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).
