. A call was made from the site for someone to help the owner with a report. Later, two volunteers from the site interviewed the owner and collected a set of correspondence. These were letters to HDB, MPs and others and replies from some of them.
 
This report is prepared by the owner in third person.
 
Background
 
2.1 The owner first noticed noise and object bouncing from the ceiling but did not mind too much. At the time he saw the neighbour and his wife who now owned the flat, a young women whom the owner saw recently on Chinese New Year '08, and a couple who lived in the flat for many years before they were evicted.
 
2.2 The owner's mother, however, saw the first owner of the flat on three occasions. Two times before the eviction when he spoke to her and one time after when he did not. She saw him after the eviction with two young girls.
 
2.3 The owner wrote several letters to the Branch Office when noise became unbearable from Dec 98 to Mar 99. Noises were low level knocking throughout the day, a few heavy thumps and some loud knocks. Some of the noises were at night. He was relieved of his ordeal when his letter to HBO at the time led to an eviction. To two previous letters that the owner wrote, an estates officer replied there was no excessive noise. The estates officer said she knew something but was not saying when she and a technical officer visited the owner. It was the technical officer who visited the owner later to inform him of the eviction. He also wanted to know what the owner did that led to the eviction. After the eviction, the owner wrote a letter of appreciation to the HDB Feedback Unit.
 
2.4 Returning to his flat one evening after the eviction, the owner saw the neighbour with a contractor. The contractor was saying HDB officer pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat before the neighbour could stop him. The owner knew he referred to an area near the balcony where he heard loud hacking noise before. The contractor later carried out repair at the balcony. Cement chips were seen left alongside the wall. There was no major renovation to indicate a transfer of ownership. Years later when HBO mentioned a transfer he deduced that a compulsory inspection, which was required before handover of the flat, had taken place then. The date OIC (Officer-in-Charge) gave from his fact sheet for the transfer of ownership was just after the eviction.
 
2.5 Noise continued and the owner was compelled to check out the neighbour when it got worse. At the least, he should know who were the occupants at the top floor which included the neighbour. He could keep watch since the occupants at the top floor used the lifts at his floor. One evening a young women turned around and scolded him for staring. He apologised, explained, and she gave him the full name of a person living in the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The person had greeted him once and he lived there for a short time. When he left, noise from the neighbour stopped for four years. The neighbour restarted in Jun 07, which is the current complaint.
 
2.6 Loud noises for a number of days signalled they were restarting works. Having gone through it before, the owner decided to watch more thoroughly this time. Since he had a view of the lift lobby from his flat, he left the door of his flat opened from 6 am to 9 pm two days a week for a month. He saw that the neighbour began giving an appearance of a family living in the flat. Constant observation gave them away. The couple did not live in the flat. The noise caused by the maid was substituted for the noise that went on before. Before the owner kept watch, two uniformed men and a matron indicated commercial interest. It became clearer when the owner discovered that the maid may not have been registered to work in the flat and, from a real estates agent's flyer, the flat could have been put up for sale a year earlier in '06.
 
2.7 The owner went up to the neighbour's flat twice. A woman, who could be a sister of the wife, said the noise was caused by the maid moving furniture. Later, the neighbour denied there was any noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice.
 
2.8 After watching them over a month (Item 2.6), the owner wrote to HBO. Noise stopped for two weeks before OIC and another man visited him. When the owner said he and the neighbour had lived there since the building's completion, OIC checked his fact sheet but said nothing. They went upstair to talk to the neighbour next. Two days later rumbling noise was heard for three to four hours followed by a call from OIC over the phone to check. For nearly two years OIC phoned and visited the owner on his own accord. The owner could point to many instances of their behaviour (his and other officers') that indicated an arrangement between officers and the neighbour.
 
2.9 Six months later the owner wrote a second letter to HBO and called the Branch Office to check. OIC was the only person he could contact, and he said they did not receive his letter. The owner then handed a draft of the letter, asked for an acknowledgment and insisted on an appointment with HBO. He met the owner the same day with OIC in the meeting room, which meant that the owner would probably not make his complaint against OIC. HBO asked the owner whether he knew of a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat, and said the owner could not establish a link between the first owner and the neighbour. He would have read the owner's two letters and knew the transfer was just after the eviction for him to made the statements to throw the owner off. And he probably knew that the acknowledgment, which was a photocopied copy of the owner's draft that the clerk had signed, showed two lines missing from the owner's draft. The two lines referred to no noise before OIC's visit and noise just after OIC's visit. The owner left the meeting as he did not think the problem could be resolved there.
 
