1. Why is there no inquiry? It would have provided a record and resolved a problem. When insider stopped the first owner with an eviction of an occupier, the flat was transferred to the neighbour who was stopped by insider again four years later. Now, a network of contacts prevents insiders from helping the owner. Should not the authorities at least find out whether there is some truth?
2. The owner spoke to the neighbour several times:
a) When noise restarted in Jun 07, the owner left the door of his flat opened on random days so he could take note of the people going to and from the neighbour's flat upstairs. On the second day of his watch he went up to the neighbour's flat because of loud noise. A women answered the door. She could be the wife's sister whom he saw the first day when he started watching. When asked to speak to the husband, she said he was not in. One evening some time later the neighbour approached the owner to ask where the noise was heard inside his flat so he could make adjustment. He asked the owner to compromise, but when the owner refused, he said their conversation never took place. The owner also remembered him saying if the owner could get his name from HDB he would not have asked him. By then the owner had watched for a month, knew what was going on, wrote two letters to HDB Branch Office, had a meeting with HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office), attended a MPS (Meeting-the-People Session), and knew that the neighbour came to speak him because a few days earlier there was a force-entry into the neighbour's flat.
b) Before the owner wrote the second letter to the Branch Office, he went to talk to the neighbour outside his flat. He denied there was noise coming from his flat and told the owner to get legal advice.
c) After the owner posted Justice (18) in Feb 11, he spoke to the neighbour in the lift on the way up. The neighbour said he did not understand what the owner was referring to and summed it up by giving the owner two options--either pursued it with HDB or engaged a lawyer.
3. The owner went to the Branch Office with a draft of second letter because OIC (Officer-in-Charge) said they had not received his letter. OIC had left his number during his first visit and he was the only person the owner could contact. He had tried to avoid contacting OIC by calling HBO and the Branch Office with the numbers he got from HDB Headquarters but could not get through. After insisting on a meeting with HBO, he asked HBO for the name and occupation of the neighbour of which he said he would allow the name. To throw the owner off, HBO asked him whether he knew about a recent transfer of the neighbour's flat. He misled the owner because he knew of a eviction from the owner's two letters and the record would show not a recent transfer but a transfer nine years ago at the time of the eviction. While the owner knew of the eviction, he was not aware of the transfer. He thought the neighbour owned the flat all along having seen him and his wife before the eviction. He left the meeting without resolving any issue.
4. Two days after the meeting, OIC and a fellow officer visited the owner. He said he had been around his flat for 15 minutes, but there was no noise and his fellow officer was his witness. When the owner asked for the name of the neighbour, he refused. He had the name in his fact sheet, and the owner reminded him that he was at the meeting in which HBO allowed it. The owner asked for the date of the transfer next, which he gave to be in '98. Thus the owner was able to connect the first owner's transfer of the flat to the time of the eviction many years earlier. By saying the transfer was recent, HBO hoped to cover up the incident that involved officers, first owner and the neighbour.
5. The owner saw the neighbour (husband and wife) a number of times before the eviction when the flat was with the first owner. He also saw a young women whom he would see again after the eviction. Only his mother spoke to the first owner before the eviction and saw him again after the eviction. The occupier who was evicted lived in the flat for many years.
6. People who were in thrall to HBO:
a) OIC would not have said the neighbour's wife was pregnant unless it was an appeal and, from the other instances when he visited and called over the phone, the owner noted he knew what the neighbour was doing.
b) During a visit with OIC, an estates officer informed the owner they found no machine-tools in their inspection of the neighbour's flat on the same day that they visited the owner. This was after Prospect (6) in Sep 09 and the estates officer was a new officer. He was to meet and write to the owner several times later. In contrast the senior estates officer, who first replied to the owner belatedly, did not make further reply and was not seen throughout the complaint. He replied to the owner's second letter to HBO in Feb 08 after his meeting with HBO and after his first MPS. He wrote noise nuisance caused by inconsiderate neighbours or from daily living activities was outside the scope of the Housing & Development Act. He could be the official-looking person who came with OIC on the first visit to the owner. He did not want to give his name when asked and their behaviour before and after the visit to the neighbour upstairs afterwards gave the owner cause for suspicion.
c) OIC called over the phone to say they wanted to talk. The senior station inspector from NPC (Neighbourhood Police Centre), a counsellor from MCYS (Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports), the estates officer and OIC visited. During the meeting, they wanted the owner to go for mediation and OIC voluntarily gave the name of a person at the-flat-across-the-neighbour. This was after Discovery (9) in Mar 10.
d) In a visit with OIC, an estates officer from HDB said if there was an internal inquiry would the owner be satisfied. But consider the letter from Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council that the owner would hear from HDB soon but no officer came. They knew they could not help and may not want to be seen by the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour had they visited. The letter was copied to HBO together with a letter from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service to mean no action was required from him--the result of the owner's request to the Minister to bypass HBO.
e) An estates officer from HDB, who could be the same officer who later visited the owner in Item 6d) above, stated in an email after Encounter (13) that their staff visited the owner, but he "rejected our offer and refused to reveal more information pertaining to your feedback". Only no one had visited. It was in such manner that officers spoke or emailed the owner to avoid direct response to the owner's postings.
f) CC members (Community Centre members) at MPS turned the owner away on two occasions. They would have spoken to the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service for him to refer the owner back to area's MP. The Minister later met the owner at another MPS when he knew about the bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) that insider sent to the owner. And a CC member at the last MPS indicated to the owner he had seen the area's MP too many times and he could expect noise from the neighbour after 10.00 am.
g) The Chairman said he would visit the owner only with officer when the owner asked that other members of his committee could visit him.
h) The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour would have been in contact with HBO because he visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour with the Chairman as seen from the bcc. The-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour moved into the-flat-across-the-neighbour soon after the owner's first MPS. Throughout the affair, they stay to protect the neighbour and watch the owner.
i) The press, online community, government agencies and companies with connection to the government that were part of their network deterred the owner whenever they could. When he is forced to sell his flat, they would have stopped his complaint.
