78. Six Issues

19 Aug 2019

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

Dear Ms Sun,

Bringing Up The Six Issues In Parliament

The letter Documents Provide The Explanation dated 14 Jun 19 was addressed to Mr Teo but handed to you at Meet-the-People Session (MPS). There was no reply to me on each of the five issues in the letter after you wrote to CPF, HDB and CEA. They may have replied to you. I learned from CPF Tampines when they asked me whether I had received a reply on 19 Jun 19 to the letter after I visited them on a new issue.

The next letter Being Accountable To Parliament dated 22 Jul 19 was addressed and handed to you at MPS. The letter was in six pages and the petition writers did not know where to begin although I asked only that they read the first and seventh item. They had not written and when you spoke to me you said CPF had replied many times. Not much more was said because you had to attend to the others. I continued to talk to the person who was listening in to our conversation by referring him to the example of the refund to CPF Account, which officers disallowed. It is common knowledge that refund is required and it is indicated in 2012 CPF Act. The senior assistant director reference to Section 15(15)(e) for disallowing refund was incorrect because it required an application to be made on the occurrence of events as listed in 2012 CPF Act. No such application was made. 

I therefore wrote No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given dated 5 Aug 19 addressed to you and handed in at MPS because there was no MP in session. I got to talk with a petition writer by going through all six issues, including the new issue, specifically on items not addressed by officers in their letters. As I wrote in Documents Provide The Explanation, these were by reference only to documents possessed or provided by the agencies.

The issues are supposedly with the neighbour, the property agents or my lack of understanding, but it   has more to do with the officers in HDB, CEA and CPF. I showed where the mistakes were made. I noted in Being Accountable To Parliament why the problem could not be resolved.

You have not given a reply to No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given whether to bring up the problem in parliament.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

Observation

Bringing Up The Six Issues In Parliament

"I therefore wrote No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given dated 5 Aug 19 addressed to you and handed in at MPS because there was no MP in session. I got to talk with a petition writer by going through all six issues, including the new issue, specifically on items not addressed by officers in their letters. As I wrote in Documents Provide The Explanation, these were by reference only to documents possessed or provided by the agencies.

The issues are supposedly with the neighbour, the property agents or my lack of understanding, but it   has more to do with the officers in HDB, CEA and CPF. I showed where the mistakes were made. I noted in Being Accountable To Parliament why the problem could not be resolved.

You have not given a reply to No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given whether to bring up the problem in parliament."

78. No Full Reply

5 Aug 2019

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

Dear Ms Sun,

No Full Reply Or No Reply was Given

At the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) of 22 Jul 19 I handed a six-page letter Being Accountable To Parliament and asked you to bring up the complaint in Parliament. The letter was another summary, but broadly to reflect the situation that led to the six issues complained about. The other two summaries in more details were Bringing Up To The Prime Minister and Documents Provide The Explanation. I have to refer to letters, emails and postings in the blog to make the issues clear. Hard copy of all the documents were handed over to MPS, Ang Mo Kio to be submitted to Parliament.

The petition writer should have written to inform you about the situation because you still said that CPF had replied to me many times.

I have therefore printed copy of replies by officers to show the issues were not addressed under Annuity Premium Deduction, Refund to CPF Account and CPF LIFE, and $5,000 Deposit in Resale Documents. Noise from the Neighbour and Sales Agents were covered in the summaries. Officers were involved in all six issues. Noise from the Neighbour was the cause of all the others.

Salient Points 2 (40) is my comments on the issues.

Please give me a reply as to whether you could bring up the problem in Parliament.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

1. Annuity Premium Deduction

Quoted From Salient Points 2 (40)

SP2-Annuity Premium Deduction
1.
27 Jun 19
Letter from Lifelong Income Department, CPFB
CPF LIFE

“As you are reaching your payout eligibility age of 65, you will start to receive your CPF LIFE monthly payout from August 2019. The monthly payout had taken into consideration an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances. You will receive payouts from your CPF LIFE plan for as long as you live. You may refer to the Policy Certificate for your policy details and read the enclosed Important Notes on CPF LIFE.”

(The letter was written without officer’s name and signature. When I told the officer who attended to me at CPF Tampines Service Centre that the letter was not signed to avoid responsibility, she said the letter was computerised. But the mistake was with “an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances”, which the officer had acknowledged. Without question, the rest of the letter could be computerised.

This is a new issue and the second time the letter for the issuance of Policy Certificate was sent without name and signature because officer knew mistakes were made in the Policy Certificate. Please refer to my comments of the latter Policy Certificate in Salient Point (40) of 12 Jan 15 and 4 Feb 15 and the former Policy Certificate is the next item below.)
2.
9 Jul 19
Letter handed in at CPF Tampines Service Centre
Annuity Premium Deduction And Retirement Account Balance Toward CPF LIFE

“The letter stated “The monthly payout had taken into consideration an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances.”

Is the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 the extra interest earned on CPF balances or are they separate items? How did the $2,134.32 come about. It seems to me the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 is a purchase of additional CPF LIFE, commencement date 27 June 2019, which I did not make.

2. The monthly payout of $1,461.32 is also an issue. If the increase of the monthly payout came from the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, what was the amount of the increase? I subtracted the monthly payout of $1,461.32 from the lower range and upper range monthly payout of the previous additional CPF LIFE to calculate the rate of returns, but the two rates of returns varied too widely to be of any use.”

“3. From the Important Notes on CPF LIFE on CPF LIFE Annuity Premium:

If you join CPF LIFE before your DDA, there will be deductions of two annuity premiums.

The first annuity premium has been deducted upon the issuance of your CPF LIFE Plan.

The second annuity premium will be deducted two months before your DDA, subject to the available balances in your Retirement Account (RA) for the premium deduction. The second deduction will be done automatically, and you will be informed of the exact monthly payout that you will receive from your DDA after the deduction is made.

Why was the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as indicated in the Policy Certificate not deducted?

4. Mistakes were made when I was asked to purchase the two additional CPF LIFE. In my case Item 3 applies. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE listed all the situations for the deduction of annuity premium.”

(It seemed the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 came from the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018. When the officer told me I had an amount in my RA from the record, I asked her to add the amount to the $2,134.32. The sum came to be the same as the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018. The sum of $3,484.32 was shown in the Policy Certificate as RA Balance at policy issuance. The letter from Lifelong Income Department to inform the start of monthly payout and the enclosed Policy Certificate were both dated 27 Jun 19.

Statements from two documents, Important Notes on CPF LIFE on Annuity Premium and Policy Certificate, are clear on the matter. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE on Annuity Premium stated “The second annuity premium will be deducted two months before your DDA, subject to the available balances in your Retirement Account (RA) for the premium deduction. The second deduction will be done automatically, and you will be informed of the exact monthly payout that you will receive from your DDA after the deduction is made.” The Policy Certificate stated “The monthly payouts include the extra interest earned on the CPF balances and the CPF LIFE balances.”