2.10 The second letter to HBO was some time after the owner noticed noise from the neighbour stopped for a few weeks, a poster of a maid was placed on the noticeboard downstairs, and the maid was no longer seen. The poster showed a maid at a coffeeshop saying she could not work there, and she could only do housework at the address stated in her work permit. The owner noted if the maid was with the neighbour and she was not registered to work in the neighbour's flat, then the neighbour did not live there.
 
2.11 There was no MP at the owner's first MPS, and he left his letter with the interviewer. Four days later, the owner saw people shifting into the-flat-across-the-neighbour. A week later, HBO replied to the owner that a MP had asked HDB to look into the matter. Three weeks later, on the morning of 18 Mar 08 at 10.00 am, rumbling noise stopped suddenly, two sharp knocks and a thump followed, and the rest of the day was quiet. The owner thinks it was a forced-entry into the neighbour's flat.
 
2.12 Following the first MPS, the owner wrote two letters to the MP. The first listed the complaint but did not include the break-in at the owner's flat since he only suspected it. The second letter was on noise directed at him for what he wrote in the first letter to the MP. The MP said he would make a request for the neighbour to lower the noise and would send the owner's two letters as attachment in his letter to HDB. The reply came from HBO that there was no evidence the neighbour was using their flat as a workshop and, if noise persisted, the owner may obtain a court injunction or he may seek assistance from Residents' Committee, Community Mediation Centre and Police. This was in Sep 08, the first of many such replies from HBO for the owner to obtain a court injunction. 
 
2.13 The owner next went to see the area's MP because he wanted the problem brought directly to HDB. Noise was heightened, OIC and a fellow officer wanted to check for noise inside the owner's flat, and HBO met the Chairman (Residents' Committee) in the-flat-across-the-neighbour when the owner refused to allow OIC and the fellow officer inside his flat. Before a month was out, HBO replied to the owner he was glad the Chairman had approached and assisted him with copy to the area's MP. Thus the owner was unable to bring his problem directly to HDB through the area's MP nor subsequently through other means.
 
2.14 After the meeting between HBO and the Chairman at the-flat-across-the-neighbour, the arrangement was for the Chairman and Treasurer to visit the owner the same morning. The owner invited them in for a discussion. Among other things he told them there was noise before they came and, if they could come without the knowledge of the neighbour, they may hear the noise.  
 
2.15 When HBO replied to the owner and cc to the area's MP in Item 2.13, he also bcc to the Chairman. The letter was sent to the owner again, this time with the bcc attached, on the day the owner went to see the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service at the next MPS. The bcc reinforced what he observed concerning the forced-entry, break-in and behaviour of officers. In the bcc HBO asked the Chairman to explain "good neighbourliness" to the owner and their "house visit" would be the-flat-across-the-neighbour of Item 2.5 and 2.11.
 
2.16 Sometime after HBO's reply in Sep 08 (Item 2.12) and before the owner received the bcc in Nov 08, a message with a return address was broadcast on TV one night. The voiceover stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice. Because the owner had not taken note of the address when it was flashed, he called and wrote to the company but they did not help. 
 
Findings
 
3.1 Forced-entry at the neighbour's flat on 18 Mar 08:

a) At 10.00 am rumbling noise stopped suddenly followed by two sharp knocks and a thump. The rest of the day was quiet. Usually noise was through many hours in the morning and afternoon. 

b) In the evening of same day, the owner met an old friend whom he was not in contact for many years. It was not a coincidence. A year later he called over the phone just after the owner sent an email to PM to say he was coming to meet him. He was to meet the owner many more times, the last time was in Sep 11 when the owner emailed the president.

   
c) Two neighbours smiled knowingly at the owner after the event.
 
d) The neighbour approached the owner a few days later to ask that he compromised. He would only gave his nickname when the owner asked for his full name.
 
e) The owner's sister called to say HDB could repair the leak in his bedroom. The leak was in Jun 00, which the owner had already resolved.
     
3.2 Possible break-in at the owner's flat on 21 Jun 08:

a) The owner left the door of his flat opened to signal to the neighbour. He wanted to let the neighbour know he knew a different person was working in the flat from the different noises that was heard. The neighbour's wife responded by coming down with her shoes knocking loudly against the stairs. The owner began writing a letter to MP at his study room. From where he was, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour could see him as there was line of sight. They were there to keep the situation under control.
  
b) The owner went out on two consecutive days in the morning and came back in the afternoon. He went to top-up his CPF on the second consecutive day, which was a Saturday. The evening of the Saturday when he returned from an hour walk, he found the door lock jammed. If someone were to plan a break-in, they would have noticed the owner go out in the evening for about three hours each day and it was not his routine to go out in the morning.
 
c) The neighbour who lived across the owner usually went out with his family and came back at night on a Saturday. When he came back he noticed the owner had left his bag of grocery outside his door, and he came out to enquire when the owner called a locksmith and the neighbourhood police.
 
