9. Discovery

1. Singapore Mint ventured into the lucrative jewellery market, and is currently considering getting local distributors to represent it. It was reported in the Business Times on 1 Feb 2010.
 
2. The owner's reaction was this would take away some business from workers who work in their flats and create noise for others. He remembered from BlogTV a participant saying a noise woke him at night, and he was unable to go back to sleep. He said his neighbour seemed like reasonable people, but when he mentioned the noise they did not admit it. It sounded familiar to the owner. The subject title was Neighbour From Hell.
 
3. The owner wrote to the President, the Singapore Police Force and a few Ministers on 1 Feb 10. He received replies the matter would be looked into. He also posted Plea (7) and Record (8) on the same date.
 
4. Let us go by the facts that could be ascertained:
 
a) How did the owner come to conclude the maid was not registered to work in the neighbour's flat? He kept watch for a month from 8 Jul 07 to 5 Aug 07, wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office, and noted a quiet period occurred at the same time a poster of a maid working at a coffeeshop appeared on the noticeboard. The maid was not seen again until the Chinese New Year for a day in Feb 08. If the maid was registered at another address, it may be where the neighbour lived. The owner observed that the flat was used as workplace by workers and the maid was a substitute when he began watching. More details may be found in the post Neighbour (4). The Ministry of Manpower could confirm whether there was a maid in their record and where she was registered. 
 
b) The owner thinks the noises are from the working of jewellery or fashion accessory. He therefore asked HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) the occupation of the neighbour, but he would not divulge. HDB could check personal records including the first owner who, after an eviction, transferred the flat to the neighbour.
 
c) The owner reasons that the first owner and neighbour are related. They are in a business with other workers. HDB could confirm by dates the following: The owner's letters to the Branch Office about the noise, the owner's letter to HDB Feedback Unit after an eviction, and the transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour. The dates should be close. Officers facilitated the transfer and several officers knew about the eviction in mid-Mar 99.
 
d) If there was no eviction as an officer wrote on 20 Aug 09, then it could be possible there was also no record of the occupier. The owner wrote to the Branch Office the occupier came pounding on the owner's door the next morning after the owner knocked on the occupier's door the night before but he would not answer. He had lived there for many years. Before the occupier, the owner had seen the neighbour and his wife and thought they owned the flat. The owner had not seen the first owner through the years, only the owner's mother had seen him and he had spoken to her a few times. If there is a record of the occupier having been a tenant, then there will be a probability that the occupier was not evicted. Although it would surprise the owner because he saw the occupier moved out after his complaint and a technical officer from the Branch Office visited to inform him of the eviction. HDB could confirm whether there is a record of the occupier. 
 
e) OIC (Officer-in-Charge) would not give the name of the neighbour although he was at the meeting in which HBO had agreed when the owner asked. Why did OIC find it necessary to keep the neighbour's name hidden from the owner?
 
f) What about HDB? Were they aware the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour were there to keep the situation under control? The bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) could prove that the flat was used for monitoring both the owner and the neighbour. They caused the owner to suspect there was a noise recording device inside the flat.
 
g) After the owner's first letter to MPS (Meet-the-People Session) on 18 Feb 08, they occupied the-flat-across-the-neighbour on 22 Feb 08. It has been two years now. If there was not a problem, they would not have been there and if there was one, they had not done much to resolve it. During that time the owner went to eight more MPS, blogged, but the noise had continued. He observed that thump and rumble were from machine-tools, and noises from early morning to night were from persons taking shift. If HDB were to replace the team at the-flat-across-the-neighbour, could the problem be resolved? What if HDB were to remove them and conduct random inspections instead? 
 
h) Random inspection of noise at the owner's flat would be an effective method because the neighbour would not be any wiser if not for the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who also watches the owner's flat. HDB's power to repossess flat would act as a deterrence. Before the neighbour restarted their work a man who came to live in the-flat-across-the-neighbour for a short time managed to stop the neighbour for four years, and a women who scolded the owner for staring gave him the full name of the man. They were insiders who knew what the neighbour was up to. Also when the-flat-across-the-neighbour was unoccupied for two weeks, noise was minimal (refer to Item 23, Encounter [13]). HDB needs therefore to remove the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to resolve the problem. 
 
