21. Evidence

1. Types of evidence pertaining to the case are testimonial and documentary. Proofs are "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence". Although evidence may be indirect and circumstantial, these included insider, admission against interest, omission, correspondence and government record.
 
2. Proof of "certainty beyond a reasonable doubt" is possible with an inquiry. The question is whether an offence is committed, the owner is a victim and public interest is at stake.
 
3. "A preponderance of evidence" may be restated as "the balance of probabilities". The weight of evidence is one of increasing probability from "preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence" to "certainty beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
4. Evidence:
 
a) During a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) and OIC (Officer-in-Charge), HBO agreed to give the name of the neighbour. But two days later when OIC visited the owner, he refused to give the neighbour's name from his fact sheet. However, he voluntarily gave the name of a person at the-flat-across-the-neighbour in another meeting. The meeting at the owner's flat was with a police officer, a counsellor, an estates officer and the OIC after Discovery (9) where the owner blogged that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watched out for the neighbour. Throughout the case, the authorities would not acknowledge the issue of the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour although it was an important evidence.
 
b) When OIC said the Branch Office did not receive the owner's second letter to HBO, the owner went over with a draft of the letter and asked for an acknowledgment. He was given a signed photocopy of the draft with two lines missing that could implicate OIC. The two letters to HBO mentioned an occupier who was evicted and a maid who may not have been registered to work at the neighbour's flat. Both events were crucial to the case but HBO did not reply to the letters.
 
c) HBO also did not address the issue raised in the owner's two letters to the first MP. The MP said the owner's letters would be attached to his letter to HDB during the MPS (Meet-the-People Session) but HBO replied that the owner may obtain a court injunction or seek assistance from other government agencies. He was in effect stating that he represented HDB and HDB would take the same position. It would seem to be the case because he could not be bypassed. He replied in the same way to all letters MPs wrote to HDB on behalf of the owner while HDB remained silent.
 
d) HBO's letter was a clue he knew what the neighbour was doing. He wrote that the owner claimed work was conducted by unknown owner and the neighbour sublet the flat to unknown owner. The sentence made more sense when the words "the neighbour" and "unknown owner" switched places. He had unintentionally used the term unknown owner, which would correctly refer to the first owner of the flat who was seldom seen and who had transferred the flat to the neighbour, to refer to the neighbour whom the owner had asked for his name but was refused. The claim would be closer to the truth for the owner to say the unknown owner let out the flat to an occupier who sublet it to the neighbour since he knew the owner was unaware of the transfer until he mentioned it in the meeting. Anyway the owner never used the term unknown owner nor did he mention anything about sublet. HBO went on to write in his own words they were not able to establish there were extensive commercial manual works/activities in the flat. Also by telling the owner at the meeting the transfer of the flat to the neighbour was a recent event, he hoped the owner would not make the connection between the eviction of the occupier and the transfer of the flat to the neighbour nine years ago. He would have misled the owner, and it would be his words against the owner's only.
 
e) Dates from letters sent to the Branch Office showed the occupier under the first owner and the maid under the neighbour were allowed to work in the flat for many months before insiders stopped them. Records would show the transfer of the flat to the neighbour was just after the occupier's eviction sometime in Mar 99 and whether the maid was registered at the neighbour's flat at the time. The eviction of the occupier was a fact in that the owner saw the occupier shifted out, an officer came to inform him, and he wrote to HDB Feedback Unit to express his appreciation. But when the owner first posted in his blog, an officer wrote to the owner that they had not conducted any eviction at the neighbour's flat. That insiders assisted the owner when it first began in '98 and continue to do so now speaks volume.
 
f) After HBO replied to the owner with copy to the first MP, a message of about 15 seconds on perceived injustice with voiceover and return address was broadcast over TV. On the day the owner went to meet the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service at a MPS, he received the same letter sent earlier by HBO but this time with an attachment which was a bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Residents' Committee). On the same day the Minister rebuked an official in Parliament, the Minister asked the owner whether anyone visited him during the MPS. When the owner emailed PM the resemblance of name between HBO and the official, he received an immediate phone call from a friend to visit him. After the friend's visit, HBO dated his reply a day after the visit that hinted to the owner he knew of the email to PM. His reply was to a letter the area's MP wrote on behalf of the owner that he kept for two months. These events indicate HBO's high standing. It would be difficult to take him down because of his connection in the administration.
 
g) HBO's extensive network of contacts:
 
i) The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour was stationed to protect the neighbour and watch the owner. The owner's observations also indicated a force-entry at the neighbour's flat followed by a possible break-in at his flat.
 