3.3 Why would they break into the owner's flat? The officers and their contacts knew the owner has a case against them therefore they would do anything to stop him. They also knew insiders assisted the owner. For examples the person who lived in the-flat-across-the-neighbour for a short time stopped the neighbour (Item 2.5), someone removed the maid that the owner referred in his first letter to HBO when no action was taken (Item 2.10), someone broadcast over TV a message on perceived injustice with a return address (Item 2.16), and someone sent the bcc between HBO and the Chairman to the owner just as he was about to meet Mr Teo Chee Hean (Item 2.15). The last two items were after the break-in. They went on an offensive to protect themselves and the neighbour. 
 
3.4 In five letters that MPs wrote on behalf of the owner, HBO replied that the owner may obtain a court injunction against the neighbour or he may seek assistance from other government agencies. He meant that the problem was not under the purview of HDB when he clearly did not want to address the issue. The owner therefore asked the MPs to bypass HBO. In one such instance Mr Teo Chee Hean wrote to TC (Town Council), and TC replied to the owner and cc to HBO with a note. The note stated that the letter from Mr Teo to TC was attached for his information to mean no action was required of him while the letter to the owner stated he would hear from HDB soon. At the next meeting Mr Teo asked the owner whether anyone visited him. No one did. After the meeting in which Mr Teo wrote to HDB, HBO replied to the owner and cc to Mr Teo. It would seem HBO could not be bypassed. If the higher authority was not answerable, the case could be suspended indefinitely.
 
3.5 In the bcc from HBO to Chairman, HBO wrote "During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected." Let assume the house visit could be outside the owner's flat, outside or inside the neighbour's flat or inside the-flat-across-the-neighbour. What would be the likelihood of each when the sentence ended with "there is no noise nuisance being detected."? The last possibility could mean there was a noise recording device in the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
3.6 The owner suspected the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was with the neighbour. In his letter to the first MP, he noted many start-and-stop attempts after the forced-entry. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour would want the noise down to a tolerable level. The owner thought in order to do so they may have a noise recording device inside the flat. He had seen recording device placed at construction site to monitor vibration in the ground although it would have to be for noise.
 
3.7 Although HBO wrote no noise was detected during their house visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the Chairman and Treasurer called on the owner. The date of the house visit was stated in the bcc. After their visit to the owner, it was quiet for two days before noise started again. Thinking back, the incessant knocking was payback from HBO to the owner for having refused OIC and a fellow officer when they wanted to check for noise inside the owner's flat in Item 2.13.
 
3.8 The owner has reasons to be suspicious. OIC phoned and visited him many times on his own accord. HBO had OIC in the meeting when the owner insisted on a meeting with HBO. HBO intended for OIC and a fellow officer to check for noise inside the owner's flat before his reply to the owner with copy to the area's MP but set up a meeting with the Chairman at the-flat-across-the-neighbour when the owner refused OIC and a fellow officer entry into his flat. Of the neighbour, the owner spoke to him several times and he saw uniformed man, matron, maid, workers and delivery of food. They used noise to intimidate and they lowered noise for a day or two after a complaint to appease. They do not stop because they colluded with officers and their motive is profit.
 
3.9 The owner thinks the items they work on are small and could be placed in a bag. The heavy thump and rumbling noise are from machine-tools. Other noises heard are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Water is use in their work from noises heard from drainpipes. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is caused by a narrowed pipe due to deposits accumulated over the years.
 
3.10 Workers take shift. They work through the day and night. Light knocking early in the morning to final drain late at night. The continuous noise for many hours are mostly in the morning and afternoon. 
 
3.11 Noise was reduced for a time after the last meeting with the area's MP. Before meeting the area's MP, a Community Centre member indicated to the owner he had been seeing the area's MP too many times and said "ten" to the owner with a move of his hand to mean the owner could expect noise after 10.00 am. At the meeting, the area's MP told the owner he would meet HBO the next day presumably because he had a message for HBO. The owner still hears muffled thump, heavy sound, knocking and draining consistent with their works.
 
3.12 HBO put up a post, which the owner found odd, on car-parking at Channel NewsAsia Forum. It did not match the layout of the page. It was removed when the owner mentioned it to two volunteers from civicadvocator.net when they visited him. The owner also enquired at Mediacorp for the return address of the message broadcast on TV, but they did not help. Together with other instances, it showed HBO and a network of contacts were out to prevent the owner from going public.    
 
