15. Question

1. HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) should be held accountable for his action, yet he is not. When the problem started, he did not reply to the owner's two letters that was addressed to him by his name. He only replied to MPs' letter on behalf of the owner, and he replied without referring to any of the issue raised in letters the owner brought to the MPs at Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).  
 
2. There was no reply to the first letter but a senior estates officer did reply to the second letter a day after the owner attended his first MPS. It seemed the officer's reply was first line of defence and HBO's replies to MPs' letter the final line of defence. High officials did not get involve because they would have to get to the bottom of the problem. MPs could only bring up the problem but could not take it directly to the high officials. They are in separate branch of government--MPs having to do with legislature while high officials are administrators. In the case, MPs seemed to have lost out. Could MPs be allowed to be seen as ineffective?
 
3. HBO actively seek to mislead and cover up the problem. He misled the owner about a transfer of the neighbour's flat in a meeting, and he took no action to stop a maid mentioned in the first letter to him. He would probably have said he did not receive the owner's first letter so there was no written reply but for two officers who visited the owner and to whom the owner gave a draft of the letter. They said that of the second letter, and the owner went to the Branch Office to hand them a draft. HBO would have read the two letters for him to mislead the owner. The owner was to find out an eviction caused the transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour allowing them to continue in a line of work, and the maid who was not registered was stopped by insider many months later. He wrote to HDB and Ministry of Manpower about it respectively, but there was no reply.
 
4. A clear example of collusion is the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, they protect the neighbour and watch the owner. They moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour within a week of the owner's first MPS, and the owner was not surprised there was a force-entry at the neighbour's flat some time later. He was aware the neighbour was stopped by an insider four years earlier when he came to live in the-flat-across-the-neighbour for a short time. It was different this time, noise did not stop and noise was used to force the owner into selling his flat. Over the many years that the owner wrote and met with MPs and later blogged, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour stayed. Since they are likely to be personnel, could the authorities justify their presence for over the two and a half years now?
 
5. In general officers wrote there was no excessive noise and referred the owner to Community Mediation Centre and HBO wrote that the owner may engage his solicitors to resolve his problem. In one HBO replied in the same way with copy to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service when the Minister wrote to HDB on behalf of the owner. Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) took the line same line when the Commanding Officer referred the owner to Community Mediation Centre after he wrote to the President and Singapore Police Force. No one more senior than the rank of HBO and Commanding Officer attended to the problem. MPs represent the people, unless they are tough with high officials, the officers below them will continue with the cover-up.
 
6. Events showing cover-up:
 
a) At a meeting that the owner had insisted, HBO refused to give the type of occupation the neighbour was in but allow his name to be given. However, OIC (Officer-in-Charge) would not give the neighbour's name a few days later when he visited the owner. He was at the meeting when HBO said he allowed it and he had the name in his fact sheet.
 
b) In the meeting HBO misled the owner by saying there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat when the transfer was nine years ago after an eviction.
 
c) When the owner handed over a draft of his second letter and asked for an acknowledgment, he received a photocopy of the draft with two lines missing. The lines referred to no noise before OIC's visit following the owner's first letter and noise after his visit when he phoned the owner to check.
 
d) After the complaint about the maid in the owner's first letters and the maid was stopped by insider many months later, the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower. There was no reply as to whether the maid was registered to work in the flat.
 
e) The owner asked the MPs to bypass HBO, it could not be done. HBO continued to reply to the MPs.
 
f) The owner wrote to MP that he knew of an eviction at the neighbour's flat and backed it up with dates and names from letters sent to the Branch Office and HDB at the time. However, a junior officer wrote no eviction was conducted at the neighbour's flat after the owner started blogging.
 
g) He wrote to the President and Singapore Police Force that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour collaborated with the neighbour, but the follow-up reply from NPC did not mention the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
h) He listed sequence of events and gave corroborating evidence to do with force-entry, break-in, the neighbour, officers and insiders. These were ignored.
 
i) He noted behaviour unbecoming of officers and action of a network of contacts.
 
j) He noted behaviour of the neighbour who was kept informed by officers.
 
k) He heard noises through the day and saw the workers. He saw the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour who protected the neighbour. 
 
7. Noise was reduced after Comment (14) last month. Continual noise in the morning and afternoon. Noises were rumble, knock, thump, whine and drag. Some of the noises were clearly from machine-tools. Depending on the workers and the types of work they do, there were more or less noise.
 
8. There was a further reduction last week but for one day when noise worsen and noise was heard in the night. It was better with low rumbling and muffled noise, but irritating with knock, drag and distinct noises. Some quiet periods. If the past is any guide, they do not let up. They reduced noise to appease for a time.
 
9. Officers and first owner made a deal at the time of the eviction in '99. The eviction was carried out only because the occupier was an illegal occupant and the owner wrote that the occupant came pounding on his door. The first owner was then allowed to transfer the flat to the neighbour to continue with their works. The neighbour expected the same treatment in '07, which is the start of the current complaint, after having been stopped by an insider four years before. Officers would keep the neighbour informed whenever the owner complained while they write to the owner for him to be reasonable. On their part the neighbour would reduce noise for a time. Because the owner was able to show the previous and current complaint were connected, the stationing of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was to be the officers' solution. They could have stopped the neighbour after the force-entry but chose to protect them.
 
10. HBO has strong connection in the administration and is central to the problem. He prevents any action to stop the neighbour. Should not he be removed to resolve the problem?
 
11. In the Business Times of 22 May 09:
 
"Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government was on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders and people who could adapt to changing environments.
 
Mr Teo, who is also Defence Minister and Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, said in the Prime Minister's Office's addendum to the President's address that the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.
 
These include overseas postings, cross-agency projects and attachments to non-government and community organisations. The Civil Service College, too, would enhance its leadership training programmes."
 
Item 4t in Discovery (9) is on a sequence of events that may have led to the pronouncement and Item 16 in Ethics (12) is on new official appointments. Are they in any way related? How pervasive is the problem? 
 
12. The Business Times of 7 Sep 10 reported Public Service Commission (PSC) "will now have 12 members. The body's aim is to be independent and neutral to safeguard integrity, impartiality and meritocracy in the civil service." Why has not PSC taken up the case?