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?

72. Family Conflict

19 Jan 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

I refer to two emails sent to you dated 31 Mar 21 and 5 May 21 for arranging a mediation with my siblings, however, nothing has come out of it. I suspect mainly because mediation required both parties to agree.

I hope you may be able to help this time around with new evidence to be enumerated. It shows that I have made my best effort in explaining to the authorities that our mother is being placed in harm’s way because of the following:

a) My youngest sister changed the address on our mother’s NRIC from mine to her is the cause of the problem. She now took charge of all our mother’s affairs because government agencies seem to recognise the owner of the address in our mother’s NRIC as the person responsible for her.

Why did the police allow the change on 12 Jun 21 in the first place without noting that an elderly may not be able to provide consent or, after I made the police reports on 23 Jun 21, 19 Jul 21 and 8 Nov 21, without making further investigation?

The 3rd police report dated 8 Nov 21 is in the attachment.

b) From my email dated 22 Aug 21 to CGH (Changi General Hospital) I received a reply dated 24 Aug 21 that they would give me a written reply on the drug Atorvastatin (the statin) after checking with the relevant departments. I have yet to receive the reply. Was there mistakes made in giving the statin to our mother as pointed out in my email?

c) Recently I wrote to Singhealth-Tampines (the Polyclinic) 3 emails dated 5 Dec 21, 11 Dec 21 and 20 Dec 21 to request for a change of doctor. The Clinic Director replied in very general terms to the first email as if nothing serious had happened and no subsequent reply to the next two emails. My emails were in detail referring to incidents that occurred at the Polyclinic and the reason for the request.

Should I consider reporting the doctor to the Singapore Medical Council because the problem could not be resolved? Evidence against the doctor is noted in l) and m).

The 3 emails to the Polyclinic dated 5 Dec 21, 11 Dec 21 and 20 Dec 21 are in the attachment.

d) I have since engaged 2 lawyers, one after another, to bring the matter to court because the police did not investigate. It was about a dispute between siblings and a writ of summons for a return of our mother’s NRIC so I could continue to take care of her as before. I did not require anything else. It was done through a lawyer only because there was no other way around the problem of scheming by my siblings. But both lawyers would not proceed and I have to make a complaint against them to the Law Society of Singapore on 8 Nov 21.

Other lawyers I had contacted did not respond to my request to bring the matter to court.

e) There was an attempted break-in at my flat on 17 Sep 21 for which a police report was lodged. All things considered, it was to prevent me from going through the lawsuit after an agreement was made with the second lawyer to a writ of summons a day before.

f) Finally in Sep 21 Parliament approved new powers for Singapore Courts to “order any party to any proceedings to attempt to resolve any dispute by amicable resolution” under amendments to the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill.

I do not know how much longer before our mother could be out of harm's way although it was indicated the amendment will take effect early in the year. The Bill has its 3rd Reading in Parliament on 10 Jan 22.

Our mother started on the statin from 27 Jan 21 after her stroke, her condition improved when the statin was discontinued for about a week from 25 Feb 21, yet the statin was continued since 3 Mar 21 by the insistence of my siblings. I had observed that the statin caused her to weaken whilst my siblings and the doctor [in c) above] who listened to them continued to ignore and block me from bringing her for an assessment.

g) Sometime before the appointment on 3 Apr 21 with Dr C at the Polyclinic, all my siblings decided to act against me as one. The next incident is such an instance. Other incidents continue down the list.

Our mother's condition had deteriorated such that I wanted to bring her to see a doctor on 25 Mar 21. I explained her condition from 24 Mar 21 on WhatsApp Chat but my youngest sister texted that she would not open the door to allow me. My brother texted that I could only bring her if one of the siblings followed me. His excuse was I lied about what Dr B had said at the appointment on 9 Mar 21 and therefore cannot be trusted. When I texted that I would arrange an appointment on 29 Mar 21 on a Monday, my eldest of the sisters said she could only make it on a Saturday even as I tried to persuade her and her husband. So the appointment with Dr C on Saturday 3 Apr 21 was delayed for over a week by which time the side effects of the medications would have subsided. During this period of time my siblings continued to keep me in the dark about the statin that was being given to our mother.

The appointment on Saturday 3 Apr 21 with Dr C was made together with my eldest of the sisters as a condition set by my brother. The doctor added Neurobion (Vitamin B1, B6 and B12) into the prescription for pain in our mother's legs but when I asked about the statin he said the statin had nothing to do with the pain. He scheduled the next appointment on 13 Apr 21.

At this stage I was unaware that the statin was in the prescription but Dr C did. Did my siblings with their connection manage to get Dr C to stick to their story?

I found on the internet that the statin has a side effect on some people, especially elderly women. It caused soreness, tiredness and weakness of the body and prevented exercises. It also caused myalgia--that is pain in a muscle or a group of muscles. These were the same symptoms that our mother was showing once the statin was given to her after the stroke on 27 Jan 21.

h) My brother and middle sister went to the Polyclinic on 3 Mar 21 one day before an appointment made by Dr A, who would have assessed the side effects of the statin on our mother on 4 Mar 21, to collect from another doctor 3 months of the statin. It so happened that our mother walked 80m and did the other exercises asked of her by the physical therapist at ASH (All Saints Home-Tampines) on 1 Mar 21 during the week from 25 Feb 21 to 4 Mar 21 that Dr A had discontinued the statin to check for its side effects. Dr A discontinued the statin after I had raised my concern about the side effects and weakness shown by our mother. Once off the statin she recovered well enough to perform the exercises at ASH.