i) In effect the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watches out for the neighbour. Town Council's letter referring to the owner's appeal through Mr Teo Chee Hean replied that he would hear from HDB soon, but no one came. Had officers came, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour would have seen them. They have line of sight of the owner's flat which included the doorway, balcony, study room and part of the living room. And they could easily communicate with the neighbour whose flat is the same type as the owner's, which is one floor below their flats. It caused the owner to wonder whether they occupied the flat just to protect the neighbour and keep the owner under watch. Mr Teo wrote to Town Council because the owner asked him to bypass HBO who replied to all MPs' letters to HDB. Could HDB explain why they could not be reached?
 
j) The owner is aware of his situation. At MPS he noted there were CC members (Community Center members) for and against him. He knew of a CC member who was against him and in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. He knows he is watched because when there were visitors to the owner's flat the noise would stop, and noise was directed at him that could be tied to letters he wrote or blogged. But why have the authorities remain silent when they knew about it?
 
k) The problem could as easily be someone else. The neighbour works for a profit and officers allow them. Details on a force-entry and a possible break-in are under Findings in Report (1) and implications of the bcc is Item 5 in Pervasive Case (5). The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour figures in each instance. Are they a figment of the owner's imagination? Is it not in the public interest to investigate? 
 
l) The owner handed over a copy of his second letter at the Branch Office because OIC said they had not received it. He asked for an acknowledgment and insisted on a meeting with HBO, which was with OIC's presence during the meeting. The acknowledgment was a photocopy of his letter signed by a clerk which had two lines missing from the letter that alluded to the OIC having contacted the neighbour to adjust the noise level. The owner had his suspicion when, after his first letter, a well-dressed man and OIC visited him before visiting the neighbour upstair. The well-dressed man did not want to give his name and, two days later, a three hours stretch of rumbling noise was followed by the OIC calling back over the phone to enquire. HBO did not reply to the two letters although it was addressed to him. 
 
m) The owner's two letters to the first MP was followed by a letter from HBO that the owner may obtain a court injunction to stop the noise. The first letter listed items that included the eviction, maid, force-entry, and start and stop attempts to lower the noise; and the second letter was about a heavy knock at 1.00 am followed by continual knock through the night, the next morning and afternoon. By considering what HBO said in the meeting about a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat after the owner's two letters to him and his reply to the owner's two letters to the MP which was attached to the MP's letter to HDB, he could not be unware that officers were involved with the neighbour. 
 
n) The message on perceived injustice with return address was broadcasted on TV after HBO wrote that the owner may obtain a court injunction on 25 Sep 08 and before the owner received the bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) on 7 Nov 08. Insiders knew what was going on. 
 
o) A sequence of events:

i) When the owner could not contact the person who broadcast the message, he spoke about checking out discussion groups to a friend on 26 Mar 09.
ii) Then he noticed HBO's posting at the CNA Forum (Channel NewsAsia Forum).
iii) He commented on the posting to volunteers from civicadvocator.net who visited him on 18 May 09. They had published the owner's letter a week earlier.

HBO may have published and withdrew his post on car-parking at CNA Forum after the two dates respectively. The owner thinks the TV message and HBO's post were unusual events. HBO's intent was to let the owner know his attempt at publicity was not going to succeed. He has powerful connection to back his action.
 
p) The bcc from HBO to the Chairman after their visit to the-flat-across-the-neighbour stated "there is no noise nuisance being detected", and asked the Chairman to explain "good neighbourliness" to the owner. The Chairman, having arranged to meet one of his member the same morning after their meeting, then visited the owner. The owner told the Chairman and member about the incessant knocking earlier in the morning and said, as they were leaving, that if they could come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Did HBO communicate with the neighbour that morning to make the noise when he saw the owner in his study room? And why did the Chairman not visit him one month later when he said he would?
 
