Resolution (72)

22 Jul 2019

Ms Sun Xueling
Blk 308B Punggol Walk
#01-364
Waterway Terraces 1
Singapore 822308

Dear Ms Sun,

Being Accountable To Parliament

1. Since the letter Government Departments dated 28 Dec 18 handed to Mr Teo at Meet-the-People Session (MPS), there were three letters Bringing Up To The Prime Minister, Monthly Payout From CPF LIFE and Documents Provide The Explanation handed in at MPS. Mr Teo wrote to HDB or CPF or both together on the issue of the refund to CPF Account, the $5000 deposit in the Resale Document from HDB and the CPF LIFE, but only on one issue at a time.

HDB and CPF did not give full reply but, as usual, avoided my questions. There were no reply to the last three letters. In fact, when I handed in the letter Monthly Payout From CPF LIFE, Mr Teo showed me a letter sent to him from CPF. I did not read the letter but Mr Teo said CPF wrote that they had replied to me numerous times before. The letter Documents Provide The Explanation to Mr Teo was handed to Ms Sun who presided at the next MPS. This time I requested of the petition writer that the assistance of the Prime Minister was required on all the five issues listed in the letter.

Mr Teo and Ms Sun together wrote four times to CPF on the issue of CPF LIFE, but no reply was sent to me the last three times. Just as Mr Teo had informed me at the second last MPS that CPF had sent a letter to him instead, CPF could have sent a letter to Ms Sun of the last MPS. It happened so after CPF wrote the letter dated 27 Jun 19 that I would start receiving my monthly payout in August. There were mistakes in the letter and I went to CPF Tampines Service Centre on 9 Jul 19 with my letter Annuity Premium Deduction And Retirement Account Balance Toward CPF LIFE. After going through my letter and the letter and attachments from CPF, the attending officer checked with her senior and asked me whether I had received a reply on 19 Jun 19 after the last MPS with Ms Sun. Since I did not receive the reply, the reply would be to Ms Sun.

2. In my case petition writer addressed the letter written by him to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) signed by MP at MPS. The PMO comprises various government departments and statutory boards whose function seems to be primarily of coordination within the government.

“The Prime Minister's Office (Abbreviation: PMO) is a ministerial level executive agency within the Government of Singapore that handles the ministries and other political matters that are of great importance to the nation, such as corruption and elections. It is headed by the Prime Minister and their top political staff. The PMO is located in the Istana, which is also the official residence and office for the President of Singapore.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister%27s_Office_(Singapore))

“A statutory board is an autonomous agency of the Government that is established by an Act of Parliament and overseen by a government ministry. The Act sets out the purposes, powers and rights of the agency. Unlike ministries and government departments that are subdivisions of ministries, statutory boards may not be staffed by civil servants and have greater independence and flexibility in their operations. They are managed by boards of directors whose members usually include businessmen, professionals, senior civil servants and officials of trade unions. The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF), the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), the National Heritage Board (NHB), and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) are all statutory boards.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore)

“The Prime Minister leads the Cabinet in the administration of the Government. The Cabinet is responsible for all Government policies and the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the State. It is responsible collectively to Parliament.”
(https://www.parliament.gov.sg/about-us/structure/the-cabinet)

3. The following are the six unresolved issues:

a) I attended the first MPS on 16 Feb 08 because of noise from the neighbour and noise was significantly reduced only after Standpoint (34) was posted in my blog on 22 Aug 12. Please refer to Salient Points (40) under SP-Neighbour, Authority (16) and Explanation (72) Item 6.

b) The Complaint Form on the first salesperson engaged to sell our flat was submitted to CEA. Although the sale was completed with the third salesperson on 17 Apr 14 at the Resale Operations Section of HDB, there is still the issue of refund to CPF Account and the deposit of $5000 in resale document. Please refer to Salient Points (40) under SP-Sales Agents and Explanation (72) Item 4 and 5.

