10. Government Departments

28 Dec 2018


Mr Teo Chee Hean
Blk 738 Pasir Ris Drive 10
#01-21
Singapore 510738

Dear Sir,

Government Departments

1. Criminal Intimidation. Posters were placed by the police at lift lobbies in my precinct on what constituted criminal intimidation. At first I did not take too much notice then realised it had just as much relevance as the poster showing a maid at a coffee shop that was placed at the lobby lift of my previous flat where I was staying.

The maid was saying that as a domestic help she was only allowed to work at the address she was registered.

I therefore wrote to the Ministry of Manpower whether the maid with the neighbour upstairs was registered as part of my complaint of noise from the neighbour. It would have proved or not proved that the neighbour was carrying on a trade in their flat because the maid was used as a subterfuge for the noise. I did not receive a reply from the Ministry.

Similarly, if the recording of CCTV installed at car park, stairway and lift were checked before and after the posters on criminal intimidation were placed, it would reveal whether a trade was being conducted at a flat. It would again prove or not prove as in the case of the maid. For intimidation to work, definite signs have to be shown and I have noticed. Please refer to my recent postings of letters to MPs that were followed by events not detailed here that led to my conclusion. The police is doing something because of the letter you wrote to them after Inquiry (27).

I wonder though whether there will be an end to the problem. Noise from the carrying of a trade by the neighbour occurred earlier than when I first reported in 1998. I approached MPs from 2008 when the neighbour restarted in 2007. They will not stop until there is a resolution.

2. Monetary Losses. Officers at HDB and CPF cause me monetary losses. These are outlined in Salient Point (40):

a) The $5000 deposit after the sale of our flat and the request for the death certificate of my father. What was the purpose of the deposit and would it be returned? What was the purpose in requesting the death certificate when it was not the required documents needed to bring to the meeting?

b) The $219.60 fee to include the name of my mother in the senior citizen apartment was a consequence of a setup to prevent me from applying for Silver Housing Bonus (SHB). When approval was given that we were eligible, officers charged that the fee was required because I had purchased the apartment in my name. The setup began with the handling officer in Item 2a) when she asked whether the cheque from the sale of our flat was to be made in my name when it should have been in both our names. It would seem the $5000 deposit  (which I do not know what it was for) that was deducted from the sale of our flat was in my name.

c) The refund of CPF money from the sale of the flat that was used in the purchase of the flat. Officers, including a director, did not give a direct reply to the issue. I had referred them to supporting documents but it was not addressed. The reason the officers prevented the refund was because interest rate at CPF was higher than the banks.

d) Mistakes made in my CPF Life when I was asked to top-up CPF Life and in conjunction with Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) when money from CPF Retirement Account was transferred to CPF Life. In the first I should not had been asked to top-up because there is a provision  for final top-up from the Retirement Account one month before age 65. Any top-up between the purchase of CPF Life and the final deduction from Retirement Account reduces the payout after age 65.

In the second the re-calculation of payout after an additional amount from interest earned for the year was obviously a mistake. The corresponding increase in the monthly payout is far less than if it were calculated using the lower base rate over a 30 years period. Actually the corresponding increase in monthly payout is less than the amount of interest earned for the year divided into equal monthly payment over a 30 years period.

My CPF Life payout begin in August 2019.

3. I need for your assistance in dealing with the wrongdoings.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

Observation

1. The posters at the lift lobbies in my precinct:

CRIME ALERT
CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION

What is Criminal Intimidation?

• threatens another with any injury to the person, reputation or property;
• to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do; and
• to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

PUNISHMENT:
Fine And/Or Imprisonment Up To 2 Years

The punishment is even higher for threats related to:

• causing death or grievous hurt;
• destruction of any property by fire;
• offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years or more; and
• impute unchastity to a women. 

POLICE
If you have any information on this crime, please call Punggol NPC @ 1800-604 9999

2. Five instances of monetary loss caused by officers that required the assistance of MPs.

10. Public Administration

Getting Public Administration Right: Lessons from Singapore and Japan

AUTHOR/S
Global-is-Asian staff

Policymakers must be sensitive to the political and socioeconomic contexts of their respective countries: in other words, the traditions and histories in which their bureaucracies develop. Furthermore, any reform-minded policymaker must carry his or her decisions with a deliberate, strategic, and planned manner. In Dr. Naomi Aoki's paper, Let's Get Public Administration Right, But in What Sequence? Lessons from Japan and Singapore (published in Public Administration and Development, (2015)) she charts the evolution of bureaucratic tradition and public administration reform. Using the examples of Singapore and Japan, she presents five major thematic views concerning sequential bureaucratic reforms.

