Prime Minister 2 (72)

26 Dec 2019

Prime Minister
Prime Minister’s Office
Orchard Road
Istana
Singapore 238823

Dear Sir,

Seeking The Assistance Of The Prime Minister

I refer to the emails I sent to your office since 19 Apr 09. The emails informed and asked for your assistance when I felt the problem would not be resolved by MPs. The problem has to do with a group of officers that started with noise from the neighbour, followed by the sale of our flat and mistakes made in my CPF Account and CPF LIFE. Extracts of the emails to you are at Part A of the attachment.

I wrote to the MP, but she has shown to be unwilling to bring up the problem in Parliament. Extracts of the last three letters and two emails showing it to be so are at Part B of the attachment.

Part A shows problem of noise from the neighbour has not been resolved for close to 12 years and Part B shows officers transgressed rules, did not reply to queries and used their power to set others against me.

With my latest letter Infallibility (72) that I handed over at Meet-the-People Session (MPS), I encountered obstruction from a particular petition writer whom I spoke to three times before. He insisted on taking over my case from the petition writer I was assigned. Even as I said that I did not want him to write the petition, he took over. The assigned petition writer deferred to him because he was senior.

The assigned petition writer had already logged into my files, confirmed that the files was of me and began reading the last two items (Part B) in my letter that I requested. Yet this particular petition writer while attending to another constituent came over despite my objection.

What I could do was to explain that of the ten times I wrote to the MP she had only replied once and it was not about bringing the problem to Parliament. I spoke to her three times out of the seven times that I attended her MPS, including the last session. Asking her was more difficult because she did not reply to my question. I therefore requested that he wrote to the MP for a written reply whether she could bring up the problem in Parliament. He did not write the petition and went back to attend to the constituent he left earlier.

I doubt that he would because he had stopped a petition written to the MP at an earlier occasion. With the written petition in front of him he questioned me why I asked the MP to give a reply. The written petition was a simple request.

Petition writers write letters to government departments for MPs to sign. They informed MPs. In my case, I asked them to write to the MP because nothing much came out of the meetings with the MP. With a petition to the MP, there is at least a record in the files.

MPs may not be writing to their constituents in reply to their letters, but they spend a large portion of their time listening, explaining to their constituents and bringing their problems to be heard in Parliament when necessary. This is what the MP has not done in my case.

Request 3 (72) of Part B is a shorten list of transgressions.

It is for these reasons that your assistance is required for a resolution.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

cc Mr Heng Swee Keat (Acting PM)

Attachment

A
A list of emails sent to the Prime Minister. Extracts from each email are as follows:

26 Dec 19, Seeking The Assistance Of The Prime Minister (72. Prime Minister 2)

I refer to the emails I sent to your office since 19 Apr 09. The emails informed and asked for your assistance when I felt the problem would not be resolved by MPs. The problem has to do with a group of officers that started with noise from the neighbour, followed by the sale of our flat and mistakes made in my CPF Account and CPF LIFE. Extracts of the emails to you are at Part A of the attachment.

I wrote to MPs, but they have shown to be unwilling to bring up the problem in Parliament. Extracts of the last three letters and two emails showing it to be so are at Part B of the attachment.
Part A shows problem of noise from the neighbour has not been resolved for close to 12 years and Part B shows officers transgressed rules, did not reply to queries and used their power to set others against me.

With my latest letter Infallibility (72) that I handed over at Meet-the-People Session (MPS), I encountered obstruction from a particular petition writer whom I spoke to three times before. He insisted on taking over my case from the petition writer I was assigned. Even as I said that I did not want him to write the petition, he took over. The assigned petition writer deferred to him because he was senior.

The assigned petition writer had already logged into my files, confirmed that the files was of me and began reading the last two items (Part B) in my letter that I requested. Yet this particular petition writer while attending to another constituent came over despite my objection.

It is for these reasons that your assistance is required for a resolution.

22 Jul 19, Submission to Parliament (72. Parliament 2)

I refer to the first set of documents, Salient Points (40), submitted at MPS, Ang Mo Kio after my email of 9 Jul 18.

The second set of documents, Salient Points 2, continues from the first because the five issues are still not addressed. One new issue, which makes six, is the mistakes in monthly payout of CPF LIFE starting in about a month to be addressed.

I think that submission at MPS, Ang Mo Kio is appropriate because petition writers at MPS have control over what to write and who to address the complaint. They would say “Speak to the MP”, but would not write the letter to inform the MP directly. The first set of documents I wanted to hand over to the MP was not accepted. Please refer to Parliament (51) in my blog, which is the email of 9 Jul 18.