ii) CC members (Community Centre members) tried to stop the owner on two occasions at MPS. They spoke to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service who turned the owner away and, at his last MPS, a CC member indicated he had seen the area's MP too many times and he could expect noise after 10.00 am. Two other instances with the CC member showed he had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. In one, an interviewer introduced him to the owner in which the interviewer referred him to the situation at the neighbour's flat and, in the other, after the owner spoke to him outside his flat one night he contacted the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to get the neighbour to make a series of noises just when the owner was getting to bed. 
 
iii) HBO asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner during their visit to the-flat-across-the-neighbour. A counsellor and his assistant from MCYS (Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) visited the owner to help him cope with his difficulty. A senior station inspector from neighbourhood police took a 3-hours statement from the owner and later urged him to consider mediation. An estates officer from HDB headquarters referred the owner to the Branch Office after a posting in his blog. Other officers wrote there was no excessive noise, no misuse of flat and they conducted interview with neighbours. One police officer wrote to him that HDB had thoroughly investigated, someone from Attorney-General's Chambers referred him to a directory of lawyers and still others returned his email with the word "spam" or "suspected spam" inserted into the title.
 
iv) HBO replied to all requests made by MPs to HDB even after the owner asked the MPs to bypass HBO. For example after he asked the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, the Minister wrote to Town Council and they replied to the owner he would hear from HDB soon. At the next MPS, the Minister asked the owner whether anyone came to see him. No one did. After the MPS, HBO resumed by replying to the letter the Minister wrote to HDB on his behalf. Writing to HDB is a logical thing to do because they are in charge, but HBO should not be replying when the complaint is about him.
 
v) In contrast there was no reply when the area's MP wrote to the Branch Office asking them to look into the complaint after Discovery (9). The post was about facts that could be ascertained and those against HBO. The area's MP having met the owner and wrote to HDB on his behalf many times before and, at the last MPS, said he would meet HBO the next day presumably because he carried a message for him.
 
vi) The owner wrote to the Singapore Police Force and President about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour and the Commanding Officer of Neighbourhood Police Centre was tasked to investigate. In his reply to the owner, he did not refer to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. Referring only to the neighbour, he stated they were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. But to the owner the evidence is the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. 
 
vii) HBO put up a post on the front page of CNA Forum (Channel NewsAsia Forum) after the owner mentioned to a friend he would bring up his problem at discussion sites. Although his post was on car-parking, it was a reminder to the owner they have the media covered. As happened, the owner was thwarted when he checked out several sites.
 
viii) The owner's computer was infected to prevent him from trading at a security firm and denial-of-service attacks stopped him from using his computer over extended period of time.
 
5. It will be four years come Jun 11 since the noise began. It will be two years come Aug 11 since the owner started to blog. The post Petition (17) on Jan 11 was addressed to high officials with the result that noise was reduced for a time. The neighbour persisted because officers and a network of contacts, including the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, protected them. Noise was lowered the last four weeks but the knock, rumble and thump prevented the owner from taking nap and concentrating on his work. It is as if the neighbour is license to carry on with their works. Future owner of his flat will face the same problem.
 
6. There are two different things to Government: ministers who represent general will and legislative capacity and high officials who represent executive and administrative power. As noted elsewhere, three ministers responded in their own way through the media. Also, the Minister for National Development requested the owner to acknowledge receipt when he replied he would ask HDB to look into it in an email to the owner on 1 Feb 10 (Item 3, Discovery [9]). But HDB has been consistent in not responding precisely because they understood the problem. Would the Minister open an inquiry since the Ministry of National Development is the parent of HDB?

20. Quote

1. The owner showed how officers colluded with the neighbour and how the neighbour operated. His complaint has been for a long time, but the government is yet to resolve the problem.
 
2. Any mistake the owner made would have been picked up as he went to extraordinary length in his blog. And he kept repeating key statements of fact.
 
3. A number of days after Case (19) was published on 1 Mar 11 noise went up for about a week and the owner's computer came under attacked. His computer was targeted again on 25 Mar 11 while noise continued to be heard throughout each day. It showed clearly the neighbour does not live in the flat and uses the flat for their works. They could not have done it without the officers and a network of contacts to protect them.
 
4. The whistleblowing policy for civil service and statutory boards announced in parliament on 28 Feb 11 enables insiders to present evidence without exposing themselves. But this should be secondary to a formal inquiry. Having one would show the authority is serious and encourages insiders to come forward.
 
5. The quotes selected here are of particular relevance to the case:
 
a) In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a political and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such government. When however the relationship of government to the moral community is put in question both by the changed nature of government and the lack of moral consensus in the society, it becomes difficult any longer to have any clear, simple and teachable conception of patriotism. Loyalty to my country, to my community -- which remains unalterably a central virtue -- becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me.
 