1. The Good Governance Model (GGM).

A concept born out of the 1980s, the GGM serves as the epitome of perfect governance of public services. Not only following the rule of law, this elusive GGM is intended to be participatory, consensus orientated, accountable, transparent, effective, and efficient. Closely related is another concept: the Good Public Administration (GPA) which considers the role of mostly non-elected officials in reaching a state of GGM and is therefore perfect itself.

Accountability is arguably the most essential and multifaceted component of the Good Governance Model. There are different kinds of accountability: hierarchical, political, legal and professional.

Both are abstract goals and organisational tools. To pursue GGM, one must build GPA. Reforms leading to GPA however must be structured according to a sequential logic. Professor Aoki's study of Japan's culture of comparatively weak politicians, strong bureaucrats and the opposing Singaporean experience of strong politicians, weak bureaucrats serves to explain how this sequencing might be created.

2. Responsive and efficient delivery of public services.

While difficult for developing nations to learn, it is a necessary step towards reducing poverty. The process towards such a standard is also a concern for developed countries such as the US. Different nations will tend to focus on different aspects or approaches to inch towards GGM. None will however pursue multiple strands of reform at the same time. In the US, for example, there is a particular but contradictory emphasis on executive leadership, governmental representation and the professionalism and neutrality of the civil service. A specific bureaucratic modification will undoubtedly take the character of one element. Reforms have therefore been put forward sequentially, addressing the consequences of earlier ones. Each sort or wave of reform has priorities that will ultimately be remedied by a later push.

3. The language of administrative themes.

Five terms are of major significance to the discussion. Firstly, representation is defined. It stands for the degree to which administrators actually represent different groups in society or society as a whole. This is obviously important when considering how detached the bureaucracy can become from the needs of its constituents. Secondly, professionalism essentially stands for neutral competence and a lack of cronyism in recruitment. Thirdly, managerialism describes a system of rewards for good performance, while having an enhanced customer orientation and drive for efficiency. Fourthly, executive dominance quite openly describes how tightly the executive branch of a country influences its civil service. Finally, we come to accountability, including those that are hierarchical, political, legal and professional. This is arguably the most essential and multifaceted component of GGM.

While Japan historically began by focusing on the professionalisation of the bureaucracy, Singapore's first step of public administration reform was representation to counterbalance the over-dominance of the British in its colonial civil service. This was followed closely by a wave towards professionalism. Singapore later introduced reform to spur managerial thinking and training. Japan, on the other hand, further promoted new institutions and legal structures that cemented power in bureaucracy.

4. Administrative traditions between politicians and bureaucrats.

Tradition furthermore describes the history, laws, boundaries and ideas that truly define a civil service. If one considers the colonial experience in Singapore and the postwar occupation in Japan, it is clear how certain historical moments can lead to massive waves of reform. The resulting political landscapes, in particular the two strong developmental states that emerged with these two nations' respective dominant political parties (the People's Action Party in Singapore and the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan), is also a worthy consideration when talking about tradition. Professor Aoki illustrates that while Japan historically began by focusing on the professionalisation of the bureaucracy, Singapore's first step of public administration reform was representation to counterbalance the over-dominance of the British in its colonial civil service. This was followed closely by a wave towards professionalism. Singapore later introduced reform to spur managerial thinking and training. Japan, on the other hand, further promoted new institutions and legal structures that cemented power in bureaucracy. Professor Aoki noted: In contrast, Japan's path can be characterised as one of bureaucratic centrality. Bureaucrats were professionalised during Meiji Period, but unlike in Singapore, this happened in the absence of executive dominance. Thus, bureaucrats had the chance to cultivate de facto authority In Japan's public administration, the themes of professionalism and legal accountability complemented one another, and they were paramount, at the expense of the theme of hierarchical accountability to the Cabinet.

