18. Justice

1. Researchers have examined many cultures and traditions to find the virtues believed to be essential for living well. This proved impossible--but the following six kept turning up: justice, humaneness, temperance, wisdom, courage and transcendence. The odd one out is transcendence as they acknowledged it is not strictly a virtue in the sense of requiring specific behaviour. 
 
Psychologists have found no one ever learns to tolerate excessive noise.
 
The Age Of Absurdity  Michael Foley, pp 57, 67.
 
2. Assured that there will be no enforcement, the neighbour is able to continue with their works. The owner may write about the problem, but officers seek to isolate the owner. No investigation is conducted to show whether officers are involved with the neighbour.
 
3. High officials should be held responsible for the officers at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office and not remain silent. The owner would not speculate on their reasons except they affect the integrity of the government.
 
4. Noise has lessened considerably after Petition (17) to high officials last month. Muffled rumble, muffled thump, knock and other noises could still be heard early in the morning, over the day and at night. It is not acceptable.
 
5. Last week an officer from HDB Headquarters and OIC (Officer-in-Charge) from the Branch Office visited the owner. The officer asked if an internal inquiry was conducted would the owner accept its findings. She also said the neighbour would be carrying out works in the flat and not to mistake it for the noise he complained about. All things considered, the owner thought this could be inimical. She was not sincere by coming with OIC, and she could be the estates officer who emailed the owner in Sep 10 that the owner rejected their offer and refused to offer more information when headquarters staff visited him. The owner having replied to the email that no one had visited.
 
6. A brief summary of events involving officers:
 
a) HBO did not reply to the two letters the owner wrote to his attention. There was no written reply to the first, and reply to the second by a senior estates officer was after the owner attended his first MPS (Meet-the-People Session). The owner suspected the senior estates officer may have been the official-looking man who was with OIC during their first visit and who did not give his name when asked (Item 14a,vi, Comment [14]).
 
b) When the owner handed over a draft of the second letter at the Branch Office, he asked for an acknowledgment and received a signed photocopy of his draft with two lines missing. The two lines referred to no noise before OIC's visit and noise after his visit. In the meeting that the owner insisted afterwards, HBO said there was a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat when it should be nine years ago.
 
c) The maid referred in the first letter was allowed to continue working in the neighbour's flat until insider stopped her four months later. She was heard working each day but stopped at the same time a poster showing a maid at a coffeeshop was placed at the noticeboard downstairs. A similar event took place many years earlier when an occupier was allowed to continue working for three months and was evicted only after he came pounding at the owner's door. It was the eviction that led to the transfer of the flat to the neighbour. The first owner and the neighbour knew one another and officers facilitated the transfer so they could continue with their works.
 
d) At the first MPS no MP was in session but HBO followed up in his reply to the owner by referring to a MP. After meeting the MP at the owner's second MPS, HBO replied to the MP's letter stating the owner may engage his solicitors and referred him to other agencies for assistance. He did not refer to the issues at hand, which included the eviction, maid and force-entry, in his reply. By this time the owner had written five letters, two to HBO, one to the first MPS and two to the MP. HDB would also have known about the issues from the many MPs' letters to them but they referred it to HBO each time for his reply.
 
e) After HBO's reply for the owner to engage his solicitors, there was a 15-seconds message on perceived injustice with a return address broadcast over TV. The owner phoned and wrote to the company for the address that was flashed on the screen, but they would help him with it.
  
f) Before meeting the first MP at the second MPS, the owner saw an elder who was greeted warmly when he came in. And before meeting with the area's MP at the next MPS in another venue, the owner saw him again. He went into the room where MP held their session, then left. The elder may have been there to influence CC members (Community Centre members) because the owner was turned away by the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service at his next MPS.
 
g) Noise was heightened after the meeting with the area's MP, and the owner refused to let OIC and a fellow officer entered his flat to check for noise. The owner suspected an arrangement between officers, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and the neighbour.
 
h) HBO replied to the owner and cc to the area's MP, who wrote on behalf of the owner, after the owner disallowed the officers from checking for noise. This letter was sent twice to the owner, the second time with a bcc attached. The second time was sent on the same day the owner went to meet the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service but was turned away. He read the bcc only after the meeting. The house visit that HBO referred in the bcc to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) would have meant he and the Chairman met at the-flat-across-the-neighbour with intent to discredit the owner.
 
i) The Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, who had earlier turned away the owner mentioned in Item 6f) and 6h), met the owner at later MPS and wrote to Town Council to accommodate his request to bypass HBO. Town Council then wrote to the owner he would hear from HDB soon. But no one came. They did not come because they knew that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour were watching out for the neighbour. 
 
j) The Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service rebuked an official in parliament. It was the same day the Minister asked the owner whether someone visited him after he wrote to the Town Council. This was two to three months after the owner first met the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service. It indicated high officials had resisted against resolving the problem.
 
k) A CC member asked the owner how many times he had seen the area's MP and with a move of his hand said 10.00 am. He intended to tell the owner to stop coming to MPS and the owner could expect noise after ten in the morning. His message was clear, the owner having spoken to him on two other occasions one before and one after that meeting. This was to be the owner's last session with MPs at his constituency about the noise and also the session in which the area's MP said he would meet HBO the next day.
 