Our mother’s ability to do the physical exercises at the rehabilitation centres of SACH (St Andrew Community Hospital) from 7 Oct 20 to 6 Nov 20 and ASH from 10 Nov 20 to 26 Jan 21 was her baseline when she was not on the statin. Her baseline is now 5 mins of light exercises by the bed where she complained immediately and at times slapped her hands on the bed in desperation after the statin had been given to her since 3 Mar 21.

i) Dr B stopped the statin based on a 10 years risk assessment on 9 Mar 21 and I took back the 3 months of statin from my youngest sister's possession that my brother and middle sister obtained from the doctor on 3 Mar 21. I informed them by WhatsApp Chat, but my siblings went back to the Polyclinic to collect another 3 months of the statin it would seem without the authorisation of a doctor. I asked Dr D on 13 Apr 21 whether the statin was prescribed to our mother and she confirmed it was. She did not know who gave the statin to our mother after Dr B stopped it but the statin was from the Polyclinic.

My siblings kept it a secret from me the statin that was being given to our mother after Dr B had stopped it. It is crucial to ascertain the fact by an investigation of the situation because my siblings did it with their backers.

j) My brother, middle sister and youngest sister were at the appointment on 16 Jun 21 to meet Dr F from FPC (Family Physician Clinic) for the first time after the appointment on 1 Jun 21 was blocked by my siblings. I informed Dr F that our mother was able to walk 80m at ASH after the statin was discontinued for a week by a doctor. I took back the statin on the same day it was discontinued. But he preferred my youngest sister's explanation, as if it was an explanation at all, without checking the records by saying my youngest sister knew better because she was the one giving the statin to our mother. He believed my youngest sister when she said the statin was not discontinued after Dr A had discontinued it.

k) There were 2 incidents made in preparation before the appointment with Dr F on 16 Jun 21. The first on 12 Jun 21 was the change of the address in our mother’s NRIC and the second on 14 Jun 21 was when my brother texted that he had registered my youngest sister as the caregiver in charge of all medical appointments and prescriptions and the other siblings could register as co-caregiver at the Polyclinic. When I checked with an officer from Operation at the Polyclinic, he told me anyone who brought our mother to the Polyclinic was a caregiver. At another appointment with a different helper, the helper who brings our mother would be a caregiver. My siblings and some of the staff at the Polyclinic had wanted to exclude me, which could have been the intention since 3 Mar 21 when they overrode the assessment to be made by Dr A whether to discontinue the statin.

l) After I wrote to the Polyclinic on the same day that Dr F continued to prescribe the statin for the next 3 months, I went to the Polyclinic the next day where an executive and assistant manager from Operation assisted me to make the appointment on 18 Jun 21 for a reassessment by another doctor. However, later in the day the executive called me over the phone to say all siblings have to be present before going for the appointment. It was a turnaround. It did not make sense because the issue was with the doctor.

It seems to me they were protecting the doctor by setting up an impossible condition for me because my siblings would not agree to a change of doctor after having pre-selected Dr F [explained in m)]. It should have been that all siblings had to agree to having the same doctor and the doctor had to be independent in his assessment of his patient. Both of these conditions were not met.

On 18 Jun 21, the day of the appointment, I called the police to prevent an altercation I expected as my brother, middle sister and youngest sister were at the house to prevent me from bringing our mother for a reassessment at the Polyclinic. The two police officers who came spoke to us, but my siblings blocked the appointment.

What is wrong with a second opinion from a doctor when Dr F did not check the record whether the statin was discontinued by Dr A. I told Dr F that the statin was discontinued by a doctor for a week, but my youngest sister said to Dr F she had not stopped giving the statin. Dr F could also have checked that the statin was stopped by Dr B, yet he continued with the statin because my siblings wanted it so by going against the recommendation from Dr B and later with Dr D. Also, Dr F could have checked our mother’s baseline while she was at the 2 rehabilitation centres when she was not on the statin from 7 Oct 20 to 26 Jan 21 compared to her baseline since giving the statin from 3 Mar 21 [refer to h) and o)]. Dr F ignored me, but collaborated with my siblings [my 3 emails to the Polyclinic in c)].

m) The important issues before the appointment with Dr F on 16 Jun 21 are the blocking of an appointment made 3 months earlier by Dr B on 1 Jun 21, getting a police officer on the same day to say I was not allowed to go to my youngest sister’s house and selecting a doctor of their choice by blocking the appointment on 1 Jun 21 and then rescheduling the appointment I made from 10 Jun 21 to 16 Jun 21.

I had asked the staff at the registration counter of the Polyclinic to record on the Appointment Card the date and the name of the doctor each time the appointment was made on 1 Jun 21, 10 Jun 21 and 16 Jun 21. On 16 Jun 21, the day itself, the doctor was switched to another doctor who was Dr F. It showed that my siblings have access to the staff at the Polyclinic to allow them to pre-select a doctor that would listen to them as events unfolded.

n) My youngest sister changed the address of our mother’s NRIC to hers on 12 Jun 21 in preparation for the appointment with Dr F on 16 Jun 21. I was not aware of the change at the time. But with the change of address all medical appointments at the Polyclinic and CGH have effectively passed into the hands of my youngest sister/my siblings as with the switching of doctors just mentioned. The lawsuit was therefore about the return of our mother’s NRIC beside the medical reassessment, if required, of our mother because of the weakness caused by the statin.

o) Our mother fractured her hip on 27 Sep 21 and had a successful hip implant at CGH. Rehabilitation was carried out during her stay at SACH for a month and she continued her rehabilitation at ASH twice a week.

