16. Authority

Email to Public Service Commission (PSC) dated 1 Nov 10:
 
Dear Mr, Mrs, Ms and Mdm,

A Request to Look into a Complaint Against Officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office

1. I attended eleven Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS): one, no MP was in session; one, I was turned away; one, with MP Charles Chong; two, with DPM Teo Chee Hean; five, with MP Ahmad Mohd Magad; one, with MP Christopher de Souza.
 
2. After my first MPS where no MP was in session, HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) wrote to inform me Mr Charles Chong had asked HDB to look into my feedback. He wrote his officers were unable to detect any undue noise from the neighbour. HBO would continue to reply in the same way to all the letters addressed to HDB from MPs.
 
3. Mr Teo turned me away because Community Centre member (CC member) told him about me. He made good when he met me at a session scheduled for Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad. At this session I noted the following: Mr Teo wrote to Pasir Ris Town Council when I requested that his letter bypassed HBO and, before meeting him, an interviewer introduced me to a CC member who lived at my block of flat. Town Council then replied I would hear from HDB soon but no officer came, and I gathered from the conversation between the interviewer and the CC member that the CC member had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour monitors the neighbour who works a trade in their flat.
 
4. I was at an impasse at the last MPS. The CC member, who interviewed me before the meeting with the MP, asked how many times I had seen the MP to mean it had been too many times and said 10.00 am with a move of his hand to indicate I could expect noise after that time. During the meeting, Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad said he would meet HBO the next day. I took it he had a message for HBO, and I noticed noise was reduced for a time afterwards.
 
5. In reply to an email referring to my blog, a member of Ulu Pandan Community Centre invited me to their MPS. There, I passed a stack of correspondence and some postings in my blog to Mr Christopher de Souza. MP Penny Low from Pasir Ris Town Council also wrote to HDB. HBO replied to me with copy to the two MPs that he had "exhausted all forms of assistance in your particular case."
 
6. HBO is the problem. The post Comment (14) shows he has extensive contacts, and the post Encounter (13) shows events that prevented me from seeking a solution. The post Record (8) shows the neighbour was stopped once before and asks what is different now.
 
7. Ministers are aware of the issue from statements made. DPM Teo Chee Hean said "the government is on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders" and "the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments."  In another he said "public officers will also be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than the ideological path". PM Lee Hsien Loong said "Singapore cannot 'afford a bump in the night', whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem". SM Goh Chok Tong said "many governments around the world face a trust deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on the government." On the same subject aired on TV, Mr Goh said complaint from citizen may be vexatious but urged to engage.
 
8. I may be wrong, but there are just too many happenings to be coincidental. One would be I have been forced to leave my flat.
 
9. I hope PSC look into the conduct of the officers. They have a relationship with the neighbour going back to '98. Other than insiders who had assisted, no one has directed attention to the problem.
 
10. My blogsite is at http://anaudienceof.blogspot2.com and http://complainproper.wordpress.com 
 
Regards,
hh
 
Observation Good Neighbour Awards are given out each year to showcase good examples. A bad example would be the neighbour who has officers on their side. The officers are acting against rules which are the opposite of community-building.
 
Much is known about the neighbour that People's Association could help persuade them by looking into the circumstances. Assuming the officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour are not the obstacles, HDB could enforce if required.
 
Noise was adjusted down after Question (15) last month, but the owner still hears noise for many hours each day. Work is through the day. Rumble and continual knock from machine-tools most of the time. Heavy thump, clear knock and dropping of object at other times. One day last week, the continual knock was intentional. It started at 3.00 am and became louder towards the morning. They were telling the owner what they could do. The day before, the owner saw the neighbour's wife and her two children as he was going out from his flat. Coming back two and a half hours later he saw her again on her way out. Such signalling to the owner happened before. The neighbour is assisted by the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who watches the owner.  
 
The owner has the problem with the neighbour for more than three years now, but the problem started with the first owner of the flat. After an eviction in '99 the flat was transferred to the neighbour to continue with the same line of work. Both times action were not taken to the officers who facilitated the transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour and who abetted the neighbour. If the nature of his complaint were untrue, the owner would have been put straight a long time ago.
 
PSC has replied to the owner's email above. They replied with "Re: [Spam]" inserted into the heading "A Request to Look into a Complaint Against Officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office". Below, the automated reply thanked the owner for his email and stated they would reply within 3 working days. There was, of course, no reply.
 
The owner's email was also sent to members of PSC, but not all its members have their email addresses listed. The owner hopes they could be informed so that all members of the commission would know of the problem.

15. Question

1. HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) should be held accountable for his action, yet he is not. When the problem started, he did not reply to the owner's two letters that was addressed to him by his name. He only replied to MPs' letter on behalf of the owner, and he replied without referring to any of the issue raised in letters the owner brought to the MPs at Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).  
 
2. There was no reply to the first letter but a senior estates officer did reply to the second letter a day after the owner attended his first MPS. It seemed the officer's reply was first line of defence and HBO's replies to MPs' letter the final line of defence. High officials did not get involve because they would have to get to the bottom of the problem. MPs could only bring up the problem but could not take it directly to the high officials. They are in separate branch of government--MPs having to do with legislature while high officials are administrators. In the case, MPs seemed to have lost out. Could MPs be allowed to be seen as ineffective?
 
3. HBO actively seek to mislead and cover up the problem. He misled the owner about a transfer of the neighbour's flat in a meeting, and he took no action to stop a maid mentioned in the first letter to him. He would probably have said he did not receive the owner's first letter so there was no written reply but for two officers who visited the owner and to whom the owner gave a draft of the letter. They said that of the second letter, and the owner went to the Branch Office to hand them a draft. HBO would have read the two letters for him to mislead the owner. The owner was to find out an eviction caused the transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour allowing them to continue in a line of work, and the maid who was not registered was stopped by insider many months later. He wrote to HDB and Ministry of Manpower about it respectively, but there was no reply.
 
4. A clear example of collusion is the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, they protect the neighbour and watch the owner. They moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour within a week of the owner's first MPS, and the owner was not surprised there was a force-entry at the neighbour's flat some time later. He was aware the neighbour was stopped by an insider four years earlier when he came to live in the-flat-across-the-neighbour for a short time. It was different this time, noise did not stop and noise was used to force the owner into selling his flat. Over the many years that the owner wrote and met with MPs and later blogged, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed. Since they are likely to be personnel, could the authorities justify their presence for over the two and a half years now?
 
5. In general officers wrote there was no excessive noise and referred the owner to Community Mediation Centre and HBO wrote that the owner may engage his solicitors to resolve his problem. In one HBO replied in the same way with copy to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service when the Minister wrote to HDB on behalf of the owner. Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) took the line same line when the Commanding Officer referred the owner to Community Mediation Centre after he wrote to the President and Singapore Police Force. No one more senior than the rank of HBO and Commanding Officer attended to the problem. MPs represent the people, unless they are tough with high officials, the officers below them will continue with the cover-up.
 
6. Events showing cover-up:
 
a) At a meeting that the owner had insisted, HBO refused to give the type of occupation the neighbour was in but allow his name to be given. However, OIC (Officer-in-Charge) would not give the neighbour's name a few days later when he visited the owner. He was at the meeting when HBO said he allowed it and he had the name in his fact sheet.
 
b) In the meeting HBO misled the owner by saying there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat when the transfer was nine years ago after an eviction.
 
c) When the owner handed over a draft of his second letter and asked for an acknowledgment, he received a photocopy of the draft with two lines missing. The lines referred to no noise before OIC's visit following the owner's first letter and noise after his visit when he phoned the owner to check.
 
d) After the complaint about the maid in the owner's first letters and the maid was stopped by insider many months later, the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower. There was no reply as to whether the maid was registered to work in the flat.
 
e) The owner asked the MPs to bypass HBO, it could not be done. HBO continued to reply to the MPs.
 
f) The owner wrote to MP that he knew of an eviction at the neighbour's flat and backed it up with dates and names from letters sent to the Branch Office and HDB at the time. However, a junior officer wrote no eviction was conducted at the neighbour's flat after the owner started blogging.
 
g) He wrote to the President and Singapore Police Force that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour collaborated with the neighbour, but the follow-up reply from NPC did not mention the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
h) He listed sequence of events and gave corroborating evidence to do with force-entry, break-in, the neighbour, officers and insiders. These were ignored.
 
i) He noted behaviour unbecoming of officers and action of a network of contacts.
 
j) He noted behaviour of the neighbour who was kept informed by officers.
 
k) He heard noises through the day and saw the workers. He saw the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who protected the neighbour. 
 
