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?