The rehabilitation at SACH from 7 Oct 20 to 6 Nov 20 went well. The sessions consisted mainly of physical therapy of an hour each day except alternate Saturday and on Sunday. Our mother was able to perform all the exercises asked of her including climbing up and down 3 flights of the stairs when she became stronger. This was during the period when she was not on the statin.

However, my middle sister would call up the physical therapist at ASH to persuade her to confess that rehabilitation was of no use to our mother with the intention to cancel it. The physical therapist informed me that she told my middle sister that she kept a record of the exercises done by our mother to show whether there was progress. This was the first incident to show that my middle sister would use her influence to take matters into her own hands without informing me.

This was to be the first rehabilitation at ASH from 10 Nov 20 to 26 Jan 21 after our mother had her hip implant. Although some sessions were stopped because of high blood pressure readings recorded, the therapies went well. It consisted of one session of physical therapy and one session of occupational therapy each week of an hour and a quarter each time. She was able to do the exercises asked of her by the therapists and a record was kept. This was also the period before the stroke when she was not on the statin.

It is to be noted that I was the person who attended to our mother each day at CGH, SACH and each session at ASH after she fractured her hip. Similarly at CGH after she had a stroke. I was in a position to assess our mother better than any one of my siblings.

p) Our mother was warded at CGH for a stroke from 27 Jan 21 to 11 Feb 21. When I checked with the staff at the ward counter of CGH at about the time of her discharge, I was informed that her discharge was on 12 Feb 21 as shown on the computer but the time was not set yet. I was then informed in time by a consultant doctor, not the attending doctor who I spoke to several times, that the discharge was on 11 Feb 21. My siblings and staff at CGH had set up a situation to discharge our mother on 11 Feb 21 a day before Chinese New Year in an attempt to take over from me the responsibility I have with our mother. The consultant doctor also informed me there was a medication that could affect the liver that needed to be checked after the discharge.

A few days earlier the attending doctor had discussed with me the discharge and had insisted on having the rehabilitation at CGH but I wanted it at ASH as the first rehabilitation there had gone well. My brother, who I spoke to about it, said there was going to be trouble with my middle and youngest sister.

Rehabilitation at ASH was more convenient and suitable for me and our mother but my middle and youngest sister may have felt uncomfortable for their own reasons.

I could have missed her discharge and with it her discharge documents and the collection of her prescriptions because the visiting hour was in the afternoon and the discharge usually in the morning. My siblings and the staff would have then prevented me from knowing about the statin considering that its side effects are well known.

I had always taken charge of all our mother’s medical appointments including the rehabilitations at SACH (from 7 Oct 20 to 6 Nov 20) and All Saints Home (from 10 Nov 20 to 26 Jan 21) after the hip implant, but my siblings intended to take away the responsibility I had with our mother with the help of staff at CGH.

I therefore sent an email dated 15 Feb 21 to CGH of this incident and other matters at the hospital. I received a phone call from CGH later that I took as an acknowledgment.

The email to CGH dated 15 Feb 21 is in the attachment.

q) After her discharge on 11 Feb 21 for the stroke, AIC (Agency for Integrated Care) informed me rehabilitation at ASH would be available in one to two month’s time. I texted in WhatsApp that the rehabilitation at ASH may not be necessary because I and the maid could continue it at home. We had been shown the type of exercises to do.

However, my brother texted that he managed to arrange the rehabilitation earlier on 1 Mar 21. He also texted that he could manage with the payment. Thus he was able to bypass the usual channel but deception was in the air.

It was to be the second rehabilitation at ASH but MSW (Medical Social Worker) allowed my brother to be registered with our mother behind my back. Once the forms were completed, they came downstairs to meet me. The MSW wanted me only as the 2nd emergency contact. I found that payment was through our mother’s CPF using her thumbprint.

My brother and middle sister (she was at the registration) managed to get the MSW in a scheme to prevent me from registering with our mother. The MSW was the same person who registered us for the first rehabilitation after the hip implant. She should have known that I was the only caregiver in the submission to AIC because the registration at ASH was through AIC.

The start of the second rehabilitation at ASH on 1 Mar 21 was on the same day that my brother registered our mother. The date is of crucial importance. My brother and middle sister made an appointment with another doctor at the Polyclinic on 3 Mar 21 to continue with the statin ahead of an appointment made by Dr A on 4 Mar 21. Dr A had discontinued the statin for a week on 25 Feb 21 to check for its side effects and would have made his assessment on 4 Mar 21. The events speak for itself, our mother walked 80m and did the other exercises asked by the physical therapist on 1 Mar 21 when she was off the statin. Our mother has not recovered since 3 Mar 21 when my siblings insisted on giving the statin to her.

r) My brother stopped the second rehabilitation at the centre after 18 Mar 21 citing high blood pressure. Only 4 sessions were conducted on 1 Mar 21 (the first session), 4 Mar 21, 8 Mar 21 and 11 Mar 21. The sessions on 15 Mar 21 and 18 Mar 21 were not conducted because of high blood pressure measured at the centre.