7. Noise was reduced after Comment (14) last month. Continual noise in the morning and afternoon. Noises were rumble, knock, thump, whine and drag. Some of the noises were clearly from machine-tools. Depending on the workers and the types of work they do, there were more or less noise.
 
8. There was a further reduction last week but for one day when noise worsen and noise was heard in the night. It was better with low rumbling and muffled noise, but irritating with knock, drag and distinct noises. Some quiet periods. If the past is any guide, they do not let up. They reduced noise to appease for a time.
 
9. Officers and first owner made a deal at the time of the eviction in '99. The eviction was carried out only because the occupier was an illegal occupant and the owner wrote that the occupant came pounding on his door. The first owner was then allowed to transfer the flat to the neighbour to continue with their works. The neighbour expected the same treatment in '07, which is the start of the current complaint, after having been stopped by an insider four years before. Officers would keep the neighbour informed whenever the owner complained while they write to the owner for him to be reasonable. On their part the neighbour would reduce noise for a time. Because the owner was able to show the previous and current complaint were connected, the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was to be the officers' solution. They could have stopped the neighbour after the force-entry but chose to protect them.
 
10. HBO has strong connection in the administration and is central to the problem. He prevents any action to stop the neighbour. Should not he be removed to resolve the problem?
 
11. In the Business Times of 22 May 09:
 
"Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government was on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders and people who could adapt to changing environments.
 
Mr Teo, who is also Defence Minister 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 public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.
 
These include overseas postings, cross-agency projects and attachments to non-government and community organisations. The Civil Service College, too, would enhance its leadership training programmes."
 
Item 4t in Discovery (9) is on a sequence of events that may have led to the pronouncement and Item 16 in Ethics (12) is on new official appointments. Are they in any way related? How pervasive is the problem? 
 
12. The Business Times of 7 Sep 10 reported Public Service Commission (PSC) "will now have 12 members. The body's aim is to be independent and neutral to safeguard integrity, impartiality and meritocracy in the civil service." Why has not PSC taken up the case?

14. Comment

1. Continuous noise, continual noise and some loud noise could be heard throughout the day. Different workers were seen besides the neighbour and his wife. The neighbour works a trade in their flat and uses the flat as in a business.
 
2. The people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour make sure noise is not noticeable to passersby, informs the neighbour should there be visitor to the owner's flat and prevents independent check to verify for noise. They are able to maintain status quo despite complaints from the owner through their connection in the government.
 
3. There were similarities between the first owner and the neighbour. The first owner transferred the flat to the neighbour, who was in the same line of work, after an eviction. Both did not live-in and were not seen most of the time. With the first owner, officers allowed an illegal occupier to work in the flat and was stopped only after he came pounding at the owner's door one morning. The night before, the owner had knocked on the occupier's door for some time but he refused to answer the door. Soon after the occupier's eviction, officers made possible the transfer of flat to the neighbour. Since the first owner, the neighbour and his wife were seen before and after the eviction and similar types of noise were heard before and after the eviction, the transfer was so they could continue in their line of work. With the neighbour, officers allowed a maid to work in their flat after the owner's complaint. They could have known she was not registered to work in the flat from government record. She was substituted for the other workers once the neighbour knew that the owner watching. In both cases action taken to stop them came many months after the owner's written complaints to HDB Branch Office and only under a set of circumstances different from his initial complaints. In the first owner's case the complaints could no longer be ignored once the occupier pounded on the owner's door and in the neighhbour's case insider removed the maid. Officers knew about the first owner and the neighbour and took advantage of the situation. Because of the officers, both cases could not be resolved.
 
4. Officers' replies had been "no unauthorised activities", "no misused of flat" and "no excessive noise". The opposite is true and the owner is blocked at every turn as seen from the following:
 
a) Both the neighbour and HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) referred the owner to lawyer to resolve his problem. But the problem is collaboration between the officers and neighbour. HDB needs only check the events mentioned in the owner's letters and blog to either prove or disprove. Instead, they were silent. Going to court is beside the point. In any case how many of us could afford it? Lawyers could be contentious and they do not necessarily resolve problem.
  
b) When the owner met the area's MP after having met the first MP, HBO set the stage for heightened noise. Next he sent OIC (Officer-in-Charge) and a fellow officer to check the owner's flat for noise. When the owner would not allow the inspection, HBO met up with the Chairman (Residents' Committee) in the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the arrangement for the Chairman and Treasurer to visit the owner later. HBO then replied to the owner and area's MP he was glad the Chairman had approached and assisted the owner. He had no choice but let the Chairman in about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to see if he would cooperate. He knew that the owner knew about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour from his letters and the Chairman would come to know about it sooner or later.
 
c) Town Council's letter together with Mr Teo Chee Hean's letter was copied to HBO for his information. The owner had asked Mr Teo to bypass HBO and his letter would have indicated HBO was not to intervene. It was only in this instance that HBO did not reply to the request transmitted on the owner's behalf to HDB. After the Town Council's letter informing the owner he would hear from HDB soon, Mr Teo asked the owner whether anyone visited him at the next MPS (Meet-the-People Session). No officer came. Mr Teo then wrote to HDB in which HBO replied to the owner with copy to him. As it was then and later, HBO kept up with his replies to all letter MPs sent to HDB.
 
d) A counsellor, a police officer, an estates officer and OIC visited the owner on 12 Mar 10 after Discovery (9). They had spoken to the owner before. The counsellor, who came with another officer during a visit, said he was there to help the owner cope with his problem when the owner pressed him on the reason for his visit. The police officer, who was a senior station inspector, took a 3-hours statement from him on his second visit and persuaded him to take up mediation over the phone. The estates officer, who wrote and visited the owner a few times before, and OIC, who visited the owner frequently, were similarly under instruction. As to the purpose of the visit, it was so HBO could reply to two MPs that he had "exhausted all forms of assistance" and the owner would have to engage his "own private solicitors" to resolve his problem.
 
e) It was a day before the visit in the Item 4d that NPC (Neighbourhood Police Centre) replied to the owner's letters that he sent on 1 Feb 10 to the President and the Singapore Police Force. The reply stated they "were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence". The crucial evidence was the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour mentioned in the owner's letters, yet they did not refer to it. It was also in his blog and in the 3-hours statement that the senior station inspector took at his flat. Item 13e in Encounter (13) covers the visit in more details. 
 
f) Beside HBO, the owner knows of at least one Community Centre member who was in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour covers the area around them and a network of contacts covers government departments and places in which they have connection wherever the owner went. They make things difficult for him when they could.
  
g) In his many replies HBO did not refer to any of the issue raised in the owner's letters to him, in his letters to the MPs (the first MP told the owner his letters would be sent to HDB) or in his blog. He gave the same type of reply and his replies were only to letters MPs wrote to HDB on behalf of the owner. In order for him to go through with it, he would have to have the backing of people in government.
 
h) Statement by Ministers under Pronouncement in Category (80) and new appointment of high officials in Item 16 of Ethics (12) did not seem to have an effect on resolving the problem.

 
5. Town Council, assistant to a MP and area's MP had referred HBO to the owner's blog. He should have replied especially when the complaint is about him and his officers. His duty is to the public and not to protect himself and his own people. Where there is harm, there should be remedy. Such has not been the case with the owner. Item 19 to 24 in Encounter (13) comment on the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The government cannot professes meritocracy when things are working in this way. The owner is not being flippant here.
 
6. The man in the-flat-across-the-neighbour whom the owner first saw in Nov 08 was sometimes seen with a women and he saw a young boy with them once. Most of the time the owner saw him when he wanted to be seen. Before him there were others, they moved in within a week of the owner's first MPS in Feb 08. It seemed the man came after HBO's first reply to the owner with copy to the first MP that he may obtain a court injunction in Sep 08, the owner having written in details to the first MP and met him. A number of events followed which included a 15-seconds message on perceived injustice with a return address broadcast over TV, a bcc from HBO to the Chairman that was sent to the owner, and a Town Council's letter that he would hear from HDB soon but no one came. The owner has support, but his problem is not going away with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour around.
 
7. Three instances with a CC member (Community Centre member) showed he had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. Before meeting the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service in Jan 09, an interviewer introduced the CC member to the owner. From what the interviewer said to the CC member, the owner gathered that the CC member knew about the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The next instance was in Feb 09 when the CC member interviewed the owner before his last meeting with the area's MP. He asked how many times the owner had seen the area's MP to mean too many times and with a move of his hand said 10.00 am to let the owner know he could expect noise after that time. It was also at this meeting that the area's MP said he would go to meet HBO the next day. The last instance in Aug 09 happened when the owner saw the CC member burning incense outside his flat at nightfall. He challenged the owner, who had began posting in his blog, to contact the newspaper. He then contacted the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who contacted the neighbour to make a series of loud noise just as the owner went to bed. Together the three instances indicate the CC member was in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and they protected the neighbour.
 
8. The owner wrote to the President and Singapore Police Force (SPF) pointing out the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was the problem on 1 Feb 10. SPF Customer Relations Branch, Bedok Police Division and Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) replied. SPF Customer Relations Branch stated the owner's feedback would be referred to the Bedok Police Division for appropriate action as necessary and Bedok Police Division stated they acknowledged the concerns raised and had since referred the matter to relevant officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action. The Commanding Officer from NPC, in his reply to the letter the owner sent to the President and SPF, stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. However, he made no reference to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour (Item 4e).
 
9. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed to protect the neighbour for over two and a half years now. Officers kept referring the owner to Community Mediation Centre in their replies. In the meantime, noise from the neighbour would force the owner to sell his flat. 
 
10. The neighbour persisted because of profit and they are a group. Recently the-man-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour showed himself to the owner one evening and later in the same evening the neighbour did too. The owner knew well, this was one of their ways to indicate they had lowered the noise and the owner made allowance for their works. But noises from very early in the morning and through the day are not acceptable.
 
11. HBO is the front man. When the owner sent an email to the PM to made a guess as to where he got his connection, the owner immediately got a phone call from an old friend to say he would pay him a visit. Then he received a letter from HBO with copy to the area's MP in reply to the letter the area's MP wrote on his behalf two months earlier. HBO wanted to let the owner know he knew about the email to the PM because he dated his letter one day after the friend visited. He may not have intended to reply after the area's MP visited him following the owner's last MPS in Item 7 but could not resist. 
 
12. If HBO could have been removed, it would be seen he could no longer hold on to his position because of his connection. It follows no one could protect the neighbour. Do the foregoing provides for such an argument? 
 
13. Insiders assisted the owner, but could not stop the problem. The owner described wrongdoing, but enforcement agencies did not take up the leads. Ministers could help with policy changes, but would administrators carry it out?
 
14. Events to do with HBO:
 
a) The following sequence of events are not coincidental:
 
i) OIC and an official-looking man visited the owner after the owner sent his first letter to HBO. They said they had not read the letter to which the owner gave them a draft of the letter. Their behaviour from the time of their visit to the owner to the time they left the neighbour gave the owner cause for suspicion. Item 2 and 3 of Encounter (13) are on the behaviour of the two officers. There was no reply to the letter from HBO.
 
ii) The owner tried to contact the Branch Office after sending the second letter to HBO. He could not get through with the numbers he obtained from HDB Headquarters except to OIC who gave his number during the first visit.
 
iii) OIC said the Branch Office did not receive his second letter.
 
iv) The owner then handed over a draft of the second letter at the Branch Office. A clerk signed a photocopy of the letter when he asked for an acknowledgment. The signed photocopy was found to have two lines missing that alluded to OIC having an arrangement with the neighbour.
 
v) When the owner insisted on an appointment with HBO, HBO conducted the meeting on the same day with OIC in the room.
 
vi) A senior executive estates officer of the Branch Office dated his reply to the second letter a day after the owner attended his first MPS. In his only reply, he stated there was no excessive noise and no misuse of flat. He could be the official-looking man of the first visit (Item 14a,i). The owner did not see him again. A new estates officer, who started to make visits and replies, may have replaced him one and a half years later.
 
b) The owner's first letter to the HBO complained of noise from a maid. But the maid was not stopped until four months later when a poster showing a maid at a coffeeshop was placed in the noticeboard at the void deck. It had the maid saying she was only allowed to work at her registered address. To confirm whether the neighbour had the maid registered at their flat, the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower but there was no reply. It could prove that the neighbour did not live in the flat but used the flat and the maid to carry out a line of work. It could implicate the officers because someone familiar with the situation had stopped the maid instead.
 
c) HBO asked the owner whether he knew of a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat during the meeting at the Branch Office. Only it was not recent as the owner was able to determine the transfer took place nine years ago from the fact sheet of OIC. HBO knew of the eviction from the owner's letters but did not want the owner to know the transfer was just after the eviction. Officers had facilitated the transfer between the first owner and the neighbour to allow them to continue with their work.
 
d) HBO's letter to the owner stated on a MP's representation they had been unable to detect any undue noise from the neighbour's flat. This was in reply to the letter the owner brought to the first MPS in which no MP was around. He was aware of the owner's situation and could have known about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour when they moved in four days after the MPS because he dated his letter seven days after they moved in. He could have known the-flat-across-the-neighbour was used as a staging area for the force-entry at the neighbour's flat and a possible break-in at the owner's flat given his connection. In all his replies he did not mention the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour or that he was at the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the Chairman. In contrast, the owner wrote about it in his blog. 
 
e) HBO's next letter stated the owner may instruct his solicitors to obtain a court injunction and referred him to other agencies for assistance. In his own words he wrote the owner "claimed that noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner". In the next paragraph he wrote they "were not able to conclude that your upper floor neighbor had sublet the flat to unknown owner. Neither were we able to establish that there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat." And in another paragraph "we have not found any evidence to suggest that your neighbour were using their flat as a workshop." This was in reply to the first MP's letter after the owner wrote to him about eviction, maid, force-entry and noise. As explained in Item 8 of Encounter (13), the owner never mentioned anything about sublet nor used the term unknown owner. It was a diversion to show that the owner did not know what he was talking about. Also his words, although in negation, actually described the nature of the neighbour's line of work. 
 
f) After the first MP, the owner went to see the area's MP. In the time before HBO reply to the area's MP's letter to HDB, he staged heightened noise at the owner's flat, sent OIC and a fellow officer to check for noise inside his flat and, after the owner refused to let them into his flat, visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the Chairman. Then he replied to the owner with a cc to the area's MP and a bcc to the Chairman. ln the bcc, HBO asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner. The owner knew of the bcc when someone sent it to him at the time he went to see Mr Teo Chee Hean. The Chairman's term of office have been extended for another two years for the third times to prevent the owner from asking help from his replacement. Item 4b and 6 also refer to the set-up.
 
g) The morning that HBO visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour, there was incessant knocking. HBO could see the owner in his study room from the flat. The nature of the noise and the fact that the owner had refused to allow an inspection by OIC and a fellow officer led the owner to believe it was his doing. The owner would not have known if not for the bcc, which indicated the date HBO and the Chairman visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour to be followed by the Chairman's visit to the owner the same morning.
 
h) Officers and OIC visited the owner many times and, in the officers' replies, they stated they interviewed residents around the vicinity. The Chairman visited to talk to him. Counsellors from Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports came to talk to him. Senior Station Inspector from NPC visited three times and his Commanding Officer took the same line as the officers, there was no evidence and referred him to Community Mediation Centre. Earlier, another police officer wrote HDB had "thoroughly investigated his previous complaint and were satisfied there were no unnecessary noise nor misuse of flat". This was in response to an email of 18 Sep 09 to Commissioner of Police when the owner posted Prospect (6). Together with HBO, the intention was to cover up the truth.
 
i) Also after Prospect (6), OIC and an estates officer visited the owner to inform they had inspected the neighbour's flat and found no machine-tool. The owner had every reason to believe the neighbour was informed before the inspection. One year back, he refused to let OIC and a fellow officer into his flat to check for noise, which led to the HBO and the Chairman's visit to the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They were invited into his flat because this was the first time the owner saw the estates officer who was the new officer at the Branch Office (Item 14a,vi). The estates officer asked and agreed when the owner said the neighbour's work was in jewellery or fashion accessory although he toed the line when he wrote and spoke to the owner later. As explained in Item 13c of Encounter (13), the inspection was a ploy. Item 5 and Item 14d on the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour make clear what it was really about. 
                     
j) MPs wrote to HDB on behalf of the owner. HBO would only reply to MPs' letters to HDB with the reply sent to the owner and copied to MPs. He continued to do so even when the owner asked the MPs to bypass him. His superiors kept silent because HBO had considerable backing. When the owner started blogging, HBO left it to junior officers from the Branch Office and HDB to reply to his postings. They repeated the name of prominent persons whom the owner emailed to keep them informed. Their replies, as with HBO, did not refer to his blog. In one email after the post Encounter (13) an estates officer from HDB stated that their staff visited the owner, but he "rejected our offer and refused to reveal more information pertaining to your feedback". Only no one visited.
 
k) At the owner's last meeting with the area's MP in which there were five, the area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day and noise was reduced. The owner thinks someone asked the area's MP to take a message to HBO. He is central to the problem. Also after the owner posted Discovery (9), the area's MP asked the Branch Office to look into his complaint and informed the owner in a return email. The post listed facts that could be ascertained including items against HBO. There was no reply from the Branch Office.
 
l) The owner's mother received phone calls after the owner went to the NPC because of the noise. The phone calls were likely from OIC and the estates officer/HBO. The owner had given his mother's phone number to the OIC and the estates officer when they asked during their visit. They did not reveal their names only that they were from the police. OIC spoke English then Malay to his mother, but she could not understand. Without putting down the phone he shouted for the estates officer/HBO who conversed in dialect and was friendly with his mother. As with a ruse the estates officer/HBO asked for the owner's phone number, but knew the question to ask. The estates officer/HBO and OIC each called a few times because they wanted information on the owner. The owner emailed NPC early the next day after the first call from OIC to confirm whether a police officer called but there was no written reply. This was a critical period because the owner chose 1 Feb 10, the date the new Commissioner of Police was appointed, to write to the President, Singapore Police Force and a few Ministers. It was the second week after 1 Feb 10 that the owner went to NPC to complain about the noise.
 
m) Some time after Discovery (9) in Mar 10, OIC called the owner over the phone to say they wanted to talk. The counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports, the senior station inspector from NPC, the estates officer and OIC then visited the owner. They had spoken to him before. During their visit they persuaded the owner to go for mediation. OIC volunteered the name of a person in the-flat-across-the-neighbour, and the estates officer said he was going up to the neighbour's flat in an offer for the owner to check for himself. It was important to them the owner thought nothing about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The events of Feb 10 and Mar 10 are in Item 4d, 4e, 8, 14k, 14l and 14m.
 
n) HBO is in contact with CC members:

i) During the owner's first MPS, the brother of a CC member pointed to the name of HBO in the owner's letter when asked who the matter would be referred to since no MP was in. HBO then replied that the first MP, in a representation for the owner, had asked HDB to look into his feedback that the neighbour was using their flat "as an operation room for manual work since 2007".

ii) In one of the MPS, the owner saw that the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service was the attending MP, but before meeting him, an interviewer called the CC member to the table to talk in the presence of the owner. He gathered from their conversation the CC member knew about the-flat-across-the-neighbour, and so too was HBO who visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the Chairman. Item 6 and 7 tie together the sequence of events.

o) HBO posted a car-parking problem at CNA Forum (Channel NewsAsia Forum). The placement did not match the layout. He intended to let the owner know his attempt at online publicity would not succeed. This was after the 15-seconds message on perceived injustice was broadcast over TV and the owner told a friend he would look to discussion sites instead. He had called and wrote to Mediacorp, which also hosted CNA Forum, to get the return address he saw flashed on the screen during the broadcast. They did not help him with the address. Even if he had the address, it may not have helped, but the broadcast signalled support important to the owner. The owner began looking at other blogsites. A meeting was arranged with one at the owner's flat but they did not turn up. Two volunteers from another blogsite visited the owner, one was ready to listen while the other kept contradicting. One thing was clear, the one who contradicted insisted he would publish the report the owner requested together with his photograph. It meant the owner would have difficulty selling his flat. It goes to show the extent of HBO's reach.
 
p) In an email to PM on Apr 09, the owner mentioned the name of a high official that bore resemblance to HBO's to show likely connection. Immediately after sending the email, an old friend called over the phone to arrange meeting him at his flat. The owner came across the name first from blogsites and later in the newspapers when the official was rebuked by the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service. It may have started with the 15-seconds broadcast and the bcc the owner read a day after the owner went to see the Minister but was turned away. In a later MPS the Minister wrote to the Town Council and in the following MPS he enquired of the owner whether anyone visited him. This was on the same day the Minister rebuked the official in Parliament. Item 4t at Discovery (9) lists the sequence of events. The rebuke was about an expensive cooking lesson he took and wrote about in a newspaper at a time of an economic downturn. But some questioned whether he deserved being put on record for that. HBO may have provided a clue. His reply to the letter the area's MP wrote on the owner's behalf was dated one day after the old friend's visit but was two months from the date of the area's MP's letter (Item 11). This was the letter after the owner's last meeting with the area's MP when said he would meet HBO the next day (Item 14k). HBO wanted the owner to know he knew about the email to PM. The owner thinks the events are connected.
 
q) In an interview with American television on 15 Apr 10, PM said "Singapore cannot 'afford a bump in the night', whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem". After which there was a number of new appointments in the government from Jun 10 onward (Item 16, Ethics [12]). The owner's problem is not just the neighbour, it could be the powerful connection HBO had in Item 14p.
 
r) As reported in the Straits Times and the Business Times of 13 Aug 13, DPM Teo Chee Hean said in Parliament the following: 
 
Mr Teo, replying to Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong, also gave figures on whistle-blowing. 
 
Mr Teo stressed that the Government continued to emphasise integrity very strongly.
 
There are systems in place to ensure integrity is maintained--from security vetting of law enforcement officers to the multiple avenues for whistle-blowing--and these systems are reviewed regularly he said.
 
In a related note, he shared that, since February 2011, the Public Service's internal disclosure framework has received 81 reports of suspected misconduct, of which 70 have led to further investigations.
 
A total of 35 cases eventually resulted in some form of disciplinary action, said Mr Teo, who cited examples of offences such as sexual harassment, falsifying claims and having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.The government would do more to make all officers, especially new hires, aware of the existing reporting channels.
 
"The Public Service does not tolerate wrongdoing and misconduct, and will take firm action in all cases, decisively and transparently. Every case is thoroughly investigated. If need be, a separate agency will conduct the investigation to ensure independence and impartiality."
 
Errant officers who have not broken the law but where actions are serious enough to constitute misconduct are subject to disciplinary action either by the Permanent Secretary or the Public Service Commission.
 
They may be warned, reprimanded, fined, have their salary increments forfeited, reduced in rank, retired in the public interest or dismissed, depending on the severity of the case.
 
Mr Teo added that despite the tight processes and systems in place, there would still be people who would try to circumvent them.
 
"They may succeed for some time, but sooner or later they will be caught. This is because Singaporeans, including our own public officers, reject corruption. We have prevented corruption from becoming a way of life in Singapore, and succeeded in keeping Singapore clean."
 
15. Whistle-blowing is at Quote (20) and Dissent (30). Bureaucracy can be dangerous is at Parkinson (40). 

13. Encounter

1. The owner wished he did not have to put up post after post when he said he would not pursue further if the noise stopped during the last meeting with officers on 12 Mar 10 after Discovery (9). He decides now to tell it as it is.
 
2. The Officer-In-Charge (OIC) and an official-looking man visited the owner when he first wrote to HDB Branch Office. The owner asked for the man's name, but OIC said he only followed. As they had not read his letter and did not accept the owner's invitation to come in, he passed a copy of his letter he sent to HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) to them.
 
3. When they went upstairs to talk to the neighbour, the owner left the door of his flat opened and stayed at his living room. Some time later, he heard an under-the-breath shout after the officers from the neighbour's boy showing unity with his father. The owner waited for the officers to come down but they did not although the two staircases could only lead to the lifts downstairs in which the owner had full view of the lift lobby. They must have used the farther staircase and skipped the floor.
 
4. The owner thinks whatever they talked about was not successful. He inquired of OIC a few times about the man who followed him, but he kept quiet. The owner thinks the force-entry later was the way they dealt with the neighbour.
 
5. The owner wrote a second letter to the Branch Office and, a week later, phoned to inquire whether they received it. Only because he was unable to get through to the Branch Office with the numbers he got from HDB Headquarters did he called OIC who informed him they did not receive his second letter. He therefore went to the Branch Office with a draft of the letter, asked for an acknowledgment and requested to meet HBO. He insisted on a meeting with HBO when shown the names of two officers. The meeting with HBO on the same day was conducted with OIC in the room, making it less likely the owner would complain against him. The owner asked about mediation and about the neighbour, and HBO said he could rally the Residents' Committee. He also said the owner could talk to the neighbour, and whether he knew there was a recent transfer of the flat. The owner ended the meeting as it was not getting anywhere. Two days later, OIC and a fellow officer visited him. OIC said he had been around his flat for 15 minutes but did not hear any noise and his fellow officer was his witness. 
 
6. Of note was two items. The acknowledgment was a signed photocopy of the owner's letter with two lines missing. The lines referred to a quiet period before OIC's visit and rumbling noise just after his visit. He called the owner over the phone after the rumbling noise to ask the owner about the noise. The other item was that HBO said there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat when it happened nine years ago at the time of an eviction. It would have implicated officers and the neighbour since the transfer just after the eviction was for the purpose of continuing with their works.

 
7. HBO wrote his first letter to the owner after he went to his first Meet-the-People Session (MPS). It stated a MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback. They had been unable to detect any undue noise at every inspections, including an inspection after the MP's representations. He would like the owner to know that HDB would take action against lessees only if there was evidence of misuse of HDB flat, and noise from everyday living was not within their control. But the owner had seen personnel moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour four days after the MPS. HBO's letter was dated seven days after they moved in, and the force-entry was three weeks after his letter. Also the neighbour approached the owner three days after the force-entry to ask the owner to tell him where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. HBO wrote the letter after personnel moved into the flat and could have known what was going on.
 
8. Six months later when the owner wrote two letters on eviction, maid, force-entry and noise to the MP and went to see him, HBO replied that the owner may seek assistance from the Neighbourhood Police Centre or instruct his solicitors to obtain a court injunction. Alternatively he may seek assistance from the Residents' Committee or Community Mediation Centre to settle the matter amicably. He also wrote that investigation based on the owner's information was not able to conclude the neighbour had sublet the flat to unknown owner. But the owner never mentioned anything about sublet nor used the term unknown owner. The idea behind it was to show there was no record of an occupier or of subletting and, therefore, there could not have been an eviction. Hence in Aug 09 when the owner first posted in his blog, an officer wrote "no eviction was ever conducted, and it was incorrect to state an eviction had taken place". If there was an occupier, he would be an illegal occupant. To be sure the owner knew the occupier lived in the flat for many years, and the occupier was evicted after the owner wrote he came pounding at his door. After the eviction, the owner wrote to HDB Feedback Unit to express his appreciation.
 
9. Following the letter from HBO in Item 8, the owner went to see the area's MP. Noise was heightened, and the owner refused to let OIC and a fellow officer check for noise in his flat. HBO then met the Chairman (Residents' Committee) at the-flat-across-the-neighbour. In the bcc to the Chairman, he wrote "During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected" and asked him to "explained to him being a good neighbourliness in length" to the owner. The bcc also stated the date of the house visit and an arrangement for the Chairman and Treasurer to visit the owner, which they did the same morning. Some time before their visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room. The increasing intensity of the noise, for several minutes, led the owner to suspect the noise was instigated by HBO because could see the owner in his study room from the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
10. In the first letter to HBO the owner observed that the maid worked in the flat from noise she made while he was monitoring the neighbour's comings and goings. He kept watch on random day for eight days from 6.00 am to 9.00 pm for a month through the doorway where he could see the lift lobby and stairs leading up to the neighbour's flat. He then wrote his first letter to the Branch Office on Aug 07 and a poster of a maid appeared on the noticeboard at the void deck in his block sometime in Dec 07. The poster showed a maid working in a coffeeshop and saying she was only allowed to work as a domestic help at the place she was registered. The poster appeared at the same time noise stopped for a few weeks. The owner thinks the maid was stopped because she was not seen from that time on except for one day on Chinese New Year. It is to be noted the maid was not stopped for the four months after he wrote to the Branch Office. Someone else did when they came to know of his letter. Later the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to determine whether there was a maid under the employ of the neighbour to show not only they used the maid for the works they were doing but also they resided at the place where the maid was registered. There was no reply from the Ministry. 
 
11. HBO replied to seven letters written by MPs on behalf of the owner. Each time he replied there was no excessive noise, and referred the owner to the Police, Residents' Committee, Community Mediation Centre and his solicitors. Although the owner requested the MPs to bypass him and wrote open letters to HDB in his blog to which MPs had responded, he kept up with similar replies. No further investigation was carried out even though certain facts were known about the neighbour. For examples, the owner showed dealing between officers and first owner allowed the flat to be transferred to the neighbour and just after his first MPS personnel moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour to keep the situation under control. A number of statements made by Ministers and quoted by the owner in his blog could have been an acknowledgment because it had to do with the Civil Service. New appointment of high officials that were reported could have been the result.
 
12. HBO's last letter to the owner with copy to two MPs on Mar 10 after Discovery (9) was followed by letters from estates officers on Apr 10, May 10 and Aug 10. In the estates officers' replies they repeated the names of PM, MP and high officials whom the owner had emailed to inform them of new postings. The logic could be that since the owner could write to prominent persons, they could also reply with their names although not in their names. No big deal, while referring the owner to Community Mediation Centre. But emails sent to the Branch Office from Town Council, from an assistant to a MP, and from the area's MP in response to the owner's postings were not answered. In the case it seemed you have to be a MP, write to HDB, before HBO would reply. In all matter to do with the owner it seemed HBO represented HDB despite the fact he could no longer be trusted as seen from Item 5 onward. He knew his superiors would not response and they did not. In any case, reply to the owner is not as important as having copy to the prominent persons and MPs as they represent the government and people in their constituencies respectively.
 
 
13. On the trail of OIC:
 
a) When OIC and a fellow officer visited the owner two days after his meeting with HBO, the owner asked for the name of the neighbour but he refused. The owner reminded him he was at the meeting and HBO had agreed. The owner next asked when the neighbour's flat was transferred, which he gave it to be in '98 from his fact sheet.
 
b) After the owner's first meeting with the area's MP noise was heightened, and OIC and the fellow officer visited. OIC asked why he was not allowed to enter the owner's flat to check for noise. In reply, the owner said he knew as well as the owner did why not. A week later, HBO's joint visit with the Chairman in the-flat-across-the-neighbour was a tit for tat to discredit the owner.
 
c) After the owner posted Prospect (6), OIC and an estates officer visited him to inform they had conducted an inspection of the neighbour's flat and found no machine-tools. Why take the trouble when the owner already distrusted OIC? The estates officer was new as OIC filled him in with the full name of HBO during his conversation with the owner, and he was eager to find out more from the owner. He hinted he knew something about the owner. He asked and agreed when the owner said the neighbour was working on jewellery or fashion accessory. It may not have been a ploy in the first place but became one with OIC alongside. The neighbour would have been informed beforehand and OIC kept tag on what was said between the owner and the estates officer. The estates officer was to change his tune shortly. The owner does not blame him.
 
d) By elimination the owner suspected OIC called the owner's mother on pretext to obtain information about him. This was a day after the owner went to the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) some time after he posted Discovery (9). When the mother informed the owner, he wrote an email to NPC to confirm whether a police officer called his mother over the phone. There was no written reply. Instead another person called his mother a few times. He did not give his full name when asked, mentioned the email the owner sent and gave a phone number from NPC for the owner to call back. The person suspected to be OIC was to call the his mother again, this time to speak to his sister.
 
e) Some time later, OIC called the owner over the phone to say they wanted to talk. The meeting at the owner's home was with the counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports, the senior station inspector from NPC, the estates officer and OIC. They spoke to the owner before, and there was nothing new during the meeting except OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person who occupied the-flat-across-the-neighbour and, before they left, interviewed the owner's mother and asked for his sister's mobile phone number. It was during this meeting that the owner said he would not pursue the matter further if the noise stopped (Item 1). Having sent the four officers, HBO wrote to the owner with copy to two MPs "he had exhausted all forms of assistance and the owner would have to engage his private solicitors if he wished to resolve his problem". However, he did not reply to the area's MP's email to the Branch Office during the same period. The area's MP had replied to the owner that he asked the Branch Office to look into his complaint after Discovery (9). Commanding Officer of NPC also replied to the owner's correspondence to the President and Singapore Police Force a day before the meeting. He stated they "were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence". It was not that HBO and Commanding Officer were unaware of the issue in the owner's blog when they replied, there were emails the owner knew of after postings that referred them to his blog and officers who met the owner knew about it.
 
f) One time OIC called the owner to ask who he thought was working in the neighbour's flat upstairs, then let on it was not the man of the house because he worked outside. (The owner did observe that he was not seen most of the time). Another time he asked why the owner did not make a police report concerning the break-in at his flat. (The owner did suspect a break-in and called the police). Talking to him often, the owner could take his cue from what was said and the manner it was said.
 
14. The Chairman's term of office from Apr 07 to Mar 09 have been extended for another two years. When the owner asked him in Dec 09 at the void deck whether he or members of his committee could make random check at his flat, he replied he would only visit with officer. This ruled out any help from him for the another two years since he was not going to be replaced. He was with HBO at the-flat-across-the-neighbour in Item 9. In fact his term of office was later extended two more times till Mar 15.
  
15. During one of the MPS the owner saw an elder who was greeted warmly as he entered the hall, and the owner saw him again during the next MPS at another location when he went into the room at the end of the hall where another MP was to held his meeting. The owner thinks the elder was there each time to influence the outcome of the meeting. He could be the reason why the owner was turned away at the first meeting with the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service the following MPS.
 
16. At the first MPS, the owner asked the interviewer who the matter would be referred to since no MP was in session. He pointed to the name of HBO in the owner's letter. When the owner asked for his name, it was the name of his brother that he gave. The owner saw him twice around the owner's neighbourhood, and in later sessions he only saw his brother. After the MPS, HBO wrote to the owner that a MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback (Item 7). 
 
17. At one of the MPS, the owner was introduced to the brother by another interviewer. The brother said he may have interviewed the owner, and he was the only person with that name. From what was said between the interviewer and the brother, the brother could have been in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
18. During the last MPS, the interviewer was the brother. He asked how many times the owner had seen the area's MP to mean it had been too many times, and said 10.00 am with a move of his hand to indicate the owner could expect noise after that time.
 
19. Some time after the first posting in his blog on Aug 09, the owner met the last interviewer (the brother) burning incense outside his flat. He said his brother was not in and challenged the owner to contact the newspaper. That night, just after the owner went to bed, there was a series of loud noise made by the neighbour upstairs. The last interviewer had contacted the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, who then contacted the neighbour when the owner switched off the light to go to bed. A clear instance of contact between them.
 
20. There is secrecy about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They moved in days after the owner's first MPS in Feb 08 and had now stayed for two and a half years. They watch the owner and protect the neighbour. The person to whom OIC had volunteered his name was seen from Nov 08. It would not, however, preclude him or other persons using the flat for the purpose of protecting the neighbour.
 
21. Events to do with the-flat-across-the-neighbour:

a) An insider who lived there for a short period caused the neighbour to stop for fours years.
b) The flat was used as a staging area for a force-entry into the neighbour's flat.
c) The flat was used as a staging area for a possible break-in at the owner's flat.
d) HBO and Chairman visited the flat with a plan to discredit the owner.
e) Town Council informed the owner he would hear from HDB soon, but no one came. Officers did not come because of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and their contacts.
f) The last interviewer has contact with the-people-in-flat-across-the-neighbour (Item 17,18,19).
  
22. How it came about that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed for many years is not clear to the owner, but the why he could make from his observations. Noises from early in the morning to late at night each day of the week indicate workers take shift, thump and rumbling noise indicate machine tools, appearance of the neighbour on rest days and his wife on weekdays indicate they work at the same trade but do not live-in, and the owner did not see any routine such as outing and shopping of grocery in the neighbour's family of two children. Besides, the owner saw workers and he noted instances where the neighbour signalled to him from contact they had with officers. When the owner is forced to sell his flat, the cover-up is complete. The owner would no longer complain the neighbour took over the flat just after the eviction to continue with their works, the maid found working in their flat was not registered, and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protected the neighbour. That it would not be an exaggeration to say at any one time an inspection of the neighbour's flat would find tool, material and worker who may not be an occupant of the flat. That they could get away with it after the owner pointed to a set-up is something anyone would find hard to accept.
 
23. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour have line of sight to the entrance and windows of the owner's and neighbour's flat. Thus they were able to communicate to stop the noise at the neighbour's flat whenever someone visited the owner, and they have the clout to prevent anyone from carrying out an inspection for noise. For example, officer did not show up after Town Council informed the owner they would. Also the two weeks that the-flat-across-the-neighbour was not occupied from 5 Aug 10 to 18 Aug 10, noise was minimal. But noise was louder and more frequent after it was re-occupied. In Ethics (12) on 1 Aug 10, the owner may have correctly suggested random checks were only required and pointed out the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour prolonged the situation.
 
24. After they re-occupied the-flat-across-the-neighbour, knocks were heard as early as 4.30 am in the morning. Knock and rumbling noise occurred mostly in the afternoon. Before they started, they tested for noise level to ensure noise was not obvious outside the flat. Although there are relatively quiet period in the morning and quiet after certain hour at night, it bears repeating the neighbour used the flat to carry out a trade and, since works are through the day each day of the week, there are other workers. The owner could only hope the authorities do something as there is nothing the owner could do. Not doing something in effect allows them to continue.
 
25. The neighbour approached the owner a few days after the force-entry. He said he had reduced the noise, and that there was no noise from his flat before. (The owner knows he was referring to the insider who had stopped him for about four years). When the owner asked him for his full name, he would only give his nickname and said the owner would not have asked if he could get it from HDB. (He knew the owner asked for his name in the meeting with HBO and OIC). He wanted the owner to compromise by letting him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. When the owner did not accept, he said their conversation did not take place and asked the owner not to knock on his door too loudly. (This in reference to the occupier who would not answer the door when the owner knocked just before he was evicted and the flat transferred to the neighbour after the eviction). The owner noted that the force-entry caused the neighbour to speak to him. The owner had spoken to him outside his flat a number of months back when he said there was no noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice.
 
26. The owner shows how the behaviour of officers allowed the neighbour to continue with their works. He shows how the neighbour operated a trade and officers knew that for a fact. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour ensures noises are not noticeable outside the neighbour's flat but noises heard inside the owner's flat are another matter. When the owner complained, the officers informed the neighbour who obliged by reducing the noise for a time being. This has been going on for over three years now. The owner has been forced to leave. Should not the authorities take to task the officers who the owner complained about? Is it not in the public interest?

12. No Fair Play

2 Sep 2019

Ms Sun Xueling
Blk 308B Punggol Walk
#01-364
Waterway Terraces 1
Singapore 822308

Dear Sir/Mdm,

There Is No Fair Play, Honourable Members of Parliament

1. He has a complaint. He lives in Singapore, a prosperous city. A law-abiding citizen who leads an ordinary life. He did his national service in the army and held many jobs before retiring early. He learned to read and write in english, do arithmetic and read chinese articles in depth with the help of an online translator. His poor grasp of the spoken language in chinese was because he never had much use of it since young. In all other ways he is ordinary.

2. It would have been enough if he could live his life that way until he dies--watching the world, doing what is required of him and doing his own things. However, his upstairs neighbour was the trouble. They caused noise working a trade in the flat. He complained and the first occupier was evicted. To cover up the eviction, the flat was transferred to the next owner with the help of officers. Noise continued for a number of years, stopped for a number of years because of insiders and continued with a vengeance for a number of years once they sought protection. They stopped only after intervention from within the government.

3. Singapore celebrated its 54th birthday. It is still a place of efficiency and competence, but it has slipped. Why was noise from the neighbour not resolved. The problem was trivial to begin with but was extended to include the sale of his flat, his CPF Account and his CPF LIFE. He pointed out the mistakes made by referring to official documents. The problem left to fester has now affected officers throughout the government. It seemed that by correcting the mistakes, the government would have admitted to wrongdoing. He therefore asked his MPs to bring up the problem in Parliament. The MPs have not given a reply so far. An investigation by Parliament is the only means left for a resolution.

4. It had been suggested that he brings his complaint to court. If he files a lawsuit against the government, it will mean he is taking the government agencies to account. Although the complaint is simple to understand, it will be a drawn out affair in court. Whether the judgment is against him or not, he will incur large monetary loss. He may yet hope that the appeals court will give him a shred of justice. It is not the commonsensical way of finding out what is right, but a different kind of justice. The kind that is hard to obtain. 

5. He knows people around him caused him trouble because he kept bringing up the problem. Any number of people are willing to do the bidding of bad elements in the government because of the advantages. Power accumulated through kinship, friends and allies is a scourge. Dissent severely limited is a dysfunction society. Tightly controlled life of people is an authoritarian rule. In the name of efficiency, the city may not be a good place to live. There should be human flourishing.

6. In the case he mentioned a possible break-in at his flat and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour that watched out for the neighbour. He was not surprised after he sold his flat and moved to a new flat that his next door neighbour appeared to be monitoring him. After they left, it is possible the new neighbour still do.

7. A system of one person one vote can be manipulated. If there is always goodies to be given and people are not discerning, the dominant party will have a majority of the votes which resulted in dissatisfaction in certain section of the population. Government-owned media does not report negative news and a lop-sided parliament means that certain issues are always overruled. Concepts such as equality and the rule of law can be up-ended. Trust and respect are not as important as being in position of power. People are only servile to the state, not the idea that it is the other way around.

8. The following are extracts from url at aeon.co:

a) The right to vote should be restricted to those with knowledge

Consider an alternative political system called epistocracy. Epistocracies retain the same institutions as representative democracies, including imposing liberal constitutional limits on power, bills of rights, checks and balances, elected representatives and judicial review. But while democracies give every citizen an equal right to vote, epistocracies apportion political power, by law, according to knowledge or competence.