c) I wrote an email to CPFB on 19 Apr 14, two days after the completion of the sale, on why there was no refund to CPF Account for CPF money used to purchase the flat. Please refer to Salient Points (40) under SP-CPF Refund and Explanation (72) Item 2.

d) Eligibility for Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) was also mentioned in the email of 19 Apr 14 to CPFB. The subject in question revolved around officers at the Resale Operations Section involving refund to CPF Account, deposit of $5000 in resale document and purchase of additional CPF LIFE under SHB. Please refer to Salient Points (40) under SP-SHB and Salient Points 2 (40) under SP2-Summing Up Item 15 and Explanation (72) Item 2, 3 and 4.

e) There was no requirement for the purchase of the two additional CPF LIFE. Please refer to Salient Points (40) under SP-CPF LIFE and Explanation (72) Item 3.

f) Mistakes were found in the letter of 27 Jun 19 from CPF to inform the start of monthly payout from CPF LIFE that included the last deduction before Draw Down Age from Retirement Account to CPF LIFE. Please refer to Annuity (78) and Salient Points 2 (40) SP2-Annuity Premium Deduction.

4. The following are quoted from various parts of my blog:

a) Quoted from Help (69)

“The role of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints about the unfair administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness.

An ombudsman does not have the power to make decisions that are binding on the government. Rather, the ombudsman makes recommendations for change as supported by a thorough investigation of the complaint. A crucial element of the ombudsman is its independence from the executive or administrative branch of government. There are many variations of the ombudsman office around the world. Singapore can and should find a variation that suits local needs and conditions. An ombudsman with a well-defined role and clear mechanism for action can be beneficial for Singapore.”

(Pritam would like to thank a Singaporean blogger and expert for granting permission to use his analysis in the filing of this cut.)

Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 12:37 am

b) Quoted from Parkinson (40)

“Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965 and became an independent state. The new country was now in a position to practice what it had preached about equality. In ways it has achieved this aim, but the government's obsession with using academic achievement as the main criterion for promotion, according to some observers, is creating a society of rigid castes governed by a narrow-minded elite.”

“According to evidence given by Nick Birks, a senior civil servant, to the UK Parliament's Public Administration Committee in 2010, 'civil servants are incentivised for adherence to process and avoidance of risk, not pursuit of outcomes' and 'find it difficult to step outside of a role in which they have been successful and have a subconscious interest in preserving the status quo, in which they know how to perform well, even when the environment has changed.'”

“According to some eminent psychologists, the highly developed bureaucracies of oppressive regimes, such as Nazi Germany, play a major role in persuading perfectly normal people to commit, or to facilitate, terrible crimes against humanity. This is done by creating a situation that demands bureaucratic obedience and takes away all personal responsibility for the actions -- they are done in the name of the state.”

"What mankind wants is not talent; it is purpose."  Edward Bulwer-Lytton, politician and novelist

c) Quoted from Meritocracy (41)

“Whether we think about it much or not, we all believe in meritocracy. It is embedded in our very language: to call an organization, a business, or an institution "meritocratic" is to pay it a high compliment; to call it bureaucratic is to insult it. On the portion of its website devoted to recruiting talent, Goldman Sachs tells potential recruits that "Goldman Sachs is a meritocracy." It's the first sentence.

While faith in America's meritocratic promise is shared up and down the social hierarchy and across the political spectrum, it is particularly strong among those who have scaled its highest heights. Naturally the winners are tempted to conclude that the system that conferred outsize benefits on them knew what it was doing. So even as the meritocracy produces failing, distrusted institutions, massive inequality, and an increasing detached elite, it also produces a set of very powerful and influential leaders who hold it in high regard.”

“But this ideal, appealing as it may be, runs up against the reality of what I'll call The Iron Law of Meritocracy. The Iron Law of Meritocracy states that eventually the inequality produced by a meritocratic system will grow large enough to subvert the mechanisms of mobility. Unequal outcomes make equal opportunity impossible. The Principle of Difference will come to overwhelm the Principle of Mobility. Those who are able to climb up the ladder will find ways to pull it up after them, or to selectively lower it down to allow their friends, allies, and kin to scramble up. In other words: "Whoever says meritocracy says oligarchy."”