A case could be made from what I wrote in WhatsApp Chat that after my siblings collected the statin on 3 Mar 21 our mother's condition began to deteriorate. After I brought our mother to see Dr B who had stopped the statin based on a 10 years risk assessment on 9 Mar 21, my siblings were secretly continuing with the statin obtained from the Polyclinic.

s) Dr E recommended rehabilitation at ASH through AIC on 24 Apr 21. But the MSW who had registered our mother for the first and second rehabilitation refused to accept the recommendation. She called me over the phone to say the application was not accepted for the same reason that my brother stopped the second rehabilitation taking care not to state the reason. The reason was clear to me then and is clear to me now. It was because my siblings started giving our mother the statin from 3 Mar 21. Our mother could not possibly have continued with the therapy because the statin had continued to weaken her for 10 months by the end of 2021.

The problems I met at the hospitals, with the police and the lawyers are noted above. As I see it, our mother is in harm's way because of the scheming by my siblings and their backers. The backers have been at me for over a long time.

Please refer to f) above. How long will it take to resolve the dispute by amicable resolution under the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill?


Yours Sincerely,


cc
President’s Office
Prime Minister’s Office

72. Infallibility

23 Dec 2019

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

Dear Ms Sun,

General Infallibility

1. Extracts from an article at aeon.co:

Mistaken
General infallibility is a tempting proposition. Treating an individual’s attitudes and preferences as givens – as matters beyond debate or criticism – might seem to promote human dignity by forcing us to treat all views as equally worthy of respect. But such an outlook is likely, if anything, to have the opposite effect. This is because taking seriously a person’s capacity to make mistakes is critical to taking seriously their capacity for rationality. Only by recognising that people are capable of error can we properly value anyone’s goals or engage in rational debate.

General infallibility is a modern, democratised version of the infallibility traditionally claimed by religious and authoritarian leaders. Although, unlike those other forms of infallibility, it applies to everyone, like papal infallibility it has some bounds. Everyone agrees that errors can occur where others are very immediately affected. No one would suggest that those giving medical advice or, say, forecasting the weather, can never make mistakes. Yet, today, it is a quite prevalent view that it’s wrong to regard others as mistaken in their tastes and purchasing patterns.

Liberalism has long held that each of us should be regarded as, in effect, sovereign – ultimately entitled to choose – in our political, consumer and religious preferences. The doctrine I am highlighting is different. It goes further: it says that each person is not merely sovereign but free from error in those preferences.

Let’s be clear about that difference. The proposition that elections should determine, directly or indirectly, what action the government takes is pretty much inherent in the idea of democracy. But it is not inherent in democracy that elections should end discussion of the policies voted upon. Political liberalism does not justify forestalling debate, nor does it justify the habit that certain politicians have of presenting polling data as if it were an argument in itself for the merits of a position (the ad populum fallacy) – but such an approach makes perfect sense if something like general infallibility holds. Similarly, there is a difference between believing that music and books should be free from censorship on grounds of taste (as liberalism urges) and believing that no one ought to pass comment on anyone else’s taste (as general infallibility implies). The latter opinion finds expression in the view – in a world of online ratings and ‘likes’ – that there is something inherently snobbish about professional arts criticism.

Claims that the subjective beliefs of individuals must be treated as infallible also provoke much criticism. Unfortunately, a common, almost reflexive, response is to insist that some people have better credentials to be taken seriously than others, whether because of differences in educational attainment, intelligence or moral fibre. This is a poor move. It smells of chauvinism. It also betrays a lack of commitment to rational discourse, since it proposes that ad hominem considerations – the characteristics of the speaker – should pre-empt listening to and assessing the evidence and argument put before us.

General infallibility creates the illusion that people are essentially mindless. It holds that we believe what we believe, and value what we value, for no reason at all, or at least for reasons that are unintelligible to anyone else. Under those conditions, no one can engage with anyone else’s views or take them seriously. If, today, identities are becoming increasingly tribally defined, with each group living in its own ‘bubble’, this is an illusion that we urgently need to learn to see through.

To err is human. Missteps, misapprehensions, misspeakings, momentary lapses and mess-ups are part of the fabric of life. Yet we are capable of making mistakes precisely because we are thoughtful, intelligent beings with complex goals and sincerely held values. We wouldn’t be able to if we were otherwise. Regrets: we’ve had a few. But we are the wiser for them.

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.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

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

Observation

Another letter handed over at MPS asking the MP to bring up the problem in Parliament:

General Infallibility

1. Extracts from an article at aeon.co:

Mistaken
General infallibility is a tempting proposition. Treating an individual’s attitudes and preferences as givens – as matters beyond debate or criticism – might seem to promote human dignity by forcing us to treat all views as equally worthy of respect. But such an outlook is likely, if anything, to have the opposite effect. This is because taking seriously a person’s capacity to make mistakes is critical to taking seriously their capacity for rationality. Only by recognising that people are capable of error can we properly value anyone’s goals or engage in rational debate.

General infallibility is a modern, democratised version of the infallibility traditionally claimed by religious and authoritarian leaders. Although, unlike those other forms of infallibility, it applies to everyone, like papal infallibility it has some bounds. Everyone agrees that errors can occur where others are very immediately affected. No one would suggest that those giving medical advice or, say, forecasting the weather, can never make mistakes. Yet, today, it is a quite prevalent view that it’s wrong to regard others as mistaken in their tastes and purchasing patterns.