q) Why was HBO at the-flat-across-the-neighbour? After HBO wrote his first letter that the owner may obtain a court injunction, the owner went to see the area's MP about the first owner and the neighbour having to do with an eviction at the neighbour's flat. Noise was heightened after the meeting, and the owner refused to allow OIC and a fellow officer into his flat to check for noise the second week after the meeting. Because of the owner's refusal, HBO arranged a visit with the Chairman at the-flat-across-the-neighbour followed by the Chairman's visit to the owner on the third week. HBO then replied to the owner the area's MP had asked HDB to look into his feedback and he was glad the Chairman had approached and assisted him on the fourth week. HBO staged the events and he wanted the Chairman on his side by showing him proof of his powerful connection by the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
r) At the last MPS the area's MP said to the owner he would meet HBO the next day. This was on 23 Feb 09, and HBO did not reply to the letter the area's MP sent to HDB then until two months later on 24 Apr 09. He replied only because the owner emailed the PM on 19 Apr 09. The email mentioned the resemblance of name between HBO and a high official. The owner thinks HBO knew about the email because noise in the form of knocks spaced at regular interval was meant for the owner. The owner remembered the incident because an old friend called almost immediately after he emailed PM, and HBO dated his reply one day after the friend's visit on 23 Apr 09.
 
s) There is no doubt HBO has backing. He replied to all seven letters from MPs to HDB. Since six of his replies had the words court injunction, the owner requested the MPs a number of times that their letters go to the Headquarters and not to the Branch Office. The area's MP may have bore a message for HBO after the last MPS when he said he would go to see him the next day. It was indicated by reduced noise although HBO did not reply to his letter until the event in Item r). HBO should not be made answerable going by Item l) to s). What causes HDB to avoid giving a reply and taking action?
 
t) DPM Teo Chee Hean, who is also Defence Minister and Minister of the Civil Service, said in the Prime Minister's Office's addendum to the President's address that the government was on the lookout for "bold and visionary" leaders and would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders. It was reported in the Business Times on 22 May 09. The following sequence of events could have led to the pronouncement:

i) HBO's first letter to the owner to obtain court injunction on 25 Sep 08. 
ii) A 15-seconds broadcast over TV on perceived injustice sometime between 25 Sep 08 and 7 Nov 08.
iii) Someone sent to the owner the bcc from HBO to Chairman on 7 Nov 08.
iv) Mr Teo rebuked an official in Parliament on 19 Jan 09.
v) Mr Teo sent a letter to the Town Council after the owner requested the letter bypassed HBO. But in the next MPS when Mr Teo wrote on behalf of the owner to HDB, HBO cc to Mr Teo his reply to the owner on 3 Feb 09.
vi) The owner wrote about his problem in a post published at civicadvocator.net on 11 May 09.

u) Neighbourhood Police Centre's (NPC's) initial reply dated 10 Feb 10 and the Branch Office's reply dated 12 Feb 10 after the letter to the President and email to the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in Item 3 was a time of lower noise. But on 16 Feb 10, a public holiday after the Chinese New Year, noise was bad and the owner went to the NPC. Following the events described in Item 13d), Encounter (13), the owner emailed the NPC on the 18 Feb 10 and 19 Feb 10 and the senior station inspector came to visit him. An hour before his visit noise stopped, and noise started up when he left. NPC did not reply to his emails whether one of their officer or someone posing as one called the owner's mother to make enquiry about the owner.
 
v) However, NPC did follow up with an investigation after the letters to the President and SPF of 1 Feb 10 in Item 3. The letter dated 4 Mar 10 but stamped 11 Mar 10 on the envelope stated they "were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence." This was one day before a meeting with officers in Item 13e), Encounter (13), on 12 Mar 10. In the letter no mention was made of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour that the owner had been specific about. Also before the meeting the senior station inspector had visited the owner a second time during which he took a 3-hours statement from him.
 
w) An extensive network of contacts is used against the owner. He would have been in more trouble without the support of insiders.
 
x) Given the issues, why has enforcement agencies not taken the lead? 
 
5. In his letters HBO referred the owner to Community Meditation Centre and to engage his own solicitors. He knows without physical evidence the owner would have a hard time proving his case. But as shown above there is "a preponderance of evidence" and if these could not be brought into question, the officers and neighbour could not be brought to justice. 
 
6. The owner hopes the reader could come to some conclusion too.