My letter to Ms Sun at MPS titled Being Accountable to Parliament, which is Resolution (72), makes a case for my complaint to be brought to Parliament. The situation on the ground is the first item and the last item, Item 1 and Item 7 respectively.

I will attend the next MPS at Ang Mo KIo to submit the second set of documents.

16 Jun 19, A Request To Meet The Prime Minister At Meet-The-People Session (72. Prime Minister)

1. I refer to my email titled Meet-The-People Session (MPS) dated 12 May 19 that it was likely CPF would not give a reply. Mr Teo had said he would write to them on 10 May 19 but a month had passed and they did not give a reply.

My next letter to Mr Teo handed over at MPS titled Documents Provide The Explanation was another summary of the five issues on mistakes made by officers. However, Ms Sun presided at the MPS and I told her what the writer had said to me that no one at the MPS had the authority to ask government departments to do the necessary. The writer told me that he would do his best to inform government departments but whether they followed up was in their discretion. To bring up the problem I could personally go to the Istana or Parliament. I asked him what was the purpose of the MPS and mentioned David Marshall was the first to set up the MPS.

Can I meet you at MPS if the issues are still not resolved?

12 May 19, Meet-The-People Sessions (Item 13 of 72. Summing Up)

Mr Teo wrote to CPF, but instead of replying to me as usual I found out at the MPS that they had replied to Mr Teo. I did not read the letter when Mr Teo pointed to it while asking me whether I had received it. The few lines in the letter could have informed Mr Teo that they had already replied to me in previous correspondence as Mr Teo had said to me.

I know the solution will not come easy and have therefore made my request to Mr Teo a few times to ask for your assistance. This is only one issue of five issues needed to be addressed by officers that were listed in my letter of 5 Apr 19 titled Bringing Up To The Prime Minister. All my emails and letters to officers and Mr Teo are in Summing Up (72) of my blog.

9 Jul 18, Submission of Documents to Parliament (51. Parliament)

1. After I handed over my letter Parliamentary Select Committee / Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Mr Teo at Meet-the-People Session on 27 Apr 18, I was ready to submit 7 sets of supporting document to him on 6 Jul 18.

2. At the first meeting he asked me to write down in detail how much I expected to be compensated for the sale of my flat although that wasn’t the point I was making. Therefore I took it that he required details before any action could be taken. However at the second meeting, Mr Teo said to me that if I required an investigation in Parliament then I should submit the documents directly to Parliament. I asked “How”?

4. Mr Teo also said he had written to the police after the letter of 27 Apr 18. But I received no reply from the police. By not replying, it seems to place the problem back to Parliament.

9. Could I attend your Meet-the-People Session to pass the 7 sets of document to you or an appointed person?

24 Jul 15, Mistake in CPF Account and CPF Life (72. Mistakes)

Is it not so that Singaporeans could register their complaints and have it investigated by SPF and CPIB? The two agencies are headed by the Minister of Home Affairs and the Prime Minister respectively. It seems to me there were many pronouncements but no investigation. Earlier pronouncements are under Pronouncement in Category (80).

The case has been over a long period of time since Jun 07. If there cannot be a full inquiry, will the mistakes at Trust (72) be corrected? Because of the mistakes made in my CPF Account and CPF Life, there are continuing monetary losses. It should be of concern to Singaporeans too.

22 May 15, Wrongdoing by Officers (72. Trust)

In all three cases I asked specific questions and kept MPs informed. But officers, including a director, did not reply to any of the questions or evidence of wrongdoings. They caused delays and on-going monetary losses.

Could Prime Minister intervene?

25 May 14, Officers Colluded With Neighbour (72. Order)

Now that I sold my flat, I am not subjected to retaliation of noise from the neighbour. The new owner may need help.

The office of ombudsman may have been raised in Parliament because of my complaint. The CUTS is at the Workers' Party's website and Help (69) in my blog.

I described events including many indirect references in the media. However, the authorities did not follow up with proper investigation.

It is the responsibility of the-whole-of-government to stop the officers who protected the neighbour and high officials who prevented the authorities from taking action. It had been my complaint for a long time. The new owner needs not go through what I did from what is already known.

The problem persists because no inquiry was conducted.

25 May 14, A Request In The Public Interest (72. Request)

1. My problem had to do with an officer at Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office. Since I wrote to him in '07 about a neighbour working at the upper floor, he and an extensive network of contacts had acted against me. Together with the neighbour, they used noise to force me into selling my flat.