Therefore it seems to me the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018 and the extra interest earned on the CPF balances including the extra interest earned on the CPF LIFE balances, should go into the monthly payout. The extra interest earned on the CPF LIFE balances comes from the unused annuity premium under CPF LIFE. The whole process is done automatically and the exact monthly payout begins on Aug 2019.

This was why I wrote to CPF Tampines Service Centre that “It seems to me the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 is a purchase of additional CPF LIFE, commencement date 27 June 2019, which I did not make.” and “Why was the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as indicated in the Policy Certificate not deducted?”)
3.
15 Jul 19
Letter from Lifelong Income Department, CPFB
CPF LIFE

“We would like to explain that the premium deducted from your RA on 27 Jun 2019 is indeed for the issuance of an additional annuity. However, this additional annuity is the one that will be done automatically for all members at two months before their payout eligibility age.”

“Regarding the monthly payouts under CPF LIFE, we would like to clarify that the range provided to you previously does not represent the upper and lower limits of the payout. The range is meant as a reference for members who are not due to receive monthly payouts, based on the interest rate assumptions of 3.75% and 4.25%. However, for members like yourself who are starting their payouts, the computation will be done based on the current CPF RA interest rate of 4% per annum.”

(The reply did not show how the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 came about nor why the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018 was not deducted two months before DDA.

I could understand the payout done based on the RA interest rate of 4% and the premium deduction two months before the Draw Down Age (DDA). In my case, the payout should then be added to the payouts of the first CPF LIFE and the two additional CPF LIFE to arrive at the starting payout.

My spreadsheet showed that the rate of return of the first CPF LIFE was within the estimated range but not the two additional CPF LIFE, which were below the estimated lower range of 3.75%. The calculation of the upper and lower range of the first CPF LIFE, the two additional CPF LIFE and the earned interest for the year 2014 were 3.814% and 4.340%, 2.959% and 3.462%, 2.652% and 3.227%, and less than 0.001% and less than 0.001% respectively.

From the Important Notes on CPF LIFE on CPF LIFE Annuity Premium I should not have been asked to purchase the two additional CPF LIFE. There should have been only two deductions. The first upon issuance of the first CPF LIFE and the second done automatically for the starting payout two months before the DDA. The money that would have been left in the RA would have earned based rate of 4% and the extra interest, which included the unused annuity premium under CPF LIFE. 

As it is, my payout has been lowered by the two additional CPF LIFE.) 

2. Refund to CPF Account and CPF LIFE

Quoted From Salient Points 2 (40)

SP2-Summing Up
15.
12 Mar 19
Email from CPFB
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

“We have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that we will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.

Please refer to our reply dated 16 December 2014 on the details of the housing refund amount and our reply dated 30 April 2015 on the computation of CPF LIFE payout.”

(The senior executive avoided the questions just as the deputy director of 26 Feb 19. The reply of 30 April 2015 from a director did not show any computation except repeated the amount of payouts from document sent to me. She too stated “As the issues in your latest email are similar to those we have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that [we] will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.” I followed with 4 questions:

i) whether she agreed with the senior assistant director’s stand that there was to be no CPF refund,
ii) why was there no reply from CPF within the 7 working days stated in the application form for SHB submitted by the principal estate manager,
iii) whether the $4 more in payout from interest earned for the year that was included in the Policy Certificate issued for the second additional CPF LIFE was correct and
iv) why I was asked to purchase the first additional CPF LIFE with no safeguard in place.

She did not give a reply.

Please refer to the following:

i) Summing Up Item 16 of 14 Mar 19;
ii) Summing Up Item 22 of 31 Mar 19 Item 15d), Item 16;
iii) Summing Up Item 27 of 10 May 19, last question in italics; and
iv) Explanation (72) Item 3

The issues in the 4 questions were explained respectively.)

Quoted from Salient Points 2 (40)

Summing Up
16.
14 Mar 19
Email to MP
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

Dear Mr Teo,

1. CPF Refund

The senior assistant director’s email of 21 Nov 14 is better than her email of 16 Dec 14 as it referred directly to the 2012 CPF Act.

She stated Section 21B(11)(b) applied. But Section 21B(11)(b) refers to Section 15(15)(e), which states: “the charge shall on the application of the member or any other person having an interest in the property be cancelled if the Board is satisfied of the occurrence of any one of the following events...”. Since we did not make an application, Section 21B(11)(b) and Section 15(15)(e) do not apply.

The second paragraph of her reply quoted here cannot be followed because she did not expand on the various sub-sections. In any case it does not apply to our case because we did not make an application for withdrawal.

I stated Section 21B(11)(a)(i) applied. If it is Section 21B(11)(a)(ii), then the charge “are no longer required by any regulations made under section 77(1) to be repaid to the Fund”. Is there any reason why these two should not apply?

Her reply and the portion of 2012 CPF Act she quoted are as follows:

Her Reply

There was a CPF charge imposed on your HDB flat under section 21B(1) of the 2012 CPF Act due to the CPF moneys you used to purchase your flat. Section 21B(11)(b) of the 2012 CPF Act stated that a housing charge imposed under section 21B(1) would lapse when any of the events listed in section 15(15)(e) of the 2012 CPF Act happens.

Section 15(15)(e)(iii) of the 2012 CPF Act refers to a member complying with requirements of section 15(6). Section 15(6) refers to setting aside the Minimum Sum. Since you have set aside the full Minimum Sum before 1 Jan 2013, the CPF charge on your flat had lapsed pursuant to section 21B(11)(b) read with section 15(15)(e) of the 2012 CPF Act.

The Portion of 2012 CPF Act She Quoted

2012 CPF Act provisions:

15.- (6) Subject to subsections (6A), (8) and (8A), where a member of the Fund is entitled under subsection (2)(a), (3) or (4) to withdraw the sum standing to his credit in the Fund, at the time of the withdrawal and in accordance with any regulations made under this Act —

(a) a prescribed sum (referred to in this Act as the minimum sum) shall be set aside or topped-up —
(i)by the member; or
(ii)from the sum standing to the member’s credit in the Fund; and

(b)unless the Board otherwise allows, such amount as may be specified under subsection (6D) shall be set aside or topped-up in the member’s medisave account —
(i)by the member; or
(ii)from the sum standing to the member’s credit in the Fund after deducting any sum standing to the member’s credit in his retirement account.

(15)  The following provisions shall apply to a charge created over any immovable property under subsection (9) or (9A):

(e)the charge shall on the application of the member or any other person having an interest in the property be cancelled if the Board is satisfied of the occurrence of any one of the following events:
(i)the death of the member;
(ii)the member is suffering from a terminal illness or disease;
(iii)the member has complied with the requirements of subsection (2A), (6), (7B) or (8A);
(iv)the member’s minimum sum has been exhausted on account of withdrawals made by him under subsection (7), the payment by him of a premium referred to in section 27L(1) or (1A), or both; or
(v)the member satisfies any of the grounds for withdrawals under subsection (2)(b) or (c).