l) Circumstances leading to a force-entry at the neighbour's flat and a possible break-in at the owner's flat are in Report (1) under Findings. In the mind of the owner, the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour is an important evidence. They moved in four days after the first MPS and would have been involved with the force-entry and break-in. HBO and a CC member were in contact with them (Item h and k).
 
m) HBO could have known about a new estates officer and OIC's visit to the owner after Prospect (6) in Sep 09. The new estates officer, who he did know the name of HBO because OIC had to tell him, informed the owner they had inspected the neighbour's flat just before visiting the owner and found no machine-tools. Being new, the estates officer may not have been part of the ploy because he asked and agreed when the owner said the neighbour's work was in jewellery or fashion accessory. A year before HBO had staged heightened noise, sent OIC and a fellow officer to check for noise in the owner's flat, and met the Chairman at the-flat-across-the-neighbour to ask him to explain good neighbourliness to the owner (Item g and h).
 
n) The new estates officer changed his tune, made written replies and saw the owner several times later. Other officers also made written replies or visited the owner. They were doing it for show and not to help. Consider also the senior estates officer who was not seen throughout. His only reply was in Feb 08, one and a half years before the new estates officer came. The owner suspected he was the officer who did not want to give his name when he first visited the owner with OIC (Item a). Their behaviour during their visit to the owner and the neighbour caused the owner to be suspicious.
 
o) The new estates officer wrote to the owner that they had referred his case to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports and the Police after the owner posted Plea (7) and Record (8) and wrote to the President, Singapore Police Force and Minister of National Development. Later two persons, one identified himself as a counsellor, visited the owner. When pressed for the purpose of his visit, the counsellor said he was there to help the owner cope with his difficulty.
   
p) The counsellor from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports, who was sent to help the owner cope, the senior station inspector from neighbourhood police, who took a three-hours statement from the owner, the new estates officers, who had toed the line, and OIC, who met the owner often, visited after Discovery (9). They wanted the owner to take up mediation. The new estates officer said he would visit the neighbour upstairs in an offer to the owner to check out for himself and OIC volunteered the name of a person at the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
q) A day before the visit in Item p) the Commanding Officer of Neighbourhood Police Centre replied to the owner's letters to the President and Singapore Police Force. He stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. His reply did not refer to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour although this was crucial to the complaint. After the visit, HBO replied to the owner with copy to two MPs who wrote on behalf of the owner that he had "exhausted all forms of assistance" and the owner would have to engage his "own private solicitors" to resolve his problem.
 
r) Earlier, the area's MP informed the owner in an email he had referred his complaint to the Branch Office after Discovery (9). He did so because all his previous letters to HDB on behalf of the owner went to the Branch Office in which HBO replied. The post listed facts the authorities could ascertain including those against HBO. The Branch Office did not and could not have replied.
 
s) Similarly with HDB, Ministry of National Development, Public Service Commission, Singapore Police Force and President, when the owner wrote to them, those issues were not taken up because officers are involved.
 
t) Ministers and others made public statements that appeared to refer to the case. Such statements are in the owner's postings under the category Pronouncement.
 
u) Insiders are mentioned in Item c, e, h and i. One earlier example was a man who stopped the neighbour for four years before the current complaint. He stayed at the-flat-across-the-neighbour for a short time and noise stopped when he left. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour in Item l, however, stayed to protect the neighbour. Pervasive Case (5) is on the what of the problem. Item 8 in Civics (10) and Item 4 in Petition (17) are examples of insider who assisted the owner.
 
7. A brief summary of events involving the neighbour:
 
a) For five years that the flat was with the first owner, only the owner's mother saw and spoke to him a few times. Instead, the neighbour and his wife were seen initially and an occupier most of the time later until he was evicted.
 
b) The first owner put up the flat for sale in '98, but it was not sold.
 
c) After the eviction in '99, the first owner was allowed to transfer the flat to the neighbour to continue with their line of work. It is likely there is no record of either the occupier or the eviction. But the owner could give name of officers and date of letters sent to the authorities at the time of the eviction. It showed there was an occupier and an eviction.
 
d) The neighbour was given a warning by a man who came to live for a time in the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The man greeted the owner and a woman gave him the full name of the man. Noise stopped for about four years after he left. The flat was probably not occupied during this period because there was no noise from the flat.
 
e) The flat was put up for sale by the neighbour in '06. When it was not sold, they restarted work in '07.
 
f) After the owner wrote to the Branch Office, he continued to hear noise made by the maid. Four months later a poster of a maid working at a coffeeshop appeared on the noticeboard downstairs at the same time that the maid was removed and noise stopped. It was likely she was not registered to work at the flat and was a substitute for the workers causing the noise that the owner complained about when they first restarted work.
 
g) The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour moved in shortly after the owner first MPS in Feb 08. They stayed to look out for the neighbour. The details are in Encounter (13), Item 20 to 24.
 
h) Details of the neighbour are at Neighbour (4). To find the post, google the name of the blog and title of the post as in complainproper neighbour.
 
8. Should not the government step in?