2. When I began selling, two salespersons who were under their influence advertised in the newspaper to depress the price of the flat. With the first salesperson, I made my complaint to Council of Estate Agencies (CEA). With the second salesperson, I did not make my complaint because CEA did not reply to the first. However, I wrote to terminate their service and gave reason for doing so.

7. The authorities would not budge when informed. The officers stationed the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour because they thought they could cover up past dealing and at the same time protect the neighbour from insiders. I had to blog about the going-on for three years, after having gone through official channels for two years, before there was an improvement. Until the neighbour could be stopped, there is no closure.

8. The case has set a bad precedence of how public complaint against the officers was handled, or rather, not handled.

19 Apr 09, A HDB Flat Dweller (Not in the blog)

1. I may be forced to sell my flat because of noise from a neighbour carrying on a trade in his flat.

2. When I brought the problem to the MPs (Members of Parliament) they had, in general, said the neighbour would be asked to lower the noise, whether I considered selling my flat and what else was there to do. Given the situation they spoke the truth.

4. I told the [RC] Chairman and a [RC] member I will be writing to Mr Teo Chee Hean giving a summary of all that had happened. Of note is a blind copy of the letter sent to the Chairman that confirmed my suspicion the flat across the neighbour was used to keep them on watch.

7. In my letters to HBO [Head, Branch Office] and MPs, I wrote in some details. After an occupier was evicted the first owner transferred the flat to the present owner. A warning was given to the present owner followed by a lull of four years before restarting again in mid-2007. There was a forced-entry on 18 Mar 2008, a maid who was not registered to work in the flat and the flat was put up for sale in 2006.

8. From my observations the owner/couple used the flat for their operation. Different set of people were seen. Noise heard through the day consisted of thump, knock, drag, ramble, rustle and whine.

10. I wrote to you hoping there is a sense to all of these.

B
The last three letters and two emails to MP whether she could bring up the problem in Parliament.
Extracts are as follows:

23 Dec 2019,  General Infallibility (72. Infallibility)

2. Almost all government officers who replied to my letters have a sense of infallibility that included transgression of rules. To the article in Item 1, which distinguishes between traditional and general forms of infallibility, I should add credulity in Item 4 of MP’s Responsibility (72), which is bonding through the construction of a shared story. Infallibility and credulity, it could be expected within a group.

Starting with noise from the neighbour, selling of our flat and subsequent issues that I wrote to them and to MPs, who referred the issues to them, they avoided addressing the problem. They are able to do so from the time I wrote to HDB Branch Office in 2008.

As a group they have far-reaching influence. My concerns were ignored. They gave misleading replies, monitored my activities and made transactions difficult. These transactions were outside of the complaints. It was pervasive and possible in Singapore where the government has a hand in all aspects of society.

The wrongdoings need not be corrected because they have the clout. No one outside the group could rectify the wrongdoings even after I submitted official documents to prove wrongdoings.

I therefore ask that the wrongdoings be brought up in parliament. There being a separation of powers between parliament and government agencies, i.e., between legislature and executive.

If the problem cannot be brought up in parliament, it will show that parliament and government agencies are plagued by the same group of people and talks of honesty, integrity and accountability do not hold up.

3. At the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) of 25 Nov 19 you said the problem was of an individual, not of policy, and I refused to accept the replies from four Ministries.

After which I showed in Debunking (72) that the problem is a group of officers and they did not reply to my queries.

Both Rules, Character & Morals (72) of 25 Nov 19 handed to you after you spoke to me and Debunking (72) of 29 Nov 19 sent four days later showed that the solution is by way of Parliament. Both included recent pronouncements from PM and DPM to similar effect.

I am waiting for your reply.

29 Nov 2019, Debunking (72. Debunking)

1. You spoke to me while I was about to register for your Meet-the-People Session (MPS) of 25 Nov 2019, which is also the date of my letter Rules, Character & Morals (72) handed to you. You would not bring up my problem to Parliament and gave reasons in the general. Here I reply to you in the particular.

3. Second, I do not see why the mistakes cannot be brought up in Parliament when these were not corrected over the years. When I reported mistakes made by officers, department heads did not respond to the mistakes but allowed the same group of officers to reply to my queries. Their replies were always as if no mistakes were made.

However what you said to me was the officers had replied, but I have refused to accept their replies. The officers would have to produce letters and emails written to me on each issue to prove that they had in fact replied to my queries. I have shown that they have not replied to my queries in No Full Reply (78).

For a recent example, after my email Request 3 (72) of 21 Oct 19, you requested HDB to provide background on Item 1 to 5 of the email. What was their reply? Their reply could decide whether reporting to Parliament is required.

