6. Prospect

1. Could the owner look towards a solution in an article of the Business Times dated 22 May 09? Quote: "the government is on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments" and "Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said in the Prime Minister's Office's addendum to the President's address that the government would strive to boost the quality of the public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments." Could this have followed the owner's posting at civicadvocator.net on 11 May 09? The posting is at Help (69).
 
2. How is it relevant? After the owner made his request to bypass HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office), Mr. Teo Chee Hean wrote to Town Council. They in turn transmitted to HDB and informed the owner he would hear from HDB soon. But there was no visit or reply to the owner. At the next MPS (Meet-the-People Session) when Mr Teo wrote to HDB, HBO replied to the owner with a copy to Mr. Teo. HBO had the upper hand and he continued to reply to all letters MPs wrote to HDB. When the owner decided it was going to be his last meeting at MPS, the area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day. The owner observed that noise was reduced for a time.
 
3. At the last MPS the area's MP asked the owner whether he considered selling his flat. It seemed to be the only way out. As long as the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stays to watch out for the neighbour, no one could stop them from working in their flat. 
 
4. Someone who knew the workings of the government re-sent a letter from HBO to the owner, but this time with a bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) attached. The bcc on their house visit is significant not only in the content but also their visit was in the-flat-across-the-neighbour. In the same way that someone broadcast a message over TV on perceived injustice with a return address after HBO replied to the owner to engage his solicitors, sending of the bcc was up against HBO whom they knew was up to no good.
 
5. The owner thinks personnel occupied the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They moved into the flat four days after the owner's first MPS and conducted a force-entry into the neighbour's flat not long after. No follow-up action followed the force-entry, only a lowering of noise to tolerable level. In their attempt to lower the noise, it led the owner to think there was a noise recording device in the flat. He thought vibration could be detected from the floor because machine-tools were used in the neighbour's flat and the personnel was still with him but was let down.
 
6. The owner knows the neighbour is kept informed by officers. The neighbour would make noises to let him know they knew of certain events. What is there be afraid of when they had a deal with the officers?
 
7. When the owner began blogging, an officer wrote "there was no noise during their numerous inspections with local Residents' Committee, and there was no eviction at the upper floor unit." Why did they not visit the owner during their numerous inspections with Residents' Committee members? And there was certainly an eviction. The owner saw the occupier moved out of the flat within a week of his complaint, an officer visited to inform him of the eviction, and he wrote a note of appreciation to HDB Feedback Unit. There were many such instances where officers replied with no regard to issue raised by the owner. 
 
8. Are the owner's observations valid?

a) Noise in the neighbour's flat is a continuation of a line of work from the first owner to the neighbour after the transfer of the flat.
b) The flat was transferred to the neighbour because of the eviction.
c) Four years after the transfer, the neighbour was stopped for four years by a man who came to live in the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
d) When they restarted work, the maid causing the noise was a cover and she was not registered to work at the neighbour's flat.
e) The-flat-across-the-neighbour was used for a force-entry into the neighbour's flat and a break-in at the owner's flat.
 
9. The problem is not of no consequence. It is in the public interest to examine the situation. 
 
10. The owner hopes to attract an audience. It is worthwhile even if he does not succeed in resolving the problem. 
 
Note: Comment is allows at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller (Except for a few initial comments, the site was closed down sometime later.)

5. Pervasive Case

1. The upper floor neighbour continues to use his flat to carry out works even after the owner complained to the authorities. He heard the noise and seen their workers. 
 
2. An earlier complaint led to an eviction of an occupier followed by a transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour. In fact the owner could be a witness to the transfer when he saw the neighbour with a contractor. He heard the contractor told the neighbour that HDB officer had pointed out an unauthorised alteration before the neighbour could stop him. It would seem there was an arrangement for a compulsory handover inspection of the flat between the contractor and HDB officer and the neighbour came later to check up. The owner was able to confirm the date of transfer as disclosed by OIC (Officer-in-Charge) to be just after the date of eviction. The owner recognised the neighbour from many years earlier before the occupier was evicted. The first owner, the neighbour and the occupier knew one another and were from the same line of work. 
 
3. The owner noticed the neighbour could have been given a warning four years after the occupier was evicted. An insider came to live in the-flat-across-the-neighbour when the owner was beginning to feel the effect of the noise. He left after a short time and noise stopped for the next four years until the current complaint. The owner thought the same thing was happening when he saw people moving into the-flat-across-the-neighbour within a week after the owner attended his first MPS (Meet-the-People Session). It was not to be. The period from the first complaint to the start of current complaint spanned about eight years. The current complaint from Jun 07 is now into the third year.
 
4. The owner is quite certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour's flat and a possible break-in at his flat after the people moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour. He blogged, but was somewhat surprised the authorities did not respond to it.
 