5. Differences in administrative traditions in Singapore and Japan.

In the case of Singapore, the civil service remains a vital instrument through and with which the executive can achieve a detailed development agenda. In the case of Japan, bureaucrats have been transformed from so-called servants to the Emperor's cause to bureaucrats who conform to a sort of unanimous consensus in the policy-making arena. Subsequent reforms have led Singapore to become an executive-focused system with increasing emphasis on executive power and hierarchical accountability while Japan has progressed into a bureaucratically centralised organism with an underlying theme of professional and legal accountability. Professor Aoki underscores this major divergence of contesting lines of bureaucratic centrality and executive centrality. In both countries, the civil service has played a key role in producing an economically successful national community. Both countries' national bureaucrats are strongly praised abroad. In this sense, they are two successful examples of the approach towards GGM. Furthermore, traditions such as that of Japan, which we might characterise as strong bureaucrats, weak politicians, can be difficult to reverse. In recent decades, Japanese bureaucrats have been attacked by the political class and blamed for its economic woes. Singapore too, has faced new challenges. A growing bureaucracy has led to counter-measures against ministerial fragmentation and emerging initiatives to encourage cross-ministerial collaboration have become the norm. Ultimately, we are challenged to not only study administrative reform in greater detail but also to become students of history: these traditions and abstract goals have their own sort of path dependency. Policymakers must actively question the form and timeline of GPA pursuit. The language of this process must be spelled out. Crucial stakeholders must be identified. More empirical studies on sequential reform should be undertaken. Perhaps then, the lessons of active comparison will bear serious benefits.

Anastasia Rogacheva is a PhD student at the LKY School. She is interested in international relations, political economy and development issues in Asia. Her email is a.rogacheva@u.nus.edu

Observation

Getting Public Administration Right: Lessons from Singapore and Japan

5. Differences in administrative traditions in Singapore and Japan.

In the case of Singapore, the civil service remains a vital instrument through and with which the executive can achieve a detailed development agenda. In the case of Japan, bureaucrats have been transformed from so-called servants to the Emperor's cause to bureaucrats who conform to a sort of unanimous consensus in the policy-making arena. Subsequent reforms have led Singapore to become an executive-focused system with increasing emphasis on executive power and hierarchical accountability while Japan has progressed into a bureaucratically centralised organism with an underlying theme of professional and legal accountability. Professor Aoki underscores this major divergence of contesting lines of bureaucratic centrality and executive centrality. In both countries, the civil service has played a key role in producing an economically successful national community. Both countries' national bureaucrats are strongly praised abroad. In this sense, they are two successful examples of the approach towards GGM. Furthermore, traditions such as that of Japan, which we might characterise as strong bureaucrats, weak politicians, can be difficult to reverse. In recent decades, Japanese bureaucrats have been attacked by the political class and blamed for its economic woes. Singapore too, has faced new challenges. A growing bureaucracy has led to counter-measures against ministerial fragmentation and emerging initiatives to encourage cross-ministerial collaboration have become the norm. Ultimately, we are challenged to not only study administrative reform in greater detail but also to become students of history: these traditions and abstract goals have their own sort of path dependency. Policymakers must actively question the form and timeline of GPA pursuit. The language of this process must be spelled out. Crucial stakeholders must be identified. More empirical studies on sequential reform should be undertaken. Perhaps then, the lessons of active comparison will bear serious benefits.

Anastasia Rogacheva is a PhD student at the LKY School. She is interested in international relations, political economy and development issues in Asia. Her email is a.rogacheva@u.nus.edu

10. Civics

1. Some surprising events in Discovery (9)--Does it not indicates officers allow the neighbour to work in their flat?

2. As if he has no superior, HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) could act independently without being held accountable for his action. No question could be asked of the authorities.

3. The Chairman (Residents' Committee) who visited the owner on the same day after his house visit with HBO at the-flat-across-the-neighbour on 22 Oct 08 and whose term of office ended 31 Mar 09 was still the Chairman who spoke to the owner during a recyclable-for-food programme on 6 Dec 09. The owner could not rely on him as indicated in Item p) and q) of Discovery (9). Not that it would have been possible with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who watches out for the neighbour, but the owner would not be isolated and there may be ways around the problem.