21B.—(1)  Where in accordance with any regulations made under section 77, a member of the Fund had or has before, on or after 1st January 2003 withdrawn any money standing to his credit in the Fund —

(a)to make full or partial payment towards the purchase or acquisition of an HDB flat;

(b)to repay or to make periodic payments towards the repayment of any loan taken by the member to finance or re-finance the purchase or acquisition of an HDB flat;

(c)to pay any improvement contribution due to the Housing and Development Board in respect of upgrading works carried out on an HDB flat under Part IVA of the Housing and Development Act (Cap. 129), or any improvement contribution due to a Town Council in respect of lift upgrading works carried out in relation to an HDB flat under Part IVA of the Town Councils Act (Cap. 329A), including the payment of costs, fees or other incidental expenses arising from such works; or

(d)to pay any costs, fees or other expenses incurred —
(i)for the purchase or acquisition of an HDB flat;
(ii)for obtaining a loan to finance or re-finance such purchase or acquisition; and
(iii)in connection with withdrawals of any money from the Fund,

there shall, immediately upon any such withdrawal, be a charge constituted on that HDB flat to secure the repayment of the money withdrawn from the Fund including the whole or such part, as the Board may determine, of the interest that would have been payable thereon if the withdrawal had not been made and to secure the payment of the minimum sum into the member’s retirement account.

(11)  Any charge constituted under subsection (1) shall continue in force until —

(a)all moneys secured by the charge —
(i)have been repaid to the Fund; or
(ii)are no longer required by any regulations made under section 77(1) to be repaid to the Fund;

or

(b)the Board is satisfied of the occurrence of any of the events mentioned in section 15(15)(e).

2. CPF LIFE

The spreadsheet submitted on 3 Mar 14 shows three rate of returns lower than the lower range estimated by CPF LIFE.

The director’s letter of 30 Apr 15 did not explain why the rate of returns were low. It cannot be right that one of the them was lower than 0.001%. The rate of returns were adjusted to give the same monthly payout as estimated by CPF LIFE.

What the director wrote was statements from records. They were not explanation of mistakes made or not made. A copy of the director’s reply of 30 Apr 15 was submitted at MPS, Ang Mo Kio.

I forward the reply of 12 Mar 14 on the above CPF Refund and CPF LIFE.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

(Attachment - letter from director CPFB dated 30 Apr 15, Sheet L24 and L23)

15.
12 Mar 19
Email from CPFB
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

Dear [Sir]

We refer to your email of 3 March 2019 to Prime Minister Office (PMO) concerning the CPF refund upon sale of the flat at Pasir Ris St 11 and your CPF LIFE payout.

We have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that we will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.

Please refer to our reply dated 16 December 2014 on the details of the housing refund amount and our reply dated 30 April 2015 on the computation of CPF LIFE payout.

If you require further clarification, you may contact me at 6202 2060 from Monday to Friday (9.00am to 5.00pm).

Thank you.

Yours sincerely
      [       ]
Senior Executive
Lifelong Income Department
Central Provident Fund Board

7.
26 Feb 19
Email from CPFB
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

Dear [Sir]

I refer to your request made through Mr Teo Chee Hean, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, to clarify on your CPF refund upon sale of the flat at Pasir Ris St 11.

As we have explained to you several times on this matter, we regret that we will not respond to you further on the same matter. You may refer to the details regarding the refund amount in our last reply to you on 16 December 2014.

HDB will be responding to you on your remaining queries.

Yours sincerely
       [       ]
Deputy Director
Housing Schemes Department
Central Provident Fund Board

2.
13 Feb 19
Letter from CPFB
Request for Clarification on CPF refund upon sale of flat

Please refer to Sheet SU2.

(Attachment - Letter from deputy director CPFB dated 13 Feb 19, Sheet SU2)

3. $5,000 Deposit in Resale Documents

Quoted from Salient Points 2 (40)

SP2-Summing Up
24.
16 Apr 19
Email from Resale Section of HDB
Sale Of Flat At [address]

“2        As we have explained to you in our earlier reply, you and your mother, [name of mother] have granted the Option To Purchase (OTP) to buyers on 25 Jan 2014 and received an Option Fee of $1,000 in cash. The buyers had paid you an Option Exercise Fee of $4,000 when they exercised the OTP on 25 Jan 2014. Together, the Option Fee and Option Exercise Fee form the deposit and is considered part of the agreed resale transacted price of [dollar amount]. You can refer to the OTP attached for reference.”

(Summing Up Item 25 of 29 Apr 19 below was my reply. I did not receive the OTP and no option fee and option exercise fee was received on 25 Jan 14.)
25.
29 Apr 19
Email to Resale Section of HDB
Sale Of Flat At [address]

“I negotiated the price with the buyers on 25 Jan 14 in the presence of salespersons for seller and buyer. If the Option To Purchase (OTP) was signed on 25 Jan 14 as indicated in the OTP, why wasn’t the OTP handed to me on the same day. Clause 5.1(b) of the OTP stated “deliver the signed Option (original copy) to the Seller”. And if I had received payment of option fee and exercise fee, were there receipts.”

SP2-Option To Purchase

(The question came about because I enquired of the $5000 deduction shown in the resale document from Resale Operation Section of HDB.

Please refer to the resale document at Salient Points (40) under SP-CPF Refund of 11 Mar 14 and 8 Apr 14  and their replies at SP2-Summing Up Item 12 of 4 Mar 19 and Item 24 of 16 Apr 19 above.

They stated the $5000 deposit was option fee and option exercise fee we had received that form part of the resale price of the flat. Although the fees were indicated in the OPT we had signed, the OTP was not given to us as required and there was no receipt to show we had received any fee. The situation is explained in Explanation (72) Item 4.)

78. Annuity

9 Jul 2019

CPF Tampines Service Centre
1 Tampines Central 5
#01-01
Singapore 529508

Dear Sir,

Annuity Premium Deduction And Retirement Account Balance Toward CPF LIFE

1. I refer to the letter reference number LID/PLELB01 dated 27 Jun 2019 and the attached Policy Certificate, which is the CPF LIFE INCOME PLAN.

The letter stated “The monthly payout had taken into consideration an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances.”

Is the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 the extra interest earned on CPF balances or are they separate items? How did the $2,134.32 come about. It seems to me the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 is a purchase of additional CPF LIFE, commencement date 27 June 2019, which I did not make.

2. The monthly payout of $1,461.32 is also an issue. If the increase of the monthly payout came from the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, what was the amount of the increase? I subtracted the monthly payout of $1,461.32 from the lower range and upper range monthly payout of the previous additional CPF LIFE to calculate the rate of returns, but the two rates of returns varied too widely to be of any use.

I had shown through spreadsheet calculations that the rate of return of the two previous additional CPF LIFE to be low. The increase of monthly payouts was found by subtracting the lower and upper range against the lower and upper range of the previous CPF LIFE.  

3. From the Important Notes on CPF LIFE on CPF LIFE Annuity Premium:

If you join CPF LIFE before your DDA, there will be deductions of two annuity premiums.