Claims that the subjective beliefs of individuals must be treated as infallible also provoke much criticism. Unfortunately, a common, almost reflexive, response is to insist that some people have better credentials to be taken seriously than others, whether because of differences in educational attainment, intelligence or moral fibre. This is a poor move. It smells of chauvinism. It also betrays a lack of commitment to rational discourse, since it proposes that ad hominem considerations – the characteristics of the speaker – should pre-empt listening to and assessing the evidence and argument put before us.

General infallibility creates the illusion that people are essentially mindless. It holds that we believe what we believe, and value what we value, for no reason at all, or at least for reasons that are unintelligible to anyone else. Under those conditions, no one can engage with anyone else’s views or take them seriously. If, today, identities are becoming increasingly tribally defined, with each group living in its own ‘bubble’, this is an illusion that we urgently need to learn to see through.

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.

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.

72. Debunking

29 Nov 2019

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

Dear Ms Sun,

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.

2. First, officers from the government did not reply to the various mistakes made. I showed that in No Full Reply (78) of 5 Aug 19 where I posed the mistakes made next to the replies I received from the officers. I showed your petition writer documents in the letter where the officers went wrong.

To bring home just one issue: 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.

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.

4. In Item 1 of MP's Responsibilities (72), there is nothing to say the problem cannot be brought up in Parliament and everything to say it should.

Item 1a) states the three loyalties and “there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy”.

Item 1b) states the MP’s job involves listening to “complaints, reconciling opposing viewpoints, explaining party or government policy to citizens and citizens’ views to party and government, getting action out of the government on problems of constituents, and examining how the government uses or abuses the power it exercises on behalf of the people”.

Item 1c) states the integral role of parliament is to “check on the actions and policies of the Government” and “make the Government accountable for its actions and allows the public to listen to a spectrum of views and opinions to find out how decisions affecting them are made”.

It is the same in Item 4 of Rules, Character & Morals (72), the pronouncement by PM that the People’s Action Party (PAP) “must never, ever be afraid to do what is right for Singapore” and by DPM that the PAP does not hide from “difficult truths” and “As the party in power, it is our responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system in Singapore. We must, and have taken a clear stand on this matter of principle”.

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.

7. The problem is a group of officers in Item 3. The solution is by way of Parliament in Item 4. The complaint is Item 6.

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

Yours Sincerely,
hh

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

Observation

Email sent to MP on whether she could bring up the problem in Parliament:

Debunking

2. First, officers from the government did not reply to the various mistakes made. I showed that in No Full Reply (78) of 5 Aug 19 where I posed the mistakes made next to the replies I received from the officers. I showed your petition writer documents in the letter where the officers went wrong.

To bring home just one issue: 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.

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, the 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.

4. ...It is the same in Item 4 of Rules, Character & Morals (72), the pronouncement by PM that the People’s Action Party (PAP) “must never, ever be afraid to do what is right for Singapore” and by DPM that the PAP does not hide from “difficult truths” and “As the party in power, it is our responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system in Singapore. We must, and have taken a clear stand on this matter of principle”.

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

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.

7. The problem is a group of officers in Item 3. The solution is by way of Parliament in Item 4. The complaint is Item 6.

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

72. Rules, Character & Morals

25 Nov 2019

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

Dear Ms Sun,

Rules, Character & Morals

1. RULES

Extracts of all the issues from the most recent letters to MPs:

a) Noise from Neighbour 
It would have been enough if he could live his life that way until he dies--watching the world, doing what is required of him and doing his own things. However, his upstairs neighbour was the trouble. They caused noise working a trade in the flat. He complained and the first occupier was evicted. To cover up the eviction, the flat was transferred to the next owner with the help of officers. Noise continued for a number of years, stopped for a number of years because of insiders, and continued with a vengeance for a number of years once they sought protection. They stopped only after intervention from within the government.

In the case he mentioned a possible break-in at his flat and the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour that watched out for the neighbour. He was not surprised after he sold his flat and moved to a new flat that his next door neighbour appeared to be monitoring him. After they left, it is possible the new neighbour still does.

b) CPF Account 
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. 

c) CPF LIFE 
The Important Notes on CPF LIFE stated that only two deductions from Retirement Account (RA) were required. One upon purchased of CPF LIFE and the other two months before age 65. Payout started at 65. The two additional CPF LIFE that I was asked to purchase were not required.

The spreadsheets that I submitted showed the rate of return of the first purchase, the second additional purchase and the third additional purchase to be 4.082%, 3.216%, 2.944% respectively. On similar terms as the first purchase the rate of return of the two additional purchases were found to be lower and below the estimated lower range of 3.75%. Without the two additional purchases, the money left in the RA would have earned 4%.

Two other mistakes were found. One with the addition of interest earned for the year right after the second additional purchase. The spreadsheets showed the rate of return of the addition of interest earned to be below 0.001%.

The other with the transfer of available balance from RA to CPF LIFE two months before age 65. The whole of available balance was supposed to be transferred, but only part of the available balance was transferred. The record of the previous year showed the amount of the available balance and the Important Notes on CPF LIFE showed that the transfer of available balance was required. The officer I met agreed, but the officer who replied to my letter did not reply to the question.

d) Sale of Flat 
In each of the processes mentioned above government officers had deviated from the rules:

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

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

iii) 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 make such an application.

iv)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.

v) 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. 

vi) 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.

