19. Case

1. The neighbour is not the main problem because they could be stopped.  It is the officers who perpetuate it.
 
2. Officers are trying to cover-up a long relationship with the neighbour. The role of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour is to prevent independent inspection for noise at the neighbour's flat. The owner has supported his claim, but there has been no reply from the authorities.
 
3. The owner has been subjected to noise each day. When informed of a complaint, the neighbour would adjust noise down for a time to show they had done something on their part but continue with their works. For example, after Civics (10), noise was reduced in Apr 10 when PM mentioned "government misbehaviour". Recent examples were after Petition (17) in Jan 11 and after Justice (18) in Feb 11. In the former, which was to high officials, there was reduced noise. In the latter, huge thump and sharp noises in the first week; knock, thump and rumble in the second week; and a different set of noise consisting of muffled noise was heard in the third week after a contractor told the owner that repair was carried out on the floor of the neighbour's flat.  
 
The authorities should not stop here, what counts is action against the officers. Would they rather see the owner being forced out of his flat and have him continued blogging about it?
 
4. HDB may have investigated the first time the owner went to see the area's MP, but may have been prevented from taking action. The owner could see that OIC (Officer-in-Charge) was feeling the heat when he asked the owner to allow him and a fellow officer checked for noise in his flat. The owner refused because he knew it was a set-up. Also, OIC may have been suspended because an officer who may have replaced him for a time called the owner over the phone to say OIC was on leave.
 
5. The cover-up began with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) when he misled the owner during a meeting and later wrote that the owner made claims, which the owner did not. He kept up his replies to MPs's letters written on behalf of the owner to HDB. Some time after he replied to the owner and copied to the first MP, a message on perceived injustice with a return address was broadcast over TV. Insider also sent a bcc between HBO and Residents' Committee Chairman to the owner to coincide with the meeting at MPS (Meet-the-People Session) with the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service. To bypass HBO, the Minister wrote to Town Council and they informed the owner he would hear from HDB but no one came. The day that the Minister asked the owner at the following MPS whether anyone visited him was the same day the Minister had rebuked an official in Parliament. The chain of events could have been stopped at HBO, but he was not taken to task because of his connection in the administration. The owner also wrote directly to HDB, Ministry of National Development, Public Service Commission, Singapore Police Force and President, but these had not been effective. No one seems to be responsible for HBO.
 
6. An inquiry is required. Events happened over many years with many people involved. Given that there are evidence and insiders have assisted, there is a need for due process. Is this not a better way since the issue has become public? 
 
7. The truth is in the facts:
 
a) The first owner transferred the flat to the neighbour just after an eviction to continue with a line of work. The owner could point to the date of transfer sometime before 17 Apr 99. The date was from a notice inserted under the owner's door by the contractor doing some renovation works after the eviction. Before the eviction the owner wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office on 8 Dec 98, 11 Jan 99 and 10 Mar 99, and after the eviction he wrote to HDB Feedback Unit on 21 Mar 99. Although an officer wrote they had not conducted any eviction when the owner started blogging, the following would show the event did take place: the date of the transfer, letters from the owner to the authorities, replies from an estates officer, and name of officers that the owner wrote to nine years ago. Besides, the owner saw the occupier shifted out of the flat and a technical officer came to inform him of the eviction.
 
b) The occupier who was evicted had continued with his work for a period of three months between the complaint of 8 Dec 98 and 10 Mar 99. During this period the estates officer and technical officer visited the owner. The estates officer said she had an idea what the neighbour was doing although she was not saying. And the technical officer visited the owner after the eviction to inform and to inquire what the owner did to cause the eviction. The eviction showed that the occupier was an illegal occupant. When he came pounding at the owner's door as described in his letter to the Branch Office, he could no longer be seen to live in the flat and continue with his work. 
 
c) HBO did not stop the maid mentioned in the two letters that the owner wrote to him. HDB would have in their record whether the maid was an occupant of the flat. OIC and an official-looking man also visited the flat, but four months passed before someone else stopped the maid. A poster showing a maid at a coffeeshop appeared on the noticeboard downstairs at the same time noise stopped for a few weeks and the maid was not seen. Later the owner wrote to the Ministry of Manpower to check whether a maid was with the neighbour, but there was no reply. It could be that the maid was not employed by the neighbour or, if she was, her registered place of work was at another address. The maid was substituded for the workers when the neighbour saw that the owner was keeping watch. It shows that the neighbour did not live in the flat but use it for their works.
 
d) An insider had stopped the neighbour four years before the current complaint. This time round officers stationed the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to spot anyone going to the owner's flat or the neighbour's flat. They have the clout to prevent anyone from assisting the owner. The neighbour needs the protection when they work around the clock. 
 
e) The owner wrote to the Singapore Police Force and the President about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and the Commanding Officer of Neighbourhood Police Centre was tasked with the investigation. In his reply, he did not refer to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
f) Ministers, MPs, Community Centre members and Residents' Committee members should be sufficiently clear about the problem because the owner informed them. HDB, Ministry of National Development, Public Service Commission, Singapore Police Force and President's Office were also informed through his letters. That many people knew but yet not set right is an injustice writ large.
 
g) Food for thought. W. D. Ross classified duties into six major kinds: of fidelity (which includes truth-telling), of not causing harm (which includes not killing), of doing good, of justice, of gratitude and of reparation. He insists that the determination of which duty takes precedence over another is only revealed to us by reasoning through the particulars of the concrete situation. In the owner's case think from the standpoint of insiders, HDB, People's Association, high officials and Ministers, which of the six kinds take precedence. Choose one kind for each without repeating your choice and see how it goes.
 
h) Immanuel Kant claims your ability to rule your life should be respected even if you might hurt yourself and others in the process. His respect for your person is as if you will your punishment when you make the wrong choice. In other words, you take responsibility for it. Since '07 when OIC and an official-looking man who did not want to be identified visited the owner and neighbour, officers colluded with the neighbour to allow them to carry on with their works. They were not faulted the whole time because HBO has powerful connection, which he uses to abet the neighbour.
 
The quotes at Item 7g) and 7h) are from Understanding Ethics, David Bruce Ingram and Jennifer A. Parks, The Complete Idiot's Guide.
 
 
8. Accompanying Email:
 
Dear Mr, Mrs, Ms and Mdm,
 
Noise From A Neighbour
 
The owner knows that noises are from the working of a trade and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour has the clout to prevent independent inspection of the neighbour for noise. He shows evidence for it, but high officials have remain silent.
 
The owner has done all he could to keep people informed. If you could pass along the message, you would have participated as part of a community.
 
Give your comment at civicadvocator.net. Look for the owner's posting under Housing, Activism, Forum or search using the keyword HDB. Links to the site could also be found in the owner's blog at the bottom of the posts Officers, Neighbour, Pervasive Case and Prospect.
 
His blog is at http://anaudienceofthree.blogspot.com and http://complainproper.wordpress.com 
 
Posts could be googled by site's name and post's title.
 
Please forward this email if you think it would help. 
 
Regards,
hh
   
(Civicadvocator.net has been closed, and the owner set up anaudienceofthree.blogspot.com when he could not access anaudienceof.blogspot.com and anaudienceof2.blogspot.com)