The first annuity premium has been deducted upon the issuance of your CPF LIFE Plan.

The second annuity premium will be deducted two months before your DDA, subject to the available balances in your Retirement Account (RA) for the premium deduction. The second deduction will be done automatically, and you will be informed of the exact monthly payout that you will receive from your DDA after the deduction is made.

Why was the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as indicated in the Policy Certificate not deducted?

4. Mistakes were made when I was asked to purchase the two additional CPF LIFE. In my case Item 3 applies. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE listed all the situations for the deduction of annuity premium. 

5. The MPs at Meet-the-People Session had written to the CPF several times, the last was on 14 Jun 2019 pending a reply. My correspondence with MPs, including the spreadsheet, is at http://anaudienceofthree.blogspot.com.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

Observation

“The letter stated “The monthly payout had taken into consideration an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances.

Is the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 the extra interest earned on CPF balances or are they separate items? How did the $2,134.32 come about. It seems to me the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 is a purchase of additional CPF LIFE, commencement date 27 June 2019, which I did not make.”

“Why was the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as indicated in the Policy Certificate not deducted?”

“The MPs at Meet-the-People Session had written to the CPF several times, the last was on 14 Jun 2019 pending a reply. My correspondence with MPs, including the spreadsheet, is at http://anaudienceofthree.blogspot.com.”

75. Q & A of 2

15 Aug 2020

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

Dear Ms Sun,

Has The Situation Changed After GE 2020?

1. The total number of votes casted during the General Election of 10 Jul 2020 showed a swing against the incumbent although a supermajority of seats (83 out of 93) were retained, what do you make of it? The First Assistant Secretary-General of the PAP (People’s Action Party) said “What would investors and other countries think?" if 4 GRC (Group Representation Constituency) and 2 SMC (Single Member Constituency) that the WP (Workers’ Party) was contesting were lost. In contrast, the WP said the risk of an opposition wipeout was real and they needed physical presence on the ground to grow the party.

The atmosphere created by the various opposition parties were conducive for the swing of votes and
I felt a sense of relief when it was announced that the WP won a new GRC.

The WP retained their old constituencies of 1 GRC and 1 SMC for a total of 10 seats won. The losing candidates from the PSP (Progress Singapore Party) who secured the highest percentage votes in the constituency of West Coast GRC accepted 2 NCMP (Non-Constituency Member of Parliament) seats.

The law provides NCMP seats in Parliament if the number of elected opposition candidates falls short of the minimum number of 12 seats. NCMPs have the same voting rights as elected MPs.

2. Why do you think the citizenry continues to give the incumbent a big share of the votes? Are Singaporeans weaned? Most citizens have benefited from the government one way or another, but airing issues as the opposition did give citizens a chance to think about how they wanted to vote. The results showed the more credible a party from the opposition is, the more a person from the party is able to gather votes.

I think there is an undercurrent that the government allows people who are narrow-minded and blind by privilege. Where they give favour to family members, relatives and friends out of self interest, we have the beginning of corruption. Selflessness is the opposite of self interest.

The threat of Covid-19 did not cause a flight to safety as feared. No physical rally, face masks, safe-distancing and other precautions were taken during the election.

The political broadcasts, online rallies and social media were carried out under POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act). The new legislation empowered ministers to order amendment of online posts that could harm public interest. However, during the election the power was handed over to civil servants who issued a number of correction notices.

The subject of fake news, which is the new legislation, has been in the news frequently. I have written to the Select Committee during the feedback phase as it relates to my case in Select Committee (27).

3. How bad is the Covid-19 crisis? What will it take? The first cluster was reported in Wuhan, China, on Dec 2019 and has since spread across the world.

A number of vaccines are undergoing trials and countries are in stages of containment.

The Singapore government has begun further easing of restrictions on Aug 2020. A total of $93 billion of which $52 billion is from the country's reserves has been allocated to revive the economy as of Feb 2020.

We begin to appreciate the people who provide essential services, frontline workers and jobs provided by small and medium enterprises.

Governments will have to provide for those affected.

4. When all the election results were out and the PAP announced that the leader of WP will be named Leader of the Opposition, what does it mean? In countries with similar systems of government, the Leader of Opposition draws a salary on top of an MP allowance. The party is provided with staff support and resources and it forms a shadow government to track and take over should the government resign.

It also means citizens may choose between parties instead of second-guessing between candidates. Quality new candidates fielded will be as good as established candidates in contesting constituencies.

5. Has anything changed since your last post Civic Responsibility (72) on 19 Mar 2020? Are you biased against the government? My case is based on evidence. There may be a change in attitude, but the wrongdoings committed were not corrected. It is not for want of trying.

6. Why bring up your problem time and again when it is being ignored? It is a matter of principle. The facts of the case as published in my blog and sent to MPs are sufficient for one to argue for or against. That such a discussion has not taken place showed that the problem has been kept covered. For example, Q & A (75) and Rules, Character and Morals (72) were letters handed to MPs. The two posts amongst others should have a reply.

7. You mentioned in Q & A (75) that officers caused you all sorts of trouble, did they stop? A number of examples this year and I pursued it through emails. One acknowledged trouble caused, one caused delay through several rounds of emails, one returned deductions from my bank account after many rounds of emails and one was on rebate not given after many rounds of emails even when it was substantiated with documents. These were from a bank, a trade union organisation, a transport company and an electricity retailer respectively. All were attempts to make trouble.

Of the electricity retailer, I submitted a complaint to EMA (Energy Market Authority). Although the rebate was set out in two documents and I pointed out the mistake made, the EMA officer did not address the issue.

8. Of an indirect reference, are you being treated as a second class citizen? Sometimes we may accept inequality because of some benefit. At other times, we accept inequality out of need. Sometimes there is unfairness because of group or self interest. At other times, the law or policy is stacked against the weak. My situation is unfair because of the self interest of a group of people in government.

9. What do you wish to achieve this time around? The responsibility is with the MPs. The MP in my constituency could count on state apparatus to hold the case down or she could resolve it once and for all. It could be that she is unable to resolve the problem that an opposition MP would not be constrained to do so. It could also be that the opposition do not have sufficient numbers or power to bring it up for resolution. It could be that officials are powerful and could not be held accountable at this time.

10. Will there come a time? It could happen suddenly because of another similar incident. It could be after a by-election or another general election when there is a change of candidate or party. It could be long after one is dead. It could be never.

11. The PM said at the online Fullerton Rally that Singaporeans should not undermine a system that has served them well, is all well? It did in the past, but for those who knew about my case the system cannot now be trusted unless the case is seen to have been resolved.

12. Rules of prudence and National Day Speeches, what are they and what is the relevance? The PM issues rules of prudence to MPs after a general election and he gives a speech to the nation each year after the national day parade.

Aristotle shows that prudence is the ability to find the truth in practical matters about things that are good and bad for human beings. They must figure out what to do by the strength of their reason. This is a vast area than the guidance provided by the law.