7. One could determine motive from event:
a) HBO did not reply to the owner's two letters to him and did not address any of the issue he raised with the MPs and in his blog. Yet, he continued to reply to the owner with copy to MPs, who wrote on his behalf, even after it was indicated to him through Town Council and Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service's letters he was not to take action.
b) Insider removed the maid several months after the owner's first letter to HBO, but there was no reply from the Ministry of Manpower when the owner wrote to determine whether the maid was employed by the neighbour and whether she was registered to work in the neighbour's flat.
c) HBO arranged a visit with the Chairman at the-flat-across-the-neighbour before replying to the owner with cc to the area's MP and bcc to the Chairman. He may have intended to reply after sending OIC and a fellow officer to check for noise in the owner's flat but the owner refused to let them in. The owner's meeting with area's MP was his third MPS and the first time he met the area's MP. He met and wrote in some detail to the first MP and told the area's MP about the problem.
d) The Chairman's visit to the owner after his visit with HBO at the-flat-across-the-neighbour was during his term of office from Apr 07 to Mar 09. During the visit in Oct 08, he said he would visit the owner one month later but did not. Two other times he spoke to the owner were at recyclable-for-food programme during his chairmanship for the second term from Apr 09 to Mar 11. In one he replied he would visit in the presence of officer when the owner said other committee members could also visit him. He is still the chairman for the third term from Apr 11 to Mar 13 as seen from the name list that replaced the name list of the first term recently. No name list for the second term was displayed. He would continue to be the chairman from Apr 13 to Mar 15 for the fourth consecutive term, that is the fourth consecutive term from the time of the owner's complaint in Jun 07.
e) In the owner's opinion there was admission against interest by a CC member who had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. The owner spoke to him three times, two times at MPS and one time outside his flat.
f) Events to do with officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour showed they communicated with the neighbour to undermine the owner. Together with a network of contacts, they blocked the owner from access to help and forced him to sell his flat.
g) The owner wrote to the President and Singapore Police Force about the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour some time after he started blogging. NPC was tasked to investigate, but the Commanding Officer replied they were unable to find evidence of alleged noise or criminal offence. He did so without referring to the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour in his letter.
h) There were many instances of insider who assisted the owner since the eviction of an occupier from the flat in '99 and of people who spoke indirectly of the problem in the press after the owner started blogging.
8. Noise was used to warn and signal the owner:
a) When HBO visited the-flat-across-the-neighbour, the owner heard increasingly intense knocking before the Chairman visited the owner on the same day. HBO could have seen the owner in his study room from the-flat-across-the-neighbour and communicated with the neighbour to make the noise. He would because he also staged heightened noise followed by an inspection in which the owner disallowed in Item 7c. He could be shown to be in the-flat-across-the-neighbour from the bcc he sent to the Chairman after his visit to the owner.
b) After the owner emailed PM, which was followed immediately by a phone call from an old friend, he heard knocks spaced apart at regular interval before his friend's visit. HBO then made his reply to the owner with a copy to the area's MP a day after the friend's visit. The reply was to the letter written by the area's MP on behalf of the owner two months earlier.
c) After the owner spoke to the CC member outside his flat one night, he heard a series of loud noise from the neighbour when he switched off the light before going to bed.
d) Since the owner kept up with his complaint, there were other instances of loud noise and noise through the night.
9. Because the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protect the neighbour, they allow them to carry on working in their flat. They have the clout to prevent insiders from intervening. The owner thinks that a deal was made with the neighbour after a force-entry so they could work all day long where an independent inspection at any one time would uncover workers, tools and materials. They have the resources and backing of high officials.
10. The officers could have demolished the owner's argument or forced him to stop. They did not because of insiders. MPs, Ministers and Police may have supported although they have not mentioned the case directly. There are, however, firm bases for looking into the neighbour, the officers and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
11. On 13 May 11 after the General Election, Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service said politicians were forced to admit they need to connect to the people, and Public Service was forced to re-look at the way in which it formulated policies with respect to citizens.
12. On 18 May 11 PM announced his cabinet lineup. PM said it was a comprehensive reshuffle and Ministers would have a free hand to rethink and reshape policies.
13. Someone may have helped on 28 Jun 11. This followed Behaviour (23) published a week earlier on 20 Jun 11. The number of viewers doubled when it was posted. Noise is down now, but work is day long. After a time, noise would be up again as has happened many times before.
14. The owner continues to blog because noise has not stop. Work is carried out through the day from noise heard in the morning, afternoon and night. Knowing that officers collaborate with the neighbour, Residents' Committee members are not playing their part and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour are still around, it is clear the neighbour would continue. If there is to be policy changes, it will have to be made effective here.