4. Police officers were drawn in too. The Commanding Officer of Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) in a letter sent to the owner on 11 Mar 10 stated they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence without any reference to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. This was in reply to letters the owner wrote on 1 Feb 10 to the President and Singapore Police Force. A day later on 12 Mar 10 the senior station inspector from NPC, a counsellor from Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports, and the estates officer and OIC from the Branch Office visited the owner. All of whom the owner met before and they persuaded him to take up mediation. The owner had thought there was something new when they requested the meeting but referring the owner to the Community Mediation Centre was the umpteen times. The visit was followed by a reply dated 29 Mar 10 from HBO. His reply with copy to two MPs stated he had exhausted all forms of assistance and the owner would have to engage his solicitors to resolve his problem. An earlier letter from the estates officer on 12 Feb 10 in reply to the owner's letter to the Minister of National Development on 1 Feb 10 stated they found no noise, no unauthorised activities, no misuse of flat, no recording devices, and their interviews with neighbours supported their findings. The Minister having replied he would ask HDB to look into it and asked the owner to confirm he received his email. So to the owner's complaint, the officers replied they had investigated and assisted. It was self preservation since they had been faulted. No one is going to believe them.

5. The recording device was the only item in their letters that HBO and estates officers had addressed in the owner's letters to MPs and in his blog. The owner mentioned the possibility of a recording device in the-flat-across-the-neighbour because of start and stop attempts to lower noise from the neighbour's flat. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour would want the noise down so that the owner would stop complaining and passersby outside their flats would not notice. The owner thought such a device existed and would suit the purpose. But the issue was not whether he got it right because it would be more to the point if HBO and estates officer could reply in the context of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. They stated no recording devices but not the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour had nothing to do with his problem.

6. The owner knows of the-flat-across-the-neighbour from a man who lived there for a short time and he stopped the neighbour for four years before the current complaint. The owner therefore took notice when the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour moved in four days after his first MPS (Meet-the-People Session). A CC (Community Centre) member at MPS whom the owner spoke to on three separate occasions was shown to be in contact with them, and HBO was at the-flat-across-the-neighbour as indicated by the bcc he sent to the Chairman.

7. HBO, the CC member and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour keep tag of the owner. They and the neighbour are in an affair the owner is trying to make public.

8. How insiders assisted the owner:

a) The owner wrote to the Branch Office on 10 Mar 99 that the occupier came pounding at his door the next morning because the night before the owner knocked on the occupier's door but he would not answer. Within a week of the complaint the owner saw the occupier moved out and a technical officer from the Branch Office visited to inform him of the eviction. It was significant to the owner that he asked what the owner did that led to the eviction, the owner having already wrote a few complaints before this.

b) Four years later a man, who came to live for a short time in the-flat-across-the-neighbour, stopped the noise (Item 6). A young woman who scolded the owner for staring gave him the full name of the man. The owner explained he was keeping tag of people living upstairs because of noise from the neighbour. After the man left it was quiet for four years until Jun 07 when loud noise for a number of days signalled the restart and noise had continued since.

c) The owner's first letter to the Branch Office after a month of observation was on 12 Aug 07. Some time in Dec 07 to Jan 08 noise from the maid stopped at the same time the owner saw a poster in the noticeboard downstairs showing a maid at a coffeeshop. The maid was not seen again except for one day during the Chinese New Year in Feb 08. As can be seen from the dates, a number of months passed before someone stopped the maid mentioned in the letter to the Branch Office.

d) A 15-seconds message on perceived injustice with a return address was broadcasted over TV after HBO's letter that the owner may seek assistance from other government agencies or engage his solicitors. This was after the moving-in of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, force-entry at the neighbour's flat, possible break-in at the owner's flat, and meeting with the first MP. No action was taken by the authorities to stop the neighbour.

e) The bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Item 6) was sent to the owner at the time he met Mr Teo Chee Hean. The bcc proved conspiracy. Officers gathered support from neighbours with interview and HBO let on to the Chairman the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to gain his cooperation. Together with a network of contacts in and out of government, HBO's position is unassailable.

f) Town Council wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB soon. During the next MPS, the interviewer then Mr Teo Chee Hean asked him whether someone came to see him. No one did. The officers, by not visiting him, indicated indirectly something else was going on. They could not help, they did not want to be seen by the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and they do not want to be part of their scheme.

g) The owner thinks someone asked the area's MP to pass a message to HBO during his last MPS. It was his tenth session when the CC member (Item 6) indicated to him he should stop coming. The area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day, and it was signalled to the owner with reduced noise.