The national day speech is a rally, outlines issues of the years past and the years ahead and shows what the people are capable of. This year’s speech will be held in Parliament instead of an auditorium because of Covid-19. The opening of the 14th Parliament with the traditional President’s speech will be followed at a later date by a debate and the PM’s speech.

PM said that it will be a major speech and there are legislations to be passed urgently. Will the PM make changes to encourage diverse views and flow of ideas?

Freedom of speech is part of being a nation because it allows the government to know how its policies affect the people so that problems may be redressed. The very restricted freedom of speech and the circumstances of my case led the government to suppress the problem over three cycles of general election. Isn’t this how the case has been left unresolved?

Jurisprudence is both law and prudence. Shouldn’t the rule of law and the rule of prudence be applied to the case?

13. What do you hope for? The MP should brief and consult the PM of the problem and give a reply.

This letter is Q & A of 2 (75). In the letter I refer to Q & A (75), Rules, Character & Morals (72), Civic Responsibility (72) and Select Committee (27). All are in my blog.
Could you give a reply?

Yours Sincerely,
hh

cc
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Mr Heng Swee Keat
Mr Teo Chee Hean

Observation

Has The Situation Changed After GE 2020?

1. The total number of votes casted during the General Election of 10 Jul 2020 showed a swing against the incumbent although a supermajority of seats (83 out of 93) were retained, what do you make of it?

2. Why do you think the citizenry continues to give the incumbent a big share of the votes? Are Singaporeans weaned?

3. How bad is the Covid-19 crisis? What will it take?

4. When all the election results were out and the PAP announced that the leader of WP will be named Leader of the Opposition, what does it mean?

5. Has anything changed since your last post Civic Responsibility (72) on 19 Mar 2020? Are you biased against the government?

6. Why bring up your problem time and again when it is being ignored?

7. You mentioned in Q & A (75) that officers caused you all sorts of trouble, did they stop?

8. Of an indirect reference, are you being treated as a second class citizen?

9. What do you wish to achieve this time around?

10. Will there come a time?

11. The PM said at the online Fullerton Rally that Singaporeans should not undermine a system that has served them well, is all well?

12. Rules of prudence and National Day Speeches, what are they and what is the relevance?

13. What do you hope for?

75. Q & A

24 Aug 18

Mr Teo Chee Hean
Blk 738 Pasir Ris Drive 10
#01-21
Singapore 510738

Dear Sir,

Is There Going To Be A Resolution?

1. What do you want done? Prevent the neighbour from continuing to work in HDB flat, allow the refund to CPF Ordinary Account from date of sale of flat, correct the mistakes made in CPF Life and remind people who are aware of the problem that all rectification is made where possible.

2. Is there a problem? Where is the proof? The neighbour should be investigated, they caused noise through the working of a trade in HDB flat. There are documents that refund to CPF Accounts are required and documents that show mistakes were made in CPF Life. These were the reasons why officers would not address the various issues raised.

3. You said the problem began in 1998, did you bring it up? I wrote to HDB Branch Office and the occupier was evicted, but the problem was only part resolved. I met MPs from 2008 onwards when the noise restarted in 2007, started a blog in 2009 and later wrote to various government departments.

4. How did noise from the neighbour to do with your CPF Accounts and CPF Life? The neighbour was able to continue with their work in HDB flat because of an arrangement with officers. It was my continuing complaint that let officers with connection to cause all sorts of trouble.

5. What’s with the officers? A relationship with the neighbour over a long period of time caused the officers to protect themselves at a cost of protecting the neighbour. I was sure of a forced-entry at the neighbour’s flat but they managed to turn against me by preventing further investigation of the neighbour’s flat and my flat through the stationing of people in the flat across the neighbour.

6. Couldn’t MPs help? There isn’t always a clear line between what is administration and what is execution between government departments and MPs. MPs in Parliament make laws, which are executory in nature. But government departments also give advice, which are political in nature, that they then execute. It is a gray area that government departments sometimes do not carry out or delay instruction from MP.

For example, the Minister in charge of Civil Service and Head of Civil Service were reported to have said about “complex issues no longer fell within neat domain” and “issues that do not fall neatly into any one agency's work” respectively. It is likely they were referring to my problem because the police did not carry out a full investigation when informed of the people in the flat across the neighbour.

7. What do you think is the underlying problem? Power dominates and represses when not used in the public interest.

8. Is there nothing you could do? I did what I can. I don’t think it is practical to make the case an issue in an election or win the case against the government in court.

9. What did you do? Because mainstream and social media did not report the complaint, I informed people, civil societies and news agencies of my blog through emails.

10. Who and which civil societies and news agencies? There were some, but if you were to give me the address of credible persons and entities I would email them.

11. Was it to any effect? Except for indirect references, it has not affected the case in any way.

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 thing or causing harm to person, 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.

18. Do you think your problem is going to be resolved? I think if I insist on an investigation by Parliament, the case may be held in suspension because of the negative publicity it will generate. If government departments are asked to resolve it, they may not address the various issues just as they had not addressed the issues before unless there is a complete change of personnel.

19. Will you continue to attend Meet-the-People Session conducted by MP? Yes, if there is a chance the complaint will be addressed. There is no other course of action. It is the job of MP to resolve the issue.

20. Why did you not attend Meet-the-People Session conducted by opposition party? I could bring them trouble because they do not have strength in numbers. Any MP could bring up the issue in Parliament because it can be generalised. The issue is quite clear.

21. You are referring to the representation of MPs? Yes, MPs have a certain degree of responsibility to speak and act in our names.

22. Is there something lacking? In the case, there are two. The rule of law and the meaning of being human.

The Q & A are the various issues of the case.

How is the case going to be resolved?

Yours Sincerely,
hh

Observation

Before handing over the letter Q & A (75) at Meet-the-People Session, I gave Mr Teo two reasons why there should be an investigation by Parliament:

1) How many cases of working a trade in HDB flat that officers know of where no action is taken? Unless there is a thorough investigation of the case, which is possible with the 7 sets of documents in Salient Points (40) that was submitted, we will never know the full extent of the problem. Most of us live in HDB flats and there were frequent complaints of noise.

An officer, who visited me, asked what I thought the neighbour upstairs was doing and I said fashion accessories or jewellery. He agreed. Also refer to the first two paragraphs of Discovery (9), Singapore Mint was reported to say the jewellery market was lucrative and was considering local distributors to represent it and the experience of noise from a participant on BlogTV.

2) Is there any legal procedure that prevents heads of department from taking action when their officers commit wrongdoing? If so, why is it so? There are many such examples in Salient Points (40). For an example, the police did not conduct a full investigation of the neighbour and the people in the flat across the neighbour when informed. Also, there was no reply to the letter Mr Teo wrote to the police after Inquiry (27). Similarly Bedok Police Division did not reply when the case was referred to them a second time in Standpoint (34) Item 16.