Conclusions
 
4.1 Two lines were missing from the photocopy of the owner's handwritten draft when he asked for an acknowledgment at the Branch Office. The two lines referred to noise two days after OIC's visit and no noise for two weeks before the OIC's visit. If the owner had not made a copy before going to the Branch Office, he would not have the evidence. He had called the Branch Office earlier, but OIC said the office did not receive his letter. This was his second letter to HBO, both of which he did not reply. His behaviour, including a meeting the owner had insisted (Item 2.9), showed intent at cover-up.
 
4.2 The bcc from HBO to Chairman indicated their visit to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour moved into the flat four days after the owner's first MPS and, four weeks later, the owner heard the forced-entry into the neighbour's flat (Item 2.11). In the evening on the same day of the forced-entry he met an old friend who was an intermediary whom he would be seeing many more times. The bcc, which was sent to the owner, and the meeting with his old friend showed that insiders knew what was going on.
 
4.3 The maid was not registered to work in the neighbour's flat. She was stopped by insider a number of months after the owner's complaint in the first letter to HBO. The owner noticed noise stopped at the same time a poster showing a maid at a coffeeshop was put up at the noticeboard downstairs and the maid was no longer seen except for one day on Chinese New Year. The maid was a substitute for the noise made by workers once the owner began watching. The neighbour did not live in the flat, but used it as a workplace. Other indications were a real estates agent's flyer showing the flat had been put up for sale a year earlier and the preceding four years was quiet after a warning by insider (Item 2.5).
 
4.4 The owner knows the neighbour carry on a trade by the types and duration of noise. He complained about the same group of people in Dec 98 and they restarted work from Jun 07 only because officers gave the go ahead. The officers facilitated the transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour to continue with a line of work just after the eviction in Mar 99. The owner has no doubt they were in it together because he recognised the neighbour and his wife before and after the eviction and the owner's mother saw the first owner before and after the eviction.
 
4.5 Observations made by the owner should be checked for accuracy. For examples he mentioned an insider stopped the neighbour after the transfer, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protected the neighbour, a forced-entry into the neighbour's flat, a break-in at the owner's flat, the behaviour of officers, a message on perceived injustice broadcast on TV, a noisy drainpipe caused by the neighbour's work and many others.
 
4.6 He also mentioned a noise recording device in the-flat-across-the-neighbour although HBO and estates officers stated in their letters there was no such devices. Their replies were, however, not in context because they could not bring up the issue of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The owner thought there may be a recorder because he heard start-and-stop attempts by the neighbour and was puzzled. Such noise recording device exists and could be used to prevent the neighbour and others from making use of their flats for their works. The people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour did the right thing with the forced-entry (Item 4.2), but not when they turned against the owner and stayed to protect the neighbour from insiders.
 
4.7 The owner asked MPs to bypass HBO because he replied to all their letters. In one such request Mr Teo Chee Hean, who is also the Minister-in-Charge of the Civil Service, wrote to the Town Council. Town Council made an effort, and in the next MPS the Minister asked the owner whether someone came to see him. No one did. After the meeting, HBO replied to the owner and copied to the Minister the same way he did previously. He could not be bypassed (Item 3.4). During the owner's last MPS, the area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day and the owner noticed noise was reduced for a time. The owner presumes the area's MP was asked to carry a message for HBO because he is the problem (Item 3.11). 
 
4.8 MPs, CC members, insiders and others, including the press, knew. The owner was forced to make his complaint in the social media. He is his best advocacy.
 
4.9 In short the neighbour does not stop because their work brings them profit and their relationship with the officers protects them. As long as the press does not bring it up, high officials could ignore it. Centralised control allows high officials to protect their interests and prevent the authorities from taking action against the wrongdoing.
 
Recommendations
 
5.1 An investigation should be made of the first owner and the neighbour and appropriate action taken. Disciplinary action should be taken to the officers. The officers' removal is essential because they and their contacts enable the neighbour to continue. Knowing that the authorities would enforce, the neighbour and others like them would stop. 
 
5.2 A separate inquiry of the administration is required. It would make clear the connection between high officials and the officers. It was basically wrong for HDB to let HBO, whom the owner complained against, replied to all letters from MPs. And it was criminal behaviour to allow the collaboration between the officers and neighbour to force the owner into selling his flat. The government needs to put in place some mechanism.
 
5.3 The posting at civicadvocator.net dated 11 May 09 (Help [69]) may be related to a news report in the Business Times dated 22 May 09. The report stated "Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government is on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments." and "the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments."