8. Record

1. Two things are important to the case--the bcc that was sent to the owner and publicity through email and blog.
 
2. Without the bcc one wonder what the owner wrote is true. Whatever evidence he has is circumstantial because the authorities would not corroborate or reply. The bcc is a small note from HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) that points to certain facts. Getting to know those facts require background knowledge, but by itself the bcc attracts attention because insider sent it to the owner.
 
3. His blog gave the case exposure. At least noise could be reduced for a while with the postings before it started up again. He emailed to addresses found in the Who's Who in Singapore 2006, the Government Directory and the internet. There were viewers from civicadvocator.net. In all the number is small, but for the fact some of the people he emailed are leaders.
 
4. Plea (7) is an email to the Town Council on the noise. He heard knock in the early morning; rumble, knock and loud noise during the day; and low level noise in the night. Last week there was some noises on two nights including one that began with a heavy thump at 1.30 am. Both times noises could be heard up till the morning. The same happened more than one year ago in Sep 08 when he wrote and met the first MP.
 
5. Some of the noises are from machine-tools and their long hours are from workers taking shift. Lowering of noise should not be the solution. When a newly posted officer asked the owner what he thought the neighbour were doing, he said it was from the working of jewellery or fashion accessory. The officer agreed.
 
6. After attending his first Meet-the-People Session, the owner noticed people moving into the flat across the neighbour on 22 Feb 08. They have since stayed for nearly two years. A similar event occurred when a man stayed in the same flat for a short time and a woman gave the owner the full name of the man. When the man left, noise stopped for four years until the current complaint. In both cases the neighbour is the same owner. What is different now?

 
7. Pervasive Case (5) gives an overview. 

7. Plea

The owner's email to Pasir Ris Town Council on 13 Jan 2010:
 
Dear Sir,
 
Noise From A Neighbour
 
1. Blank.
 
2. After I posted Prospect (6) an estates officer and Officer-in-Charge (OIC) visited me on 1 Oct 09 to inform no machine-tool was found inside the upper floor flat during their inspection on the same day. I said the neighbour would have removed it before the inspection. It was for the same reason that I had refused to let OIC and a fellow officer entered my flat to check for noise a year earlier in Oct 08 because officers kept the neighbour informed. I invited them in for a chat only because this was the first time I saw the estates officer.
 
3. Although there was reduced amount and level of noise after Prospect (6) in Sep 09, there was sporadic loud noise. The considerably less noise from Dec 09 was probably due to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who may have requested it because increase noise was followed by lower noise the next day a number of times. I still hear rumble, knock, drag, heavy sound, sharp sound and a noisy drainpipe. The continual rumble, knock and thump are from machine-tools. Considering the long hours and nature of their works, including noises beyond normal hours at night, it should not be acceptable to any person.

 
4. It is game to the neighbour where a deal with the officers allows them to get away with little risk to themselves. Except for their profit, it matters little the distress they cause me. The noise started in Jun 07 but, despite help from MPs, the proper authorities have remain silent.
 
5. The authorities would have known about the neighbour with the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
6. Please refer to my blog at http://anaudienceof2.blogspot.com
 
Regards,
hh