2. CHARACTER

Extracts from a search of the word “character” in an article at aeon.co: 

Godless yet good
Many religious believers feel skeptical about modern secular ethics in part because they cannot see any possibility for this sort of integration between theory and experience, between moral principles and how life is actually lived. Such theories neglect the personal: they privilege rationality over emotion, the abstract over the particular, obedience to rules over individual judgment. And, on the whole, they have had little to say — and have sometimes actively resisted having anything to say — about such old-fashioned notions as character and virtue.

That’s the bad news for secular ethics. The good news is that this somewhat negative assessment of its strengths and satisfactions is based on a limited historical perspective. The dominant secular theories of ethics since the Enlightenment might be largely guilty of neglecting the personal — but there are exceptions. Theorists such as Samuel Butler and David Hume, for instance, saw moral character and virtue as significant, and John Stuart Mill attempted to make a place for it within his utilitarian system, as have some contemporary utilitarians. And in any case, there are other places to look for an ethics beyond religion, both more recently and in the distant past. Indeed, to my mind the most interesting work in secular ethics has been done by people whose project is inspired by and rooted in the distant past — and in particular, by the philosophers of ancient Greece.

For particularists, then, individual perception and judgment are always necessary to decide difficult ethical questions: there is no theoretical ethical system that can do the work for us. Principles are useful, perhaps, but only as rules of thumb, practical guidelines that hold for the most part, but to which there will always be exceptions. At the foundational level, ethics is built not on a system of rules, but on individual human beings who possess character, judgment, and wisdom.

Given this, it is not surprising that on Aristotle’s view the cultivation of virtue and wisdom — the development of one’s own moral character and powers of judgment — is all-important. Developing practical wisdom is, for Aristotle, a matter both of acquiring knowledge and experience and of training one’s responses, including the emotions. We begin by imitating the virtuous, and end up becoming virtuous ourselves. ‘The things we have to learn before we can do,’ he taught, ‘we learn by doing, for example men become builders by building and lyre-players by playing the lyre; so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.’ Since much of the formative work happens in the first years of life, early childhood education and training is of vast importance. ‘It makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one kind or another from our very youth,’ he tells us. ‘It makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference.’

This then is a secular ethics that emphasises the significance of self-cultivation, individual judgment, and emotions such as compassion, as well as recognising the usefulness of moral exemplars — teachers who are paradigms of wisdom, who inspire us and whom we can try to imitate. It is a secular ethics that shares some important common ground with religious tradition. The idea that morality stems from strong character rather than from obedience to a strict set of rules, for instance, is very much in line with the moral reorientation proposed by Christ in the New Testament, from a view centered on obedience to God’s commandments to one in which love and compassion take centre stage.

Moreover, the Aristotelian claim that morality is good for us actually turns out to be supported by psychological research. There is mounting empirical evidence that people who cultivate their ability to feel compassion for others, and who engage in projects that express altruistic commitments, tend to be more relaxed, more fulfilled, and happier. Altruistic feelings and behavior, it appears, really do have substantial psychological benefits. The ancient Greeks might have been on to something when they said that the virtues were those character traits that were good both for the person who possessed them and for society at large.

https://aeon.co/essays/rules-and-reasons-are-not-enough-for-an-ethics-without-god 

3. MORALS

Facts and reason are not enough. If you want to understand politics, look to morals
If there’s one political idea most of us can agree on, it’s that we’re currently living through an age of immense ideological polarisation. Inspired by the hyperpartisan political climate in the US, the experimental social psychologist Peter Ditto at the University of California, Irvine set out to investigate how differing views of morality shape political judgments. Working from what’s known as ‘moral foundations theory’, which uses five categories – harm, fairness, loyalty, tradition and purity – as a framework for moral reasoning, Ditto created a survey website to learn to what extent different moral frameworks shape outlooks on political questions, and indeed the greater world. His findings were compelling, but likely unsurprising if you’ve ever had an irreconcilable political squabble at the dinner table: it’s our moral filters, not facts or rational thinking, that mould our ideological outlooks. You can read more about Ditto’s work at the University of California website.

https://aeon.co/videos/facts-and-reason-are-not-enough-if-you-want-to-understand-politics-look-to-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.

4. Quotes from cna:

a) The People’s Action Party (PAP) “must never, ever be afraid to do what is right for Singapore”, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday (Nov 10) at the PAP convention, a gathering of the party's members and activists.

b) The People's Action Party (PAP) does not hide from “difficult truths”, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said on Sunday (Nov 10) at the PAP Convention, a gathering of party members and activists.  

“As the party in power, it is our responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system in Singapore. We must, and have taken a clear stand on this matter of principle,” he added.

5. Two days after my previous email Request 3 (72) of 21 Oct 19, you requested HDB to provide background on Item 1 to 5 of the email. On the same day of your reply, I heard noise from my next door neighbour at 10.00am for 45 min. It was a signal.

I have made a note of my next door neighbour in Item 1a) above.