“It would be a society with extremely high and rising inequality yet little circulation of elites. A society in which the pillar institutions were populated by and presided over by a group of hypereducated, ambitious overachievers who enjoyed tremendous monetary rewards as well as unparalleled political power and prestige and yet who managed to insulate themselves from sanction, competition, and accountability, a group of people who could more or less rest assured that now that they have achieved their status, now that they have scaled to the top of the pyramid, they, their peers, and their progeny will stay there.

Such a ruling class would have all the competitive ferocity inculcated by the ceaseless jockeying within the institutions that produce meritocratic elites, but face no actual sanctions for failing at their duties or succumbing to the temptations of corruption. It would reflexively protect its worst members, it would operate with a wide gulf between performance and reward, and would be shot through with corruption, rule-breaking, and self-dealing as those on top pursued the outsize rewards promised for superstars. In the way the bailouts combined the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism, such a social order would fuse the worst aspects of meritocracy and bureaucracy.”

d) Quoted from Q & A (75)

“12. Your case is neither complex nor difficult to understand, isn’t it a simple case of noise from the neighbour? Why do you think the case remains unresolved over a long period of time? I agree, but because it involves officers the problem is made inaccessible. We are back to the underlying problem of power or the struggle for power.

13. What could be done? Openness, accountability, taking unpopular measure. Doing, not just saying. Leading change.

14. What do you think is important? Fair mindedness.

15. I may be in a salaried position, fair mindedness may not be to my advantage? Generally a situation is made better when it is for the common good or you serve the public interest. You are not selfish. A note: a sortition system minimises corruption.

16. What is sortition? Random and stratified sampling techniques to choose persons who deliberate and evaluate the measure in question. The system is practised in places around the world.

17. What is common good or public interest? What in your case is in the public interest? Causing damage to things or causing harm to people, whether physically or psychologically, is against common good or public interest. In my case allowing a trade in housing flat and deliberately causing trouble just before and after I sold my flat were clearly against rules and regulations. These were crimes and there was a victim. If nothing is done, these will affect others in similar circumstances. It is therefore in the public interest to stop and prevent such from happening.”

e) Quoted from Inquiry (27)

“2. Over the many years since 2007 that I wrote to HDB Branch Office, Meet-the-People Sessions, HDB Hub, Town Council, PSC, MOM, MND, SPF, CPIB, President, Prime Minister and, since 2009, in my blog, I basically asked for an inquiry. However, there was no reply that dealt directly with the complaint which was noise from the workings of a trade from an upper floor neighbour. Noise was reduced substantially only after posting Standpoint (34) in 2012, which meant the neighbour had tormented me for five years. When I decided to sell my flat I found that estate agents were not honest and CEA did not give a reply after I officially submitted my complaint. Other instances where transactions were made difficult for me were at banks, government agencies, companies, shops and a hospital. So long as I continue with the complaint, there is no end.

3. If indeed the neighbour had a) different persons worked inside their HDB flat, b) the flat changed hand after an eviction, c) the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour kept watch, d) officers on their side but insiders assisted me, then it would stand to reason such relationships can be traced with the evidence that I had provided. These included records that could prove my allegation. These evidence are in the various postings but the first post Report (1) about covers it. The other posts emanating from here are varied that include the situation I am in and extracts from books and articles to support my case.

4. Allowing the neighbour to carry on a trade in HDB flat is a crime. Not allowing refund to my CPF Account after selling my flat and setting for reduced payout in my CPF Life over two instances are outright misbehaviour. Of the first, a background check of the neighbour would have clear them if the evidence had been insubstantial. Of the second, a CPF director did not reply to the four questions as shown in CPF Life (78).