72. Lawyers

8 Feb 2022

Ms Sun Xueling

Blk 308B Punggol Walk

#01-364

Waterway Terraces 1

Singapore 822308

Dear Ms Sun,

Family Conflict: Taking Care of an Elderly Parent

1. I thank you for your reply dated 22 Jan 22 and a reply dated 24 Jan 22 from the legal volunteer on the amendments under Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill for amicable resolution.

The legal volunteer also referred me to the Mental Capacity Act but this will not directly address the problem. Deputyship under the Mental Capacity Act do not serve any of my purposes that cannot be achieved through a writ of summons. Besides, our mother is alert and able to communicate although living with my youngest sister under her control. The Mental Capacity Act is good only for my siblings and their backers because there is no need to go into the scheming and blocking shown in my email dated 19 Jan 22.

A similar position was taken by the two lawyers who I engaged in succession. Their insistence and delay led me to make a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore because it was clearly a dispute between siblings. A writ of summons is required when there is substantial dispute of fact whereas the Mental Capacity Act or the Vulnerable Adults Act are based on interpretation of the written law without much of a dispute.

2. I wrote to my siblings on WhatsApp Chat and to the authorities in my emails about our mother’s weakness as seen from my observations. But my siblings schemed to prevent me from bringing our mother for a medical assessment. The following are some examples. By changing the address in our mother's NRIC on 12 Jun 21 to allow them to make her medical appointments. By allowing our mother to see a doctor only under controlled conditions with Dr C on 3 Apr 21. By blocking an appointment made by Dr B with a doctor at FPC (Family Physician Clinic) on 1 Jun 21. By blocking an appointment for a second opinion with a doctor at the Polyclinic on 18 Jun 21. And, as noted in WhatsApp Chat, from bringing our mother to see a doctor when she was unable to do the exercises because of weakness. More details and incidents were listed in my email and notes.

3. My observations are our mother was able to do all the exercises asked of her at SACH (St Andrew Community Hospital) and ASH (All Saints Home) from 7 Oct 20 to 26 Jan 21 when she was not on the statin compared to exercises she is able to do when she was on the statin since 3 Mar 21. Her physical condition has deteriorated. Now she complains immediately with only 5 min of light exercises by the bed. A sharp contrast and side effects of the statin is a known factor.

4. The problem has been getting a medical assessment of our mother because of weakness. A psychiatric report may also be required because our mother could be easily influenced by my youngest sister due to diminished mental capacity.

There is an element of harm in my complaint because the medications that our mother was given over a long period of time, especially the statin, have weakened our mother. This was not acknowledged by my siblings and their backers even when there was evidence. They have no need to settle because they could depend on their connections to block me. The lawsuit that I wanted from the two lawyers was blocked by the use of connection although my siblings said they would contest it. It may require some form of alleviation for all the parties involved. The amendments to the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill that was passed recently will allow the court to “order any party to any proceedings to attempt to resolve any dispute by amicable resolution”.

5. It is likely my youngest sister/siblings will not contest the lawsuit. The following are some examples. My siblings overrode a doctor, collected the statin without proper authorisation from the Polyclinic against a doctor instruction, pre-selected a doctor, used their connections in incidents noted in my email and use of blocking to get the results they wanted noted in my email. There are many such incidents and evidence to the contrary.

6. The lawsuit if left uncontested would get the family back as before. There is no need for monetary compensation or other requirements. The lawsuit will be about the return of our mother's NRIC and, if required, a medical assessment of the statin that is given to our mother causing her to weaken. A psychiatric report may also be required to show our mother is still herself.

7. At the moment I cannot get a lawyer to represent me in the dispute because of the backing my siblings received. After the passing of the amendments to the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill on Jan 22, I have contacted a number of law firms big and small without getting any result. It reminded me of a similar situation where I cannot sell my 5-room HDB flat in 2013 where the estate agents I engaged had the intention to delay the sale past the stipulated period required in selling an HDB flat. I explained in my blog and it was with help from Meet-the People Sessions that the flat was sold.

8. As mentioned in Item 2 above, my siblings blocked me from bringing our mother for an appointment made at the Polyclinic to seek a second opinion from a doctor on 18 Jun 21. I had informed the NPC-Tampines East (Neighbourhood Police Centre) a day before and when I called two police officers, who came to my youngest sister’s house, spoke to us to prevent an altercation. One of the officers gave me a Case Card with a name of an officer to call should I require assistance and on the Case Card under Action Taken was ticked “Advised to seek assistance from State Courts” and “Advised to seek community mediation”.

In my first police report on 23 Jun 21, the investigation officer replied that I may seek legal advice and/or initiate civil action. 

9. The record at the Polyclinic would show our mother has been continuously on the statin for 11 months since 3 Mar 21. She could only get weaker with the statin my siblings and their backers insisted on giving her. They wanted it for their own reasons. For the backers it is of past incidents pending and for my siblings it is of control or of convenience than for any reason that concerns the welfare of our mother.

I will need your assistance with lawyers to take up my case because our mother is in harm's way. I will take care of her if my youngest sister does not.

I will call up more law firms, but I expect the lawyers may be reluctant until the authority intervenes.

Yours Sincerely,

cc

President’s Office

Prime Minister’s Office

 

72. Real Accountability

10 Feb 2020

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

Dear Ms Sun,

Real Accountability
1. Extracts from an article at aeon.co:

Rules or citizens?
Ancient Athenian and Greek practices afford us insights into how and why to maintain real accountability in public life

What is anarchy? The word evokes lawlessness, a generalised disorder. But the root meaning of anarchia has nought to do with law or lawlessness. It is formed in classical Greek from an-archē, a negative or privative compound of the noun hē archē, among the meanings of which are ‘beginning, origin’; ‘first place or power, sovereignty’; and ‘magistracy, office’ – ideas connected by the power of initiating action. In anarchia, an authoritative leader, ruler or officeholder is absent. In classical Athens in particular, it became a designation for a particular vacancy: an absence of the officeholder called not only an archon (from the same root, of course), but the archon: the one archon out of nine in Athens (and some other city-states) who gave his name to the year in which he served. For Athenians did not keep track of their years by consecutive numeration, as we do, but rather named each year after the archon holding this office. What we call the year 403/02 BCE, for example, they knew as the year of Eucleides’ archonship.

The archons were the titular and most august of the 700-odd offices that were filled in democratic Athens every year. Most of these officeholders, including the archons, and an additional 500 members of the council, were chosen by lottery, though the Athenians imposed careful checks both before and after the lottery to eliminate those delinquent on their taxes or in other civic duties. A minority (about 100, mainly military) were chosen by election. All male citizens were eligible to participate in the proceedings of the Athenian assembly and to be put forward to serve on the council and on the popular juries, each of which played a vital role in Athenian power and government. For the most part, rather than being policymakers in their own right, the Athenian officeholders carried out broadly defined administrative roles. They did however enjoy the power to issue commands within their own domain and enforce them with fines and sometimes other punishments.