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.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

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

Observation

Letter handed over at MPS requesting that the MP bring up the problem in Parliament:

Rules, Character & Morals

3. MORALS

Facts and reason are not enough. If you want to understand politics, look to morals
If there’s one political idea most of us can agree on, it’s that we’re currently living through an age of immense ideological polarisation. Inspired by the hyperpartisan political climate in the US, the experimental social psychologist Peter Ditto at the University of California, Irvine set out to investigate how differing views of morality shape political judgments. Working from what’s known as ‘moral foundations theory’, which uses five categories – harm, fairness, loyalty, tradition and purity – as a framework for moral reasoning, Ditto created a survey website to learn to what extent different moral frameworks shape outlooks on political questions, and indeed the greater world. His findings were compelling, but likely unsurprising if you’ve ever had an irreconcilable political squabble at the dinner table: it’s our moral filters, not facts or rational thinking, that mould our ideological outlooks. You can read more about Ditto’s work at the University of California website.

https://aeon.co/videos/facts-and-reason-are-not-enough-if-you-want-to-understand-politics-look-to-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.

4. Quotes from cna:

a) The People’s Action Party (PAP) “must never, ever be afraid to do what is right for Singapore”, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday (Nov 10) at the PAP convention, a gathering of the party's members and activists.

b) The People's Action Party (PAP) does not hide from “difficult truths”, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said on Sunday (Nov 10) at the PAP Convention, a gathering of party members and activists.  

“As the party in power, it is our responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system in Singapore. We must, and have taken a clear stand on this matter of principle,” he added.

5. Two days after my previous email Request 3 (72) of 21 Oct 19, you requested HDB to provide background on Item 1 to 5 of the email. On the same day of your reply, I heard noise from my next door neighbour at 10.00am for 45 min. It was a signal.

I have made a note of my next door neighbour in Item 1a) above.

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.

72. Order

25 May 14

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

Dear Sir,

Officers Colluded With Neighbour

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.

In brief, officers and the neighbour have a history going back to '99 when an eviction took place. An officer informed me of the eviction, four years later an insider stopped the neighbour, and another four years later insiders assisted me when the neighbour restarted their work. Officers denied there was eviction and abetted the neighbour. They enabled the neighbour to continue working a trade inside their flat since they restarted in Jun 07.

A lessening of noise followed President (26) in Sep 11. Noise was adjusted down after News (31) and Citizen (32) in May 12, and again after By-Election (33) and Standpoint (34) in Aug 12. High officials finally caused them to reduce noise, but the affair needs a conclusion.

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

I showed collaboration between officers and the neighbour and an extensive network of contacts under the influence of an officer. The intent was to force me into selling my flat.

I showed what could be done in Deliberation (37) and Meritocracy (41) and the direction it could take in Quote (20), Behaviour (23) and Popular Culture (58). Does the government let the affair passed?

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. 

Yours Sincerely,
hh

Observation 

1. Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) began life around National Day, 9 Aug 12, after News (31) and Citizen (32). Although OSC looked to the next 20 years, it could have discussed the owner's case.

2. Another example is given in Moral Hazard (65) where no effective action could be taken.

3. A need for public dialogue could be seen from Punggol East (35) and Anonymity (59).

4. On 1 Sep 12 the Law and Foreign Affair Minister considered what could be an ethics law on unneighbourly act. His remarks is at Morality (39).

5. On 18 Sep 12 the Prime Minister said it was far better to suffer embarrassment and keep the system clean than to pretend that nothing had gone wrong and let the rot spread. He said the government was reviewing and tightening the system to maintain its high standard of honesty. His remarks in a speech given at CPIB (Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau) is at Switch (38).

6. On 12 Aug 13 DPM Teo Chee Hean says in Parliament:

"The Public Service does not tolerate wrongdoing and misconduct, and will take firm action in all cases, decisively and transparently. Every case is thoroughly investigated. If need be, a separate agency will conduct the investigation to ensure independence and impartiality."

Errant officers who have not broken the law but where actions are serious enough to constitute misconduct are subject to disciplinary action either by the Permanent Secretary or the Public Service Commission.

More of his remarks is at Item 14r, Comment (14).

7. On 7 Mar 14 The Business Times reported "MHA plans review panel to boost public trust. To underscore its intolerance of grave wrongdoings and misconduct by its officers, the Ministry of Home Affairs will set up an independent review panel to look into the findings of its internal probes of such cases.

Mr Teo, who is also Coordinating Ministry for National Security, said that when directed by the minister, the panel will review the findings of internal investigations into cases of serious alleged misconduct by an officer in his official capacity; those include cases which have led to death or serious injury, perverted the course of justice or which are in the public interest."

8. On 8 Mar 14 Acting Minister for Culture, Communication and Youth announced a new tribunal would be set up to adjudicate difficult cases of dispute between neighbours.

9. In Item 4, a good underlying explanation may be found for the law on unneighbourly act to be implemented as most Singaporeans live in flats. If it is not an ethics law, it will not help the owner because of evasion by the officers and neighbour. In Item 5, to maintain high standard of honesty the government needs to explain how it is going to be effected. In Item 6, if the owner's case was investigated, what was the outcome. In Item 7, if an internal investigation was conducted of its officers concerning the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour, would the minister direct the review panel to look into the case. In Item 8, would the judge be able to stop the officers from stationing the-people-in-the-flat-across-the-neighbour to protect the neighbour from insiders and using noise to force the owner into selling his flat because he knew too much. 