5. MPs are afraid of officers taking offence by a report in Parliament.

I therefore made it a point to ask petition writers to write what I wanted to say to the MP before speaking to the MP, but most petition writers would not allow me to do so. On one occasion when a petition writer did, another petition writer took over later to question me why I asked the MP to give a reply.

6. I have only one written reply from you from the eight times that I wrote to you asking for the problem to be brought up in Parliament. This was the reply to my email Request 3 (72) in Item 3 that you did not follow through. I attended six of your MPS but were only able to speak to you three times. At this rate the problem may not be resolved.

Summaries of mistakes are Summing Up (72), Explanation (72), No Full Reply (78), Request 3 (72) and Rules, Character & Morals (72).

Item 9 in Summing Up (72), with reference to emails of 3 Mar 19, 14 Mar 19, 24 Mar 19 and 31 Mar 19, is long and detailed but Item 1d) in Rules, Character & Morals (72) is short.

Summaries of situations are Q & A (75), Resolution (72), No Fair Play (12) and MP’s Responsibilities (72). These are about governance.

A concept known as credulity defined in an extract in MP’s Responsibilities (72) describes the type of situation I am in.

8. Please let me know, after this email and the letter handed to you, whether you could bring up the problem in Parliament.

25 Nov 2019, Rules, Character & Morals (72. Rules, Character & Morals)

3. MORALS...

It will be of interest if officers apply the five categories of harm, fairness, loyalty, tradition and purity to themselves. Based on my case, I think loyalty would come up high and harm, fairness, tradition and purity low. If so, it will be an indictment.

6. After the parliament sitting of 4 Nov 19 and 5 Nov 19, I checked the parliament reports but found nothing related to my complaint.

7. Noise caused by the neighbour working a trade in HDB flat is an offence and officers in collaboration with the neighbour is corruption. The evidence in No Full Reply (78) of 5 Aug 19 , Request 3 (72) of 21 Oct 19 and Item 1 above are each summary that covered all the issues.

8. I spoke to you and your petition writers and this is the eight times I wrote to you. Each time I requested for an investigation through Parliament because writing to the government agencies has not worked through the years.

Please let me know when you could bring up the problem in Parliament so I could follow its resolution.

21 Oct 2019, Repeated Request 2 (72. Request 3)

1. At your Meet-the-People Session of 7 Oct 2019, I was fourth in the queue and left at 9:52pm when your petition writer said you would send me a reply. On an important matter I was prepared to wait, hand over my letter Responsibilities of Member of Parliament and ask you for a reply.

7. In each of the processes mentioned above government officers had deviated from the rules:

a) Officers set up a situation where I committed my name to the studio apartment instead of our names to deprive us of SHB.

b) Officers took away $5000 from the sale of our flat for no apparent reason. There was no proof that we had received the $5000.

c) The 2012 CPF Act stated that refund to CPF Account was required unless members made an application stating the reason as listed in the Act. We did not made such an application.

d)The two additional CPF LIFE I was asked to purchase gave low rate of returns compared to the rate of return from the Retirement Account. The purchases did not conform to what was stated in the Important Notes on CPF LIFE.

e) The property agent and his company were negligent in their duties with respect to the $5000 deposit and refund to CPF Account. They colluded with the Resale Section of HDB to conceal and misrepresent the issues.

f) All issues started from the neighbour in 2007 although the noise from the working of a trade could be traced back to 1998. Then, I wrote to HDB Branch Office and sent a letter of appreciation to HDB Feedback Unit when the occupier was evicted. Not long after, officer facilitated the transfer of the flat to the neighbour who was to be the second owner to continue with their work. In 2010, I wrote to the Police that I suspected the-people-in-flat-across-the-neighbour were installed to protect the neighbour.

8. I send this email because I am still waiting for your reply whether you could bring up the problem in Parliament.

7 Oct 2019, Responsibilities of Member of Parliament (72. MP’s Responsibilities)

2. The complaints are noise from neighbour, sale of flat, CPF Account and CPF LIFE. It is a series of complaints that involved officers protecting the neighbour, preventing proper sale of our flat and causing mistakes in my CPF Account and CPF LIFE. Most of the details can be found in my blog from 28 Dec 18, which is the date of my letter Government Departments (10). As for the evidence, I had submitted all documents from the time of the complaint in 2007 at Meet-the-People Session, Ang Mo Kio.

5. We are a democracy and parliament can deal with the problem. The way forward has always been through debate and reasoning. The responsibilities of Member of Parliament (MP) are quoted at 1c).


6. If MP does not give me a reply, then I will not know whether my concerns are being addressed by Parliament.