30. Dissent

11 Feb 2012

President 
Republic of Singapore 
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823

Dear Sir,

Officers Colluded With Neighbour

1. I wrote to the President on 1 Feb 10 and 15 Sep 11, and each time the President's Office referred me to SPF (Singapore Police Force). Despite stating that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour watched out for the neighbour, Neighbourhood Police Centre still posed the problem as only between the neighbour and myself. I also wrote to Public Service Commission and HDB because they are directly responsible for the officers who are in contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. There was no reply.

2. The case has features of whistleblowing. I would not have noticed the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour if someone in the same flat had not stopped the neighbour many years earlier, and someone sent me a bcc from HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) that indicated they met in the flat. At a Meet-the-People Session, a CC member (Community Centre member) introduced me to another CC member who lived at my block of flat to talk about the noise and two other meetings with the latter indicated he had contact with the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour.

3. It would seem a plan was underway when loud noise for a number of days signalled the restart of work in '07. After observing for a month, I wrote to Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office about a maid who was removed at the same time that a poster appeared on the noticeboard at the void deck of my block. The poster showed a maid at a coffeeshop saying she was only allowed to work at the address she was registered. Someone other than the Branch Office took action a number of months after my complaint and indicated by putting up the poster.

4. Because I complained, the officers and neighbour retaliated with noise to force me into selling my flat. In the meantime the officers kept their silence on issues raised in the complaint and waited for me to slip up. They would, however, repeatedly referred me to the Community Mediation Centre where, if they succeeded, would confine and leave me without an audience.

5. King (1999) stipulated that variation in organizational structure would have a direct impact on organizational dissent, particularly whistleblowing. He postulated that in centralized-vertical-bureaucratic organization where dissent is met with retaliation or ignored, fewer channels exist for expressing dissent and employees believe they can exercise little influence. As a result employees tend to express dissent externally. Conversely, in hybrid structure, where decision-making is decentralized among business units while administrative functions remain centralized, communication and exchange of information flows without difficulty between divisions and upper management. King stipulated that in these arrangements, dissent should be expressed internally within organization.

Accordingly, we can see that dissent may be ineffectual and risky, fundamental to participation, key to shaping organizational culture, reflective of organizational discourse, or instrumental to identity enactment.

Dissent in Organization Jeffery Kassing, Pg 132 and 70.

6. Cabinet Office may have taken a step in the direction when PM announced after the general election that Ministers would have a free hand to think and reshape policies.

7. The neighbour is able to continue over the years because of backing from the officers. It allows the neighbour to carry on as usual even though the motive of the officers and neighbour were known and shown to be early on. Admitting that the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour protected the neighbour is embarrassing. But where is the justice in allowing them to continue?

8. At the moment light knock, low rumbling and muffled thump are heard, the noise being less than in the period covered by the last post. The general reduction over the last four posts may be seen as a concession by the neighbour. Over the years, even as they use their flat as a workplace rather than as a place to live in, the owner could do nothing to stop them.

9. My complaint comes down to HBO who has powerful connection within the administration such that dissent against his wrongdoing is risky.

10. The President may be unaware. In a reply two weeks after I emailed the President, an officer referred me to the relevant authorities without giving his name. It was followed by a reply from a police officer from SPF Customer Relation Branch who referred me to Bedok Police Division. Another two weeks later another police officer from SPF Customer Relation Branch, instead of Bedok Police Division, replied. He stated "the matter had been adequately addressed before", which would be the investigation by Neighbourhood Police Centre that did not mention the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour. (It reminded me of another police officer who, in reply to my email to the Commissioner of Police, stated "HDB had investigated thoroughly the matter and there was no unnecessary noise nor misuse of flat" in Sep 09.) Bedok Police Division did not reply because they were aware of the issue the first time I wrote to the President. The officer from the President's Office and the second police officer who replied may have took over the case in that my email never reached the President.

11. I hope the President takes a serious view of my situation of many years since the underlying cause has not been addressed.

Yours Sincerely,
hh