5. Insiders assisted the owner. The bcc from HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) that was sent to the owner was significant in a number of ways. First, the bcc was sent to him at the time he met Mr Teo Chee Hean at a MPS in which Mr Teo turned him away. He came across the bcc in his letterbox the next day. Second, the bcc in which HBO asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner could not have boded well for the owner. HBO set up a visit with the Chairman at the-flat-across-the-neighbour only because the owner had refused to let OIC and a fellow officer entered his flat to check for noise. Third, it confirmed the-flat-across-the-neighbour was used to monitor the neighbour and co-workers and these workers had previous encounter with HDB. Fourth, there could be a noise recording device in the-flat-across-the-neighbour because the owner heard start and stop attempts to lower the noise in the neighbour's flat to acceptable level. And fifth, it adds certainty the-flat-across-the-neighbour was used for a force-entry and a possible break-in into the neighbour's and owner's flat respectively.
 
6. A 15-seconds message on TV. It was some time between HBO's first letter in Sep 08 asking the owner to obtain a court injunction and referring him to other government agencies and the bcc the owner received in Nov 08. The voiceover stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice to an address shown on the screen. If there was only one broadcast, which was on the night the owner was watching, it would increase the probability the message was intended for him. The owner could be seen watching the broadcast from the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
7. The owner did not take note of the address that was broadcast, but he called and emailed the company for it. The woman who received his call did not give him the address after checking with her superior and there was no reply to his email. In another, HBO's posting on car-parking at CNA Forum (Channel NewsAsia Forum) was intended to let the owner know his effort at publicity would be in vain. The owner had mentioned checking out discussion groups to a friend on 26 Mar 09 and had said HBO's posting was out of place to two volunteers from civicadvocator.net when they visited on 18 May 09. HBO could have posted and withdrew his posting some time after the first and second date respectively.
 
8. During the month that the owner was watching the neighbour, the maid was an evidence the neighbour was starting up works again. The maid mentioned in the owner's first letter to HBO had aroused the suspicion of someone to check their record and stop the maid. Noise restarted in Jun 07, the owner's letter in Aug 07 was followed by officers' visit to the owner's and neighbour's flat, and the maid was stopped in Dec 07. Four months passed between the owner's letter and the stopping of the maid. She was not seen again except for one day during the Chinese New Year in Feb 08. It proved that she was not registered to work in the flat and was there as a cover for workers in the flat when the owner began watching. The officers who visited the neighbour neglected to check out the maid. It was more likely they collaborated with the neighbour from behaviour noted by the owner. 
 
9. There are many indications the neighbour does not live in the flat but uses it as a workplace. Noise from early morning to late at night indicates workers take shift. Noises are various from loud and heavy to muffled. Thump and rumbling noises are from machine-tools. Force-entry into their flat occurred at 10.00 am when rumbling noise stopped suddenly and the rest of the day was quiet. Later in the evening when the owner went out walking, an old friend whom the owner had not been in contact for a long time met him. The friend was an intermediary who would be meeting the owner many more times. Force-entry at the neighbour's flat, possible break-in at the owner's flat and stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour pointed to collusion between officers and the neighbour.
 
10. CC members (Community Centre members) at MPS knew about the affair. There was a CC member who was in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and there were other instances to do with him.
 
11. MPs did their best to assist. They wrote to HDB, Town Council, Police and HDB Branch Office. At the last MPS, the area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day. 
 
12. There is a larger issue. MPs had not been able to bypass HBO because he replied to all letters MPs sent to HDB. HDB has remained silent. The owner has to somehow get his message across by blogging.
 
Note: Comment is allows at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller (Except for a few initial comments, the site was closed down sometime later.)

4. Neighbour

1. The owner decided to watch the neighbour after loud noise for a number of days indicated they were restarting work in Jun 07. A similar problem happened at the neighbour's flat in Dec 98 when the owner complained and the occupier was evicted. 
 
2. The owner could see from the doorway of his flat occupants from his floor and the top floor using the lifts at the lift lobby. The neighbour's flat, directly above his, is on the top floor. A staircase alongside their flats leads to the lifts. He kept watch on random day for a total of eight days over a month.
 
3. The neighbour's family consisted the husband, wife, child and maid. A mother and sister, probably from the wife's side of the family, came to be with the maid and child on the second day that the owner was watching. They stayed for a few days. The owner saw that the mother was self-conscious coming down the staircase and while waiting at the lift lobby. She knew the owner was watching from the doorway. When noise was unbearable, he went upstair and the sister answered the door.
 
4. Noise continued with the maid in the flat. Initially the wife, who was pregnant, would come in the morning when she knew the owner was watching and the day was quiet. The husband was seen only on the first day, the evening before the last day of his watch and the last day. It would seem they were not living in the flat.
 