5. If these were not the case, why would the authorities not refute the evidence. And if there is truth, when will the authorities take action. There are procedure and rule of law. There are norms and reasoning. It is not that the government was unaware or had not done anything to alleviate the situation, but they were not dealing directly with the problem by prolonging the situation.

6. Mainstream media are muted. People in powerful positions are able to keep the problem low-key without much repercussion. The post Select Committee (27) that I submitted to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods are on such issues.

7. At first I was asking for an inquiry from the authorities, then I was appealing to sentiment from the public, now I am asking for an investigation from Parliament. The problem could only be resolved in Parliament.

8. Please bring up the problem in Parliament.”

f) Quoted from Select Committee (27)

“3. Similarly, news media would only refer to the complaint indirectly. My blog listed many such instances. The complaint was collusion between a neighbour and officers to carry on a trade in HDB flat and, after reporting to the police, the neighbourhood police did not conduct a full investigation. Should not the authorities give a reply when informed of the wrongdoing? The right to silence is to prevent self-incrimination, but should it apply to authorities when we talk about rule of law for the citizenry?

4. Who would argue against freedom of publication within limits in a democracy? If news media were to publish hearsay but wrote to the authority to confirm its validity, would it be considered fake news? As fake news, action can be taken against the publisher. If the onus is for me to prove wrongdoing before the authorities will take action, then because I provided no proof I could also be hauled up for writing fake news. However, my blog is not hearsay. I back up with evidence, but the authorities would not give a reply.

5. Why has the case been in suspension and why we need the authority to give a reply. Because the mainstream media and major news media sites have been restricted, very few Singaporeans know about my blogs. Even though the complaint has been over a course of five elections and one reserved presidency and there were indirect references, it could not affect election result. If the authorities were made to give a reply, they would not very well say no public interest was involved. In these two aspects there is no transparency.

6. The Select Committee may avoid my questions. Fake news is headline news in US and Europe and the Select Committee could fine-tune what legislation they come up with. But lawmaking is peculiar to country. If my case was reported by major news media, the problem would have been resolved. As it is, officers still cause trouble. After my last posting in Sep 17 there was intention to cause trouble. When will the problem be over? Considering that the authorities did not reply to me nor to the MPs when I asked for their assistance on issues raised, it is officers (people) on the ground who are in such strong position that the problem is kept unresolved at my expense.”

g) Quoted from Head of State (61)

“In our constitution the president has some political independence and protecting the rights of minority could mean protecting the rights of citizens when it is in the public interest to do so. At this point in time, the president may be in a position to help settle a case of public interest.

It is a fact that people in the flat across the neighbour’s flat were employed to protect the neighbour after my complaint of noise. The noise started in 2007 and since then I wrote about other events that were the result of the complaint. The integrity of the civil service was mentioned because officers from government bodies would not reply to the issue when the evidence was clear. I blogged to get my message across and for the problems to be corrected, but mostly to no avail.

Some of the events included my CPF Account and CPF Life. After the sale of my flat I was not allowed the refund into CPF Account and the monthly payments from CPF Life (payments to start in about two years time at age 65) were set to lesser amount. In the first case officers went against rules found in official documents, and in the second case mistakes were made in two instances. There are continuing monetary losses in both cases. These are detailed in letters to the Prime Minister and the former President under the category Complaint in my blog.”

5. Pronouncements from ministers:

a) Quoted from Inquiry (27)

“At the closing address in Parliament on 38 Oxley Road dispute, PM said:

The accusers may not be in Parliament but that should not stop MPs from talking to them to get their story, nor would it stop the accusers from getting in touch with MPs, including opposition MPs, to tell their story so that the MPs can raise it on their behalf in Parliament. That is, in fact, how the MP system is meant to work. Those are the MP’s duties. That is one reason why Parliamentary Privilege exists. So that MPs who have heard troubling allegations or news, can make these allegations and raise the matters in the House even if they are not completely proven and may be defamatory, without fear of being sued for defamation. That is how Parliaments are supposed to function.”