Just as this understanding of the displacement of patriotism must not be confused with the liberal critique of moral particularity, so this necessary distancing of the moral self from the government of modern states must not be confused with any anarchist critique of the state. Nothing in my argument suggests, let alone implies, any good grounds for rejecting certain forms of government as necessary and legitimate; what the argument does entail is that the modern state is not such a form of government. It must have been clear from earlier parts of my argument that the tradition of the virtues is at variance with the central features of the modern economic order and more especially its individualism, its acquisitiveness and its elevation of the values of the market to a central social place. It now becomes clear that it also involves a rejection of the modern political order. This does not mean that there are not many tasks only to be performed in and through government which still require performing: the rule of law, so far as it is possible in a modern state, has to be vindicated, injustice and unwarranted suffering have to be dealt with, generosity has to be exercised, and liberty has to be defended, in ways that are sometimes only possible through the use of governmental institutions. But each particular task, each particular responsibility has to be evaluated on its own merits. Modern systematic politics, whether liberal, conservative, radical or socialist, simply has to be rejected from a standpoint that owes genuine allegiance to the tradition of the virtues; for modern politics itself expresses in its institutional forms a systematic rejection of that tradition.
 
After Virtue  Alasdair MacIntyre, pp 254--255.
 
 
b) For Aristotle, the purpose of politics is not to set up a framework of rights that is neutral among ends. It is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character. It's about learning how to live a good life. The purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop their distinctive capacities and virtues--to deliberate about the common good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a whole.

[A]ny polis which is truly so called, and is not merely one in name, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise, a political association sinks into a mere alliance...Otherwise, too, law becomes a mere covenant..."a guarantor of men's rights against one another"--instead of being, as it should be, a rule of life such as will make the members of a polis good and just.

For Aristotle, this is the primary purpose of law--to cultivate the habits that lead to good character. "Legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one. It makes no small difference...whether we form habits of one kind or of another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference."
 
Justice:What's the Right Thing to Do?  Michael J. Sandel.
 
 
c) So how is it possible to acknowledge the moral weight of community while still giving scope to human freedom? 
 
Alasdair MacIntyre offers a powerful answer to this question. As an alternative to the voluntarist conception of the person, MacIntyre advances a narrative conception. Human beings are storytelling beings. We live our lives as narrative quests. "I can only answer the question 'What am I to do?' if I can answer the prior question 'Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?'"

The contrast with the narrative view of the self is clear. For the story of my life is always embedded in the story of those communities from which I derive my identity. I am born with a past; and to try to cut myself off that past, in the individualist mode, is to deform my present relationships.

They can't be captured by an ethic of consent. That is, in part, what gives these claims their moral force. They draw on our encumbrances. They reflect our nature as storytelling beings, as situated selves.
 
Justice:What's the Right Thing to Do?  Michael J. Sandel.
 
 
d) First, Confucian humanism places great responsibility on the shoulders of the individual person and regards it as the ruler's responsibility to teach individuals how to be essentially self-governing: "Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them by law and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety (li), and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right." At the same time, Confucianism would reject the notion of the human person as an individual, if by this term one means to suggest the presence of a free and autonomous self.
 
Confucian Political Ethics  Daniel A. Bell.
 
 
e) Appearance. In Plato's Republic Glaucon presents a challenge between the perfectly unjust man and the perfectly just man. The unjust man is truly unjust but has the skills and resources he needs for a prosperous life and to get away with his misdeeds while maintaining a reputation for justice. The perfectly just man is the exact opposite--he has nothing but his justice and a false reputation for being unjust. The challenge given to Socrates is to prove that the life of the just man is preferable even under the stated conditions.
 
What Don't You Know?  Michael C. LaBossiere.
 
(The excerpt from Republic could be found in Philosophy 101, Stanley Rosen.)
 
 
f) Led by degrees, people will agree not only that men ought to abstain from doing evil but also that they ought to prevent evil from being done and even to alleviate it when it is done, at least as far as they can without inconvenience to themselves. I am not now examining how far this inconvenience can go. Yet it will still be doubted, perhaps, that one is obligated to secure the good of another, even when this can be done without difficulty. Someone may say, "I am not obligated to help you achieve. Each for himself, God for all." But let me again suggest an intermediate case. A great good comes to you, but an obstacle arises, and I can remove that obstacle without pain. Would you not think it right to ask me to do so and to remind me that I would ask it of you if I were in a similar plight? If you grant this point, as you can hardly help doing, how can you refuse the only remaining request, that is, to procure a great good for me when you can do this without inconvenience of any kind to yourself and without being able to offer any reason for not doing it except a simple, "I do not want to"? You could make me happy, and you refuse to do so. I complain, and you would complain in the same circumstances; therefore, I complain with justice.
 
(Paragraph from Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.)
 
Philosophy 101  Stanley Rosen.