There are many ways of instituting epistocracy, some of which would work better than others. For instance, an epistocracy might deny citizens the franchise unless they can pass a test of basic political knowledge. They might give every citizen one vote, but grant additional votes to citizens who pass certain tests or obtain certain credentials. They might pass all laws through normal democratic means, but then permit bands of experts to veto badly designed legislation. For instance, a board of economic advisors might have the right to veto rent-control laws, just as the Supreme Court can veto laws that violate the Constitution.

Or, an epistocracy might allow every citizen to vote at the same time as requiring them to take a test of basic political knowledge and submit their demographic information. With such data, any statistician could calculate the public’s ‘enlightened preferences’, that is, what a demographically identical voting population would support if only it were better informed. An epistocracy might then instantiate the public’s enlightened preferences rather than their actual, unenlightened preferences.

One common objection to epistocracy – at least among political philosophers – is that democracy is essential to expressing the idea that everyone is equal. On its face, this is a strange claim. Democracy is a political system, not a poem or a painting. Yet people treat the right to vote like a certificate of commendation, meant to show that society regards you as a full member of the national club. (That’s one reason we disenfranchise felons.) But we could instead view the franchise as no more significant than a plumbing or medical licence. The US government denies me such licences, but I don’t regard that as expressing I’m inferior, all things considered, to others.

Others object that the equal right to vote is essential to make government respond to our interests. But the math doesn’t check out. In most major elections, I have as much chance of making a difference as I do of winning the lottery. How we vote matters, but how any one of us votes, or even whether one votes, makes no difference. It might be a disaster if Donald Trump wins the presidency, but it’s not a disaster for me to vote for him. As the political theorist Ben Saunders says: in a democracy, each person’s power is so small that insisting on equality is like arguing over the crumbs of a cake rather than an equal slice.

On the other hand, it’s true (at least right now) that certain demographic groups (such as rich white men) are more likely to pass a basic political knowledge test than others (such as poor black women). Hence the worry that epistocracies will favour the interests of some groups over others. But this worry might be overstated. Political scientists routinely find that so long as individual voters have a low chance of being decisive, they vote for what they perceive to be the common good rather than their self-interest. Further, it might well be that excluding or reducing the power of the least knowledgeable 75 per cent of white people produces better results for poor black women than democracy does.

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-right-to-vote-should-be-restricted-to-those-with-knowledge 

b) In defence of hierarchy

Apart from their civic importance, hierarchies can be surprisingly benign in life more broadly. Hierarchy is oppressive when it is reduced to a simple power over others. But there are also forms of hierarchy that involve power with, not over. Daoism characterises this kind of power effectively in the image of riding a horse, when sometimes you have to pull, and sometimes let go. This is not domination but negotiation. In Daoism, power is a matter of energy and competence rather than domination and authority. In this sense, a hierarchy can be empowering, not disabling. 

A common Confucian ideal is that a master ought to aim for the student to surpass him or her. Confucian hierarchies are marked by reciprocity and mutual concern. The correct response to the fact of differential ability is not to celebrate or condemn it, but to make good use of it for the common pursuit of the good life. 

To protect against abuse by those with higher status, hierarchies should also be domain-specific: hierarchies become problematic when they become generalised, so that people who have power, authority or respect in one domain command it in others too. Most obviously, we see this when holders of political power wield disproportionate legal power, being if not completely above the law then at least subject to less legal accountability than ordinary citizens. Hence, we need to guard against what we might call hierarchical drift: the extension of power from a specific, legitimate domain to other, illegitimate ones. 

This hierarchical drift occurs not only in politics, but in other complex human arenas. It’s tempting to think that the best people to make decisions are experts. But the complexity of most real-world problems means that this would often be a mistake. With complicated issues, general-purpose competences such as open-mindedness and, especially, reasonableness are essential for successful deliberation.

Expertise can actually get in the way of these competences. Because there is a trade-off between width and depth of expertise, the greater the expert, the narrower the area of competence. Hence the best role for experts is often not as decision-makers, but as external resources to be consulted by a panel of non-specialist generalists selected for general-purpose competences. These generalists should interrogate the experts and integrate their answers from a range of specialised aspects into a coherent decision. So, for example, parole boards cannot defer to one type of expert but must draw on the expertise of psychologists, social workers, prison guards, those who know the community into which a specific prisoner might be released, and so on. This is a kind of collective, democratic decision-making that makes use of hierarchies of expertise without slavishly deferring to them.  

But are hierarchies compatible with human dignity? It’s important to recognise that there are different forms of hierarchy as there are different forms of equality. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says in Article 1: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ It is entirely compatible with this equal dignity that some should be honoured more than others. In other words, we can acknowledge that individuals differ from one another in embodying excellence of various sorts, and these various forms of human excellence elicit from us a special kind of positive regard that philosophers call ‘appraisal respect’. Appraisal respect is a form of esteem that we have for those who display certain excellences: for example, for their high moral character, or their great skill in argument. Since excellences are intrinsically comparative, people will inevitably be ranked through these appraisals, and so to honour someone is to regard them as (in some particular respects) better than people who embody or advance the value less. Equality here seems conceptually out of place. 

Good paternalistic interventions, on this view, take two forms. They disseminate knowledge of what is best in forms that are accessible to imperfectly rational agents. And they might habituate individuals’ irrational impulses from an early age such that they later collaborate in the implementation of reason’s prescriptions. Such interventions are justified only to the extent that they ultimately enable us to act more autonomously. That they might is suggested by Aristotle’s theory of habituation, which says that to live well we need to cultivate the habits of living well. Hence, being required habitually to act in certain ways, especially while young, might, paradoxically, enable us to think more rationally for ourselves in the long run.

Paternalistic hierarchy might then benefit individual autonomy. And hierarchy has one final benefit. Although it would seem to be divisive, hierarchy can promote social harmony. Many cultures justifiably place a high value on communal harmony. This involves a shared way of life, and also sympathetic care for the quality of life of others. Excessive hierarchy works against this, creating divisions within societies. Indeed, in a sense, hierarchy always brings with it the threat of tension, since it is a condition in which one adult commands, threatens or forces another to do something, where the latter is innocent of any wrongdoing, competent to make decisions, and not impaired at the time by alcohol, temporary insanity, or the like. But the goal of preserving communal life means that hierarchy might be justifiable if – and only if – it is the least hierarchical amount required, and likely either to rebut serious discord or to foster a much greater communion. This is a minimalist justification that only ever sanctions the least amount of hierarchy necessary.

https://aeon.co/essays/hierarchies-have-a-place-even-in-societies-built-on-equality 

c) Rorty’s political turn

If Rorty’s therapeutic approach aimed only to overcome such resistance, then, given philosophers’ relative isolation, the social impact could only be negligible. However, Rorty did not just advocate a therapeutic approach to philosophy. He wanted to transform philosophy itself into therapy, to make it accessible as such and, harking back to his hero John Dewey, plug it more directly into the concerns of ordinary people. The practical upshot of this came to have political implications beyond the normal confines of philosophy.

For the ordinary person, Rorty began by championing an enlivening conception of their personal identity or ‘selfhood’, urging them to regard it as a product of their own hands, something self-crafted like a work of art, rather than given in any fixed form or beholden to a higher authority. In doing this, he converted what might have been just another narrow, technical conjecture about how personal identity should best be discussed within philosophical circles into a fertile and empowering social suggestion.

This was the Freud who held that each human life unfolds out of complex, idiosyncratic fantasies, and that the mind is in its very constitution poetic, making all lives interesting when reflected on in sufficient detail. Moreover, he provided a serviceable vocabulary within which anyone’s life might be re-described, by themselves or others, in ways that reveal quirky details of their past, and capture what is distinctive about them. The vocabulary floated free of Freud’s theories about psychoanalytic technique, and could be found woven as such into the works of novelists and poets who provided further resources for self-creation that Rorty enthusiastically promoted. This should not be surprising because, as Lionel Trilling surmised in 1955 when considering Freud’s relationship to literature: ‘the first thing to say is that literature is dedicated to the conception of the self, [and its function] through all its mutations has been to make us aware of the particularity of selves’. But Rorty also recognised that the resources for self-creation do not have to be bookish. They could, for instance, include films, documentaries and recreational activities.