“But if there is evidence of wrongdoing that emerges or alleged evidence of wrongdoing which emerges, then I and the Government will consider what further steps to take. We can have a Select Committee, we can have a Commission of Inquiry, I may decide to sue for defamation or take some other legal action, but until then let’s get back to more important things that we should be working on.”

b) Quoted from Authority (16)

“7. Ministers are aware of the issue from statements made. DPM Teo Chee Hean said "the government is on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders" and "the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments."  In another he said "public officers will also be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than the ideological path". PM Lee Hsien Loong said "Singapore cannot 'afford a bump in the night', whether it is a financial crisis, government misbehaviour or a security problem". SM Goh Chok Tong said "many governments around the world face a trust deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on the government." On the same subject aired on TV, Mr Goh said complaint from citizens may be vexatious but urged to engage.”

c) Quoted from Morality (39)

“3. Item from Teletext on 1 Sep 12:

Legal framework to curb unneighbourly acts?

Singapore's Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has said that the country may need to consider new ways of dealing with conduct seen as a social nuisance. He said this may require a legal framework which sets out what Singaporeans should avoid doing, so their behaviours do not unreasonably impact their neighbours. In his latest Facebook post, Mr Shanmugam spoke of a recurrent issue he's come across, when what happens in the HDB flat impacts the others.”

6. Swearing-in of person for important office in government:

“The Oath of Allegiance reads as follows:

I, [name], having been appointed to the office of [name of office], do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

The oath for the due execution of the office of Prime Minister or a Minister is as follows:

I, [name], being chosen and appointed as Prime Minister [or Minister] of Singapore, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will at all times faithfully discharge my duties as Prime Minister [or Minister] according to law, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore)

7. The letters Bringing Up To The Prime Minister and Documents Provide The Explanation addressed to Mr Teo are each summary of all the five issues that required investigation. The letter Annuity Premium Deduction And Retirement Account Balance Toward CPF LIFE addressed to CPF Tampines Service Centre is a new issue that required investigation. The last letter was in reply to the letter from CPF of 27 Jun 19 to inform the start of monthly payout at age 65 in two months time. All the letters are at Summing Up (72) Item 23, Explanation (72), Annuity (78) respectively. The letter from CPF dated 27 Jun 19 will be submitted at MPS, Ang Mo Kio. However, my comments are at Salient Points 2 (40) under SP2-Annuity Premium Deduction.

Why investigation? My complaints through MPS, the last numbered twenty, have no effect. Their replies avoided the questions in the ways noted in the letter Monthly Payout From CPF LIFE and no reply was given recently noted in Item 1. The email dated 14 Mar 19 in SP2-Summing Up Item 16 is proof that officers did not reply to the refund to CPF Account and the low rate of return from additional CPF LIFE. The questions were first posed in 19 Apr 14 to CPFB and 30 Apr 15 to a director of CPFB respectively. What started it all was noise from the neighbour eleven years ago from the first MPS on 16 Feb 08.

The reason it was not addressed by executive officer up to the level of director is because of influence from powerful persons. They are not visible, but they affect the future prospects of officers. They cause officers to misbehave because of advantage gained. Although we have a centralised government that is efficient, we are not immune to such influence. Item 4 a) to g) above refer to such a situation.

Their influence cut across government departments, statutory boards and commercial enterprises. In my case I was stonewalled and there was not much in the way of a media report except for indirect references. Item 5 above are pronouncements from ministers, which I feel have some bearing.

That brings me to the final point, which is also the title of this letter. Without an investigation from Parliament, my complaint will never be resolved. I will always be at the end of officers who will continue to go against me.

I had asked that the matter be brought up to the prime minister and the Parliament before. The petition writers had reservation when I asked that they addressed my complaint directly to MP. I had therefore submitted the first set of documents in Salient Point (40) and will submit the second set of documents in Salient Points 2 to MPS, Ang Mo Kio.

Please bring up my complaint in Parliament.

Yours Sincerely,
hh