5. Each morning the maid brought the child to a kindergarden nearby, but when she returned the noise started. The matron, whom the owner had saw earlier before the watch, could have been her trainer. When the maid was no longer seen with the family four months after the owner's first letter to HDB Branch Office, he concluded in conjunction with other events the maid was not registered to work in the flat. If the maid was with the family, it was likely they lived at the place where the maid was registered. She was a substitute for the workers when the noise first started. They arranged for her to be in the flat to carry out their line of work and to bring the child to and back from kindergarden to give an appearance of family.
 
6. The neighbour's flat could have been put up for sale a year earlier in '06 before the noise started. A description in the real estates agent's flyer which included the floor area showed that it had to be the same type of flat as the owner's. If it check out, it showed the neighbour had no need of the flat. They used it as a workplace when the flat was not sold. As a workplace because workers were seen, noise was heard and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was there to protect them.
 
7. A quiet period of about four years before the noise restarted in Jun 07. A man who came to live in the-flat-across-the-neighbour for a short time had stopped the neighbour then. A woman gave the owner the man's full name. They were insiders because the owner had not make a complaint although he was beginning to feel the effect of the noise. The man greeted the owner once, and the woman, who scolded the owner for staring at her, gave the man's name after he explained he was watching the occupants from the top floor because of noise from the neighbour.
 
8. A force-entry into the neighbour's flat not long after people moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour. Noise stopped suddenly after the force-entry in the morning and remained quiet the rest of the day. In the evening an old friend whom the owner had not been in contact for a long time met him. He was an intermediary who was to meet the owner many more times. A few days later the neighbour approached the owner asking him to let him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. The owner had spoken to him before but he denied there was any noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice. On second thought, it was his concession to the owner when he asked that they compromised because he had officers to cover for him now.
 
9. The neighbour is part of a larger operation. Noise was heard from the time of the first owner, from the occupier who was evicted, and from the neighbour after the transfer of the flat to him. The owner was not aware of the transfer until HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Officer) mentioned it during a meeting. Having seen the neighbour and the occupier, the owner thought the neighbour owned the flat. He found out later only his mother saw and spoke to the first owner. When he realised there a transfer, he remembered the hacking noise from the occupier and the evening a contractor informed the neighbour that HDB officer had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat. So when OIC (Officer-in-Charge) visited him a few days later after the meeting with HBO, he asked him for the date of the transfer which was as expected just after the eviction of the occupier. It was nine years ago, not a recent transfer that HBO wanted the owner to believe when he asked the owner whether he knew about the transfer.
 
10. The evening that the contractor said HDB officer pointed out an unauthorised alteration would be the date of compulsory handover inspection before the transfer of the flat to the neighbour. It seemed the inspection was carried out with the contractor without the presence of the first owner and, when the neighbour came later, the contractor informed him. It showed a relationship between the first owner and the neighbour, and an arrangement with the officers for the transfer of the flat between them without a record of the eviction. Thus an officer wrote there was no eviction at the flat after the owner blogged, but the owner has no doubt there was one. He saw the occupier moved out after his complaint, an officer came to inform him of the eviction, and he wrote to HDB Feedback Unit a letter of appreciation. It was the eviction that led to the transfer. Seen for what it was, it is logical to assume a warning was given to the neighbour that led to the quiet period in Item 7.
 
11. Various persons were seen and similar types of noise were heard when they restarted works. Two men in neat dark blue uniform and a matron were seen. A couple with son and other workers were working in the flat and foods were delivered by delivery service. Having learned from years of experience, they know how to get away with it. Now, they have officers to cover for them.
 
12. Types of noise heard are rumble and heavy thump from machine-tools. Other noises are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining of water, sometimes up to an hour, is heard. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is caused by a narrowed pipe from deposits accumulated over the years.
 
13. Their works could be in jewellery and fashion accessory, which are small and easily conceal. They work continuously through the day and night with workers taking shift. Noises are generally less at night.
 
14. When the owner wrote to the first MP that pointed to the neighbour working in the flat, they made noise to let the owner know they knew of the letter. Noise was used to intimidate after he met the second MP, who is the area's MP. Noise may be reduced for a time to appease after a complaint, but they would be back to their usual.
 
15. Noise was reduced for a time after the area's MP said he was going to meet HBO the next day at the last Meet-the-People Session. Other times when noise was reduced were after the owner posted in his blog although at times it worsen. But noise continued with rumble, continual knock, muffled thug and draining in the day and some noise at night.
 
16. The owner has no doubt about his situation. Insiders have assisted him, his observations could be corroborated and questions need to be asked of the officers and neighbour.
 
Note: Comment is allows at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller (Except for a few initial comments, the site was closed down sometime later.)