A vacancy in an archonship might mean that it had simply not been filled. But anarchia could stretch all the way to what we might call ‘expungement’. I have borrowed this term from the worst potential punishment that I learned to fear as an undergraduate at Harvard University. In that context, expungement means not simply being rusticated, sent down or expelled, but expunged from all matriculation records. When this happened in ancient Greece, anarchia served as a kind of non-name, erasing and replacing the name of an archon (and especially an eponymous one) who had been putatively installed, but who (we can infer) was judged not to be a real, valid or genuine officeholder. In some cases, this meant erasing the officeholder’s name from the public inscriptions of the calendar, with anarchia incised instead.

We find surviving inscriptions of anarchia incised in stone in the archon list of the northern Aegean polis of Thasos in the late 5th century, and in Athens some centuries later. The appearance of the anarchia inscriptions is especially dramatic for the later Athenians as it contrasts with their usual ‘practice’, at least in a later period, as the classicist Harriet Flower describes, ‘of publicly recording the names of traitors and other notorious offenders on stelai that were prominently displayed in the city’2 (whereas, in Rome at the time, unworthy citizens were more frequently condemned to damnatio memoriae or sanctions against being remembered as a citizen). Anarchia in this sense could become an index of what we today would call political legitimacy and illegitimacy, preserving the presence or absence of a valid officeholder at the core of anarchy, in a way that its common interpretation as lawlessness fails to capture.

The ways that Greeks and Romans thought of and practised accountability are important and worth our attention. The influential scholar Mogens Herman Hansen wrote that: ‘Athenian leaders were called to account more than any other such group in history.’ The claim points both to an Athenian distinctiveness and a common starting point of ‘calling to account’, an ideal that reverberates far beyond the classical world, especially in common-law regimes. The concept of accountability, two legal scholars have more recently reminded us, serves as the organising principle of administrative law. A recent Institute for Government report explains that, in the United Kingdom today, ‘accountability is about a relationship – between those responsible for something and those who have a role in passing judgment on how well that responsibility has been discharged’ – a formula that captures the same framework that applied in ancient Greece.

This Institute for Government report identifies oversight, regulation, inspection and scrutiny as the different forms of accountability. In ancient Greece, as opposed to modern bureaucracies, there was relatively little regulation or oversight: offices were defined with few rules or regulations. Officeholders were expected to simply get on with the job. No overarching civil service bureaucratic management structure existed to oversee them. Yet the ancient Greeks engaged in a tremendous amount of inspection and scrutiny about government and integrity in public life. They adopted mechanisms that made relationships of accountability – through active public scrutiny – alive and intensive. Accountability practices defined the end of every officeholder’s term, not only in Athens but also across a wide range of Greek cities. This was the practice not just in democratic governments but in oligarchies too. The Greeks referred to this intensive public performance review as εὔθυναι or euthunai (most often used in the plural, from the singular euthuna) which literally means the rendering of accounts.

Even officeholders who served on collective boards faced their euthunai individually. In Athens, as a rule, any citizen could bring forward a complaint to be investigated. So the accountability relationship was personal on both sides. Individuals were held personally accountable for their performance, never shielded by collective responsibility or bureaucratic hierarchy; and (at least in some democratic constitutions such as that of Athens) anyone in the citizen body could draw on their own experience or knowledge to lodge a complaint that brought real investigation. Athens stood out for not waiting until the end of an officeholder’s term to make inspection or scrutiny possible: as the historian Pierre Fröhlich noted in 2004: ‘Athens is the only city in which we know anything of procedures enabling sanctioning of a magistrate while in the course of his tenure.’

Through routes of accusations lodged with the assembly or council, which could occasion a judicial trial, Athenian officeholders could be held to account during their tenure. Ordinary citizens also had the ability to prosecute officeholders in court themselves. For Athenian officeholders, the stakes were high. Life did not continue as normal. As Jennifer Tolbert Roberts observes in Accountability in Athenian Government (1982): ‘Only when his [euthunai] were complete … was it legal for a man to set out on a journey, transfer his property to anyone else, be adopted into a different family, or even make a votive offering to a god.’ Quite simply, the property and freedom of public officials were seriously restricted until their accounts were settled.

Ancient Athenian and Greek practices allow us insights into how and why one should maintain real accountability in public life, rather than letting it devolve into mere theatre. In Athens, accountability procedures and the control of public office gave the people as a whole an important role in defining, revealing and judging the misuse of office. It helped them hold every official accountable for his use of his office. From this classical practice, we can see a way to revitalise the dysfunctional accountability regimes under which we are currently suffering.

‘New managerialist’ approaches to accountability insist on spelling out the details of accountability targets in advance (targets set by insulated management, for the most part). By contrast, Greek accountability procedures left the terms of success and failure more open, with few regulations spelling them out in advance, thus allowing for popular judgment to be authoritative, but also exercised through proper procedures. In Athens, this allowed, on the one hand, individual citizens to assert themselves in bringing whatever charges they thought were merited; on the other hand, it also gave any accused officials the formal opportunity to defend themselves in a trial. The right of officials to quick trial over any allegations was a safeguard against vigilantism or what would today be a ‘trial’ conducted in the media and with little to no opportunity for fairness.

These accountability procedures might be at once fairer and more effective than the ones we practise in many democracies today. Modern practices to ensure integrity in public office focus on setting targets and rules in advance. The Greeks left these open to the judgment of the citizen body, while also allowing officeholders to defend their judgments in court trials if challenged – giving them, at least in theory, a fair hearing, rather than trial by media frenzy (though sometimes these procedures were flouted in ways that could approximate modern forms of mass hysteria or ‘mob rule’). At the same time, in Athens, any citizen could lodge accusations, making the public nature of accountability more meaningful than it tends to be in modern bureaucratically shielded contexts. And, most importantly, every single officeholder was routinely subjected to meaningful inspection, with their accounts being actively considered at the end of their period of office to determine whether they had passed muster.

Yes, aspects of these Greek practices depended on the smaller size of their polities, though Athens – with a population at its 5th-century zenith of about 250,000 total, of whom about 60,000 were male citizens – was far from a society in which everyone knew everyone by name or reputation. Elements of these classical procedures nonetheless lend themselves to adoption in modern conditions. For example, citizens today could lodge accusations electronically for a panel of other citizens, selected by lottery (with checks built in), to scrutinise and raise in a public broadcast and recorded interview of every officeholder upon leaving office. Of course, such procedures could still be open to abuse and politicisation, as happened from time to time among the Athenians, especially in the case of orators, while generals were often held accountable for substantive military failures (or for a concocted proxy of financial malfeasance) rather than for misuses of office of the kind that we today would recognise. (This question is complicated by the fact that general Athenian trial practices were different from ours – the questions of being a good citizen, in good standing, and of the general spirit of the laws being treated as unquestionably relevant and often dispositive.)

These procedures to foster integrity in public office in Athens and other Greek cities were not perfect. But they were more meaningful than those of today, both for the officeholders and for the public holding them to account. That the procedures left open to public negotiation the purposes that officeholding was expected to pursue was a key detail. Integrity in office was neither a process of comporting with prewritten rules, nor was it a matter of private conscience; it was a dynamic act of public, and publicly negotiated, understanding and debate, with real consequences for officeholders.