After this therapeutic slimming exercise, there was no longer supposed to be a need to worry about liberalism’s theoretical foundations or sophisticated arguments to back it up. For the trick was to make its justification wholly practical, hinging on the two factors just mentioned: safeguarding freedom and alleviating suffering. Indeed, Rorty regarded those as pragmatically definitive factors that, when operating at ground level where politics is about living, render supporting theories superfluous to the extent that there is not even a temptation to seek theoretical reasons for their absence. One quick way of making good sense of this is to take Rorty to simply be saying something like: ‘If we think of the benefits that liberalism can confer and of the cruelty it can protect us from, then that is enough. There is no need to be concerned about whether what works in practice will work in theory.’ And in considering these benefits, we might think of where liberalism let us stand with regard to what, in the book In the Beginning Was the Deed (2005), Bernard Williams called the first political question, that of securing ‘order, protection, safety, trust and conditions of cooperation’.

When critics bothered to pay serious attention to Contingency, they tended to treat it as a quasi-literary re-enactment of Rorty’s supposed death-to-philosophy stance, overlaid by a crude defence of a crude liberalism. As for Rorty’s prioritising of politics, they were inclined to play up the dangers and ignore the advantages, fearing it to be harmfully reductive. Putting philosophy in the service of politics and, indeed, making everything of nontrivial social significance in the public realm depend on political considerations would invite corruption or even tyranny. In ‘Reading Rorty: Pragmatism and its Consequences’ (2000), Jacques Bouveresse worried that it might unleash the politico-philosophical terrorism he had personally witnessed in France. But it should have been clear that Rorty’s account of selfhood was designed to prevent anything like that, as was his version of liberalism. Countervailing advantages were inbuilt.

It was therapeutically radical in unveiling and appropriating for political purposes a sub-theoretical level of discourse within which hopes for a better life for all can still be expressed as realistic options, even in prevailing circumstances of inequality and social injustice. This turned the notion of what it is to be radical on its head. In an ethos of pessimism, and even despair, regarding the prospect of existing liberal democracies being able to function without a backcloth of untold pain and suffering, the act of redescribing them in terms suggesting that they might, after all, be already institutionally well-equipped to do so was radical.

Rorty argued that we can best reawaken confidence in liberalism as a practical, piecemeal, reformist option by giving up on the dogma that only ideology can supplant ideology, and foreswearing the conviction that there just has to be one big theoretical solution to problems of social injustice. We should sever romantic attachments to idealisations of entities such as classes, and also accept that no such entity can still be seriously considered the repository of all ills. It was high time we owned up instead to the fact that history unfolds in unpredictable ways that cannot be tracked scientifically, that none of us – least of all, perhaps, the connoisseurs of critique – know what is the best relationship between the state and the economy, or possesses a viable blueprint for constructing societies that can usher in a better life for all, especially the worst off, without depending to some extent on markets and institutional arrangements that enable unfettered participation in them under a rule of law.

Rorty’s therapeutic slimming programme was fashioned so as to protect his proposed liberalism against standard intellectual objections by ensuring it did not depend on vulnerable theoretical claims. It did not require, for example, any prior assumptions about human nature, nor was it tied to any particular conception of morality. But he was well aware that a society based on his ideas would be unintentionally provocative, and hence exposed to brute force exerted both internally and externally. The internal pressure would come from resistance to reform on the part of vested interests, and the external from regimes perceiving liberalism’s successes at home to be a threat to their own legitimacy.

He did not spell out any specific ways of coping with these threats. However, the clarity surrounding the institutional arrangements of his liberalism, a clarity that accrued from their rationale being transparently pragmatic and results-based rather than ideological-cum-theoretical, would make it easier to identify and assess internal threats. And the growth of knowledge and complexity of character that evolved through the processes of self-creation would foster a resilient citizenry, comprised of people always on the lookout for similarities that enable them to include in their ever-expanding community of ‘us’ those who might seem hostile or simply different. On this path to greater human solidarity, they are likely to become better equipped to devise ways of dealing firmly with external threats and treacherous global alliances in a conversational spirit of compromise and negotiation rather than immediate confrontation.

https://aeon.co/essays/richard-rortys-hopes-for-liberalism-and-solidarity 

d) Can reason make room for religion in public life?

This vision of religion as the ‘highest’ part of humanity was a new iteration of a very ancient idea: the notion that politics alone cannot bring about human flourishing, and that political categories can’t completely capture or describe the full extent of a person. Politics isn’t cancelled out or overthrown by ‘religion’. Instead, for Schleiermacher, the business of governing well is a means to a higher purpose.

While he saw rationality as affording dignity and freedom to human beings, Schleiermacher the Romantic also stressed how people are bound to the world in other, less predictable ways. We are creatures among other creatures, mere tiny parts of nature’s great organism. All of our thoughts, he argued, are conditioned by our circumstances: the language we speak, where we’re from, the community roles we have. Born into surroundings that existed before us and will outlast us, it was clear to Schleiermacher that existence, reality and truth are not created by human beings themselves. Our existence is instead given to us, he maintained, from a transcendent, eternal and infinite source.

According to Schleiermacher, then, to be religious is to recognise that human beings are not the ultimate authors of their own existence, and that they are not the arbiters or producers of value in what they see around them. Meaning is not grounded in human reason. It was in this light that Schleiermacher understood piety as an abiding ‘feeling’ that accompanies all human thinking, imagining, dwelling and doing. Piety for him meant coming to terms with the precarious and miraculous nature of our experience, being conscious of ourselves as creatures who are ‘absolutely dependent’.

But just as politics has its limits, so too does religion. It can’t displace or do the work of politics in our world; the work of the church belongs instead to the domain of the spirit. This is why Schleiermacher didn’t believe in theocracy or religious states. On the contrary, he argued for the separation of church and state, on the grounds that this would promote the success of both. In On Religion, we find Schleiermacher pushing this argument to its limit, when he proposes that religion really belongs to the institution of the family. And vice versa, as part of his national vision, he contended that the education of children in Germany (traditionally falling to the church) should be taken on by the state instead. He also argued that full legal privileges should not be withheld or bestowed for religious reasons, an unusual view at the time.

https://aeon.co/ideas/does-religion-have-a-place-in-a-progressive-public-sphere

9. It is said that if the top leaders of the world are taught the way of spirituality, it will end human suffering. Spirituality teaches us that everything is consciousness. Everything comes into existence out of nothingness. There is no death and other sayings. Can reason make room for religion in public life? at 8d) is on the practical aspects of spirituality. It is not like tilting at windmills.

10. The problem is the second and third paragraph. He has referred the problem to MPs many times. Will the MPs at Pasir Ris - Punggol GRC finally put the problem to Parliament?

Yours Sincerely,
hh

cc
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Mr Heng Swee Keat
Mr Teo Chee Hean

Observation

Letter handed in at Meet-the-People Session with copy emailed to PM, DPM, SM and MP:

There Is No Fair Play, Honourable Members of Parliament

2. It would have been enough if he could live his life that way until he dies--watching the world, doing what is required of him and doing his own things. However, his upstairs neighbour was the trouble. They caused noise working a trade in the flat. He complained and the first occupier was evicted. To cover up the eviction, the flat was transferred to the next owner with the help of officers. Noise continued for a number of years, stopped for a number of years because of insiders and continued with a vengeance for a number of years once they sought protection. They stopped only after intervention from within the government.

3. Singapore celebrated its 54th birthday. It is still a place of efficiency and competence, but it has slipped. Why was noise from the neighbour not resolved. The problem was trivial to begin with but was extended to include the sale of his flat, his CPF Account and his CPF LIFE. He pointed out the mistakes made by referring to official documents. The problem left to fester has now affected officers throughout the government. It seemed that by correcting the mistakes, the government would have admitted to wrongdoing. He therefore asked his MPs to bring up the problem in Parliament. The MPs have not given a reply so far. An investigation by Parliament is the only means left for a resolution.

5. He knows people around him caused him trouble because he kept bringing up the problem. Any number of people are willing to do the bidding of bad elements in the government because of the advantages. Power accumulated through kinship, friends and allies is a scourge. Dissent severely limited is a dysfunction society. Tightly controlled life of people is an authoritarian rule. In the name of efficiency, the city may not be a good place to live. There should be human flourishing.

7. A system of one person one vote can be manipulated. If there is always goodies to be given and people are not discerning, the dominant party will have a majority of the votes which resulted in dissatisfaction in certain section of the population. Government-owned media does not report negative news and a lop-sided parliament means that certain issues are always overruled. Concepts such as equality and the rule of law can be up-ended. Trust and respect are not as important as being in position of power. People are only servile to the state, not the idea that it is the other way around.

9. It is said that if the top leaders of the world are taught the way of spirituality, it will end human suffering. Spirituality teaches us that everything is consciousness. Everything comes into existence out of nothingness. There is no death and other sayings. Can reason make room for religion in public life? at 8d) is on the practical aspects of spirituality. It is not like tilting at windmills.