h) An old friend, who the owner had not been in contact, was an intermediary. He met the owner on the same day after the force-entry, phoned immediately after the owner emailed PM, and met the owner the fifth and last time after he posted President (26). The last time was a turning point because noise was gradually reduced after further postings.

i) There were online articles and comments about an official. Mr Teo Chee Hean rebuked him in Parliament. The owner noticed his name bore resemblance to HBO's and mentioned it in an email to PM. It would seem HBO knew about it and sent an overdue reply to the owner a day after an old friend's visit. The friend had phoned immediately after the email and visited him (Item 8h).

j) Civicadvocator.net published the owner's complaint. It was a help although subsequent meeting with two volunteers indicated it was limited. Earlier, he wrote to another site and a meeting was arranged but they did not come. Yet another site asked the owner to keep him informed but, when the owner asked him to let his readers know after posting Discovery (9), he replied he did not quite understand the content of his blog.

9. Four MPs replied, one through an officer, after the owner posted Discovery (9) on 4 Mar 10. HBO in turn replied to the owner on 29 Mar 10 with copy to two MPs, one MP having emailed the owner she would refer the owner's concerns to the appropriate authority and the other MP the owner met at Ulu Pandan after a volunteer had invited him to attend their MPS. To the area's MP who informed the owner through an email that he had asked the Branch Office to look into his complaint in Discovery (9), however, there was no reply. Why did the area's MP referred the complaint to the Branch Office rather than HDB? Having met the owner five times, he was familiar with the case. He said he would meet HBO the next day during the last meeting at Item 8g). On all occasions that he sent his request to HDB, it was HBO who replied. Item 2, 4 and 8f showed just as much about the situation. HBO could not be bypassed.

10. Officers keep the neighbour informed and the neighbour, knowing that they have the upper hand, use noise to signal the owner. The owner talked to HBO one time, the Chairman two times, the Community Center member who lived at his block of flat three times, OIC who called over the phone and visited many times, other officers who visited with OIC many times and he saw the person who lives in the-flat-across-the-neighbour when he wanted to be seen since Nov 08. The owner emailed high officials each time he posted in his blog, but the only replies he got were from junior officers who referred him to Branch Office and other authorities for assistance. HBO would only reply to letters from MPs to HDB, and Commanding Officer of Neighbourhood Police Centre who replied to the owner's letters to the President and Singapore Police Force took the same line HBO took. They ignored all evidence that included the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stationed to protect the neighbour and watch the owner. It is in the nature of the administration to control, but it should not be without fairness, decency or graciousness.

11. Were they unfriendly? Yes and no. Together with the neighbour they forced the owner into selling his flat but appeared to assist. Did they not know what the owner wrote about in his letters and blog? They were aware but kept silent. Why did HBO take upon himself to cover up when the owner first wrote to him? He was confident of backing from high officials. When HBO asked the Chairman to explain neighbourliness to the owner, he implied the favour would be returned. It may have became a practice in the government to exchange favours, depending on how well connected one is (Item 8e).

12. It was a concerted effort. If they could keep the problem just between the owner and the neighbour, the owner would be forced to sell his flat because of the noise. To ensure nothing untoward, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour monitors noise level and keeps an eye on the owner. No one would refer to the complaint directly and letters do not get passed HBO. The authorities, having make up their mind, would not undo it and nothing could stop them.

13. On 31 Mar 10 the Business Times reported "Five-pronged push to make Public Service fit for the future", and "Public officers will also be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than ideological path and stay pragmatic in making policies - an approach that has produced many innovative solutions in the past, DPM Teo Chee Hean noted." Mr Teo was speaking at the Administrative Service Dinner and Promotion Ceremony. Item 9, 10, 11 and 12 point to the problem.

14. There was very little noise the afternoon of 30 Mar 10 and the day after Mr Teo's speech was reported on 31 Mar 10. Although noise appeared to be lower, it is still through the day every day of the week.

15. Noise had been loud to intimidate and low to keep the owner off guard. At present the knock, rumble and thump are muffled. He hears knock in the early morning (4.00 am - 7.00 am), noise in the morning, and longer period of noise in the afternoon. It has been two years and nine months since he brought the problem to the attention of HDB, first by meeting MPs and later by blogging.

16. If the whole-of-government do not take action, the administration is wont to maintain status quo. It means HBO's network of contacts remained intact, the neighbour is still a problem and there could be more such cases.

17. Civics: the science of citizenship; the science of civil administration.