2. Extracts from another article at aeon.co:

Project and system
There are two ways of seeing order in the world: as a spontaneous system or as an intentional project. Which way lies freedom?

‘Project’ imagines law as the product of authors who are free agents capable of acting with intention after some sort of deliberation. For the ‘project’ imagination, legislation is the paradigm of law. Meanwhile, ‘system’ imagines law as a well-ordered whole that develops immanently and spontaneously from within individual transactions. System is a relationship of parts to whole, and of whole to parts. For the systemic imagination, the common law is the paradigm. Judges decide individual cases relying on precedents – that is, relying on prior acts of the same sort that they are pursuing. Out of those countless individual decisions, a system of order emerges. That system has identifiable principles – legal norms – but those principles were not themselves the product of an intentional act. The common law of contract, for example, has a systematic order, but the idea of that order did not precede the fact of its appearance. In a project, the idea of order precedes the act; in a system, we discover the idea of order only after the act.

These two master narratives are as old as the West. The creation account in Genesis describes God’s project: free action of a subject capable of acting on final causes, deliberating, and judging his product. Like all projects, God’s takes time – six days – and is subject to an external, normative evaluation – it was ‘good’. Some things do not quite work out as planned – man, for instance – and require new interventions, such as Eve, to modify the original project. We account for the order of the world, on this view, by identifying the craftsman and explaining his intentions. We investigate his plan.

The systemic view can also be found in the Garden of Eden. Picture Adam and Eve, before the arrival of the Serpent, contemplating the well-ordered nature of the garden in which everything works harmoniously as parts of a single whole. They do not know God’s plan. For them, the entire universe has the order of a garden in which the parts seem naturally to support each other. Its goodness is not located in an external measure – rather, it is good because it is. Man’s role is only to name, not to make, this creation. Alexander Pope’s great work, ‘An Essay on Man’ (1733-34), returns to this idea of God’s system. The poem is a discourse on system in support of a theodicy: ‘One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.’ In a system, things cannot be other than they are.

In 1765, the traditional, common-law lawyer Sir William Blackstone said that the law has its origins in ‘time immemorial’. He was deploying a picture of system. The common law is no one’s project. It has an immanent order that emerges through the case law, just as economic laws emerge through individual transactions. When early British theorists responded that the origin of the common law must have been in ‘lost statutes’ – that is, legislative acts that have been lost to history – they were playing the role of creationists. They cannot imagine order absent a rational agent who puts that order into the world through a project. The American founders’ belief that law could be a project explains their skepticism about the common law and their commitment to writing a constitution. Revolution created a space for a new project of constitutional construction. Their aim was to make a constitution based on the best political theory of their day.

By the end of the century, constitutionalism, Christianity and civilisation coincide in the legal imaginary as the telos of history, that is, of the system realising itself. The task of jurisprudence, accordingly, is to discover those principles that structure a free society, not to create them. The role of legislation or of a written constitution, on the systemic view, is no more than that of removing pathologies that block the free actions of citizens. Projects of law, in other words, are now only remedial, just like a doctor’s interventions are designed to address pathologies that keep the body from realising its immanent principles of order – which we describe as ‘health’. Out of this systemic imagination comes a convergence of constitutionalism with laissez-faire capitalism.

Wherever there is a dominant discourse of system, a critical response will be framed as project, and vice versa. Thus, the legal realism of the 1920s and ’30s is the project-response to the systemic view of classical legal formalism that dominated both academy and bench at the turn of the century. The realists labelled the systemic ‘truths’ of those institutions ‘transcendental nonsense’. Formalism, they argued, offered only ideological constructions designed to divert attention from reality, which was nothing more than powerful interests pursuing their own projects. The realists called for a new law of projects in pursuit of the interests of the people, not those of the rich. These projects would be informed by the principles of real science, particularly the social sciences, rather than the phoney science of law. Out of this came the modern administrative state that works to inform government projects by scientific expertise.

3. Of the two articles above, the last paragraph in Item 1 is on real accountability and the fourth paragraph in Item 2 is a systemic narrative.

If the problem was not with any one or a few officers when it first began, then the problem would be systemic. Officers who replied to my queries over the years were not committed to resolving the problem. Regulation covering the situation was not called up and the problem never went to higher authority. If higher authority came to know, it would not be under their purview. There was nothing in the media except for indirect references by people who were concerned.

The problem began with officers facilitating the working of a trade in an HDB flat. It was corruption, notwithstanding to what extent, that a group of officers intended to suppress. Rules were not followed that included other mistakes made against me later. Until parliament takes up the various issues listed, it will remain unresolved.

After your request for background check with a government agency on 23 Oct 2019, you have not indicated whether you could bring up the matter in parliament.

You have yet to give due consideration to the wrongdoings summarised in my letters and emails.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

cc
Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Mr Heng Swee Keat
Mr Teo Chee Hean

Observation

Letter handed over at MPS for the problem to be brought up in Parliament:

Real Accountability

1…
These procedures to foster integrity in public office in Athens and other Greek cities were not perfect. But they were more meaningful than those of today, both for the officeholders and for the public holding them to account. That the procedures left open to public negotiation the purposes that officeholding was expected to pursue was a key detail. Integrity in office was neither a process of comporting with prewritten rules, nor was it a matter of private conscience; it was a dynamic act of public, and publicly negotiated, understanding and debate, with real consequences for officeholders.

2…
The systemic view can also be found in the Garden of Eden. Picture Adam and Eve, before the arrival of the Serpent, contemplating the well-ordered nature of the garden in which everything works harmoniously as parts of a single whole. They do not know God’s plan. For them, the entire universe has the order of a garden in which the parts seem naturally to support each other. Its goodness is not located in an external measure – rather, it is good because it is. Man’s role is only to name, not to make, this creation. Alexander Pope’s great work, ‘An Essay on Man’ (1733-34), returns to this idea of God’s system. The poem is a discourse on system in support of a theodicy: ‘One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.’ In a system, things cannot be other than they are.

3. Of the two articles above, the last paragraph in Item 1 is on real accountability and the fourth paragraph in Item 2 is a systemic narrative.

If the problem was not with any one or a few officers when it first began, then the problem would be systemic. Officers who replied to my queries over the years were not committed to resolving the problem. Regulation covering the situation was not called up and the problem never went to higher authority. If higher authority came to know, it would not be under their purview. There was nothing in the media except for indirect references by people who were concerned.

The problem began with officers facilitating the working of a trade in an HDB flat. It was corruption, notwithstanding to what extent, that a group of officers intended to suppress. Rules were not followed that included other mistakes made against me later. Until parliament takes up the various issues listed, it will remain unresolved.

After your request for background check with a government agency on 23 Oct 2019, you have not indicated whether you could bring up the matter in parliament.

You have yet to give due consideration to the wrongdoings summarised in my letters and emails.

72. Prime Minister 2

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.

Observation

Email sent to the Prime Minister and copied to Acting Prime Minister:

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.