10. Evidence (21), Behaviour (23), Integrity (25), Committee (27) and Ombudsman (29) are on actions that could have been taken.

11. Continuous knocking from 7.00 pm to 8.45 pm during National Day Rally speech by PM on 18 Aug 13. Were the officers and neighbour telling the owner something?

12. Deliberation (37), Public Service (48), Openness (50), Governance (51), Anonymity (59) and Empathy (63) take a look at the problem and its resolution.

13. Morality (39), Liberty (52), Iron Cage (53), Ruler (55), Popular Culture (58), Diplomat (62) and Singapore (67) are on "doing the right things, and doing these things right".

14. Argument (44) and Perspective (45) are on reasonable approach to ethical conflict without personal opinion and cultural bias getting in the way.

15. Parkinson (40), Open Access (49) and Iron Cage (53) are on bureaucracy.

16. Principle (47) is on openness, accountability and tolerance as apply to the case. Anonymity (59), Open Source (60), Moral Hazard (65) and Corruption (66) are on openness. Search for word openness, accountability and tolerance in the postings.

17. Neighbour (4) is a problem yet to be resolved given what goes on between the officers and neighbour.

18. Case (19) is a community project. Do so by informing others and leaving your comment in the blog.

19. The owner wrote to the Council of Estate Agencies (CEA) and MPs on a related problem. House Selling 1 (70), House Selling 2 (71), House Selling 3 (72), House Selling 4 (73) and Request (75) show officers tried to block the owner from selling his flat at a good price.

20. On 11 Mar 14 The Business Times reported "HDB overhauls system for resale transactions. It is requiring buyers to first obtain the option to purchase (OTP) before asking for a valuation through HDB - and it will not accept valuation request from sellers.

This pushes buyers and sellers into negotiating resale prices based on the latest transacted prices, instead of haggling over the COV as is done now.

On the likelihood that there may be sellers who may fish for valuation reports through the HDB, the board said that it will monitor the new resale procedures.

The HDB spokeswomen said, 'If there are salespersons who try to game the system to obtain valuations, we will carry out relevant investigations together with the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA)."

21. In Item 20, the owner thinks the problem is buyer and seller should be in direct contact during price negotiation. They could defer to their salesperson, if they engage one, for price information and assistance.

22. An extensive network of contacts in the administration has been the problem. In a cover-up the officers prevented the stopping of the neighbour who works a trade in the flat. They collaborated to force the owner into selling his flat and, when he did, to sell at below market price. As shown in the blog, the Government was unable to deal with the officers on the ground.

23. Endgame (74) and Committee (27) are on abusers and remedies respectively.

24. Lee Kuan Yew  Hard Truths  To Keep Singapore Going  Straits Times Press

Q: What do you mean by a "strong system"? Is it another phrase for PAP continuing to be in power?

A: Whether it's the PAP or any other government does not interest me. I'm beyond that phase. I'm not out here to justify the PAP or the present government. I want to get across just how profound is this question of leadership and people and the ethical and philosophical beliefs of the leadership and the people.

Q: Not many people can understand that we're not a normal country.

A: Denmark, Sweden can get by with mediocre governments, Singapore cannot. The civil service will go down. If at the core centre quality goes down, then in all the subsidiary organisations quality will also go down. You will no longer inspire. Because no man can judge a person accurately if that person is superior than he is. So we never ask somebody who's inferior to judge. Very seldom does an inferior person says, "He's better than me." Once you have weak people on top, the whole system slowly goes down. It's inevitable.

25. Sunday, 8 Dec 13. PAP adopts 8-point resolution to build better nation for all.

With the theme, "Our New Way Forward, A Call to Action", the resolution emphasises that it will govern the country with integrity and never tolerate corruption.

The last time a resolution was adopted was in 1988 at the party's first Convention when an eight-point Agenda for Action was revealed.

26. The following was reported in the Straits Times of 29 Mar 14 and 30 Mar 14: 

Singapore has a strong anti-corruption system and values but it is not the system that will continue keeping it clean. It is the people who run it who will do so, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

He made this point on Friday during a dialogue at independent think-tank Chatham House, while responding to questions from Mr Malcolm Rifkind, the chair, and an audience of academics, diplomats and London's intellectual elite.

Mr Rifkind noted that the abhorrence of corruption went back to the days of former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. Were there strains in the system now?

Whether or not the People's Action Party (PAP) can continue to run the Government depends in how well it acquits itself and continues to build on the successes of the past, and on Singaporeans themselves, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Similarly, there can be no straight-line predictions that because the opposition has 40 per cent of the vote, it will not be long before it takes over government, he said, during a dialogue at Chatham House, a think-tank, yesterday.

The exchange began when Mr Rifkind noted that the PAP had been in power for more than half a century and if this was healthy.

27. Postings in the blog anaudienceofthree and complainproper have been amended for unclear passage and bad grammar. Passages are added on hindsight. Postings at complainproper3 remains unchanged as it was first posted.

69. Help

Two items, the CUTS filed in the Prime Minister Office at www.wp.sg dated 7 Mar 12 and the owner's letter to civicadvocator.net dated 11 May 09:
 
1. During his Presidential campaign last year, President Tony Tan noted that the ombudsman was an institution that ought to be looked into. The office of the ombudsman was first proposed to the Government by the 1966 Wee Chong Jin’s Constitutional Commission, and in 1994, then backbencher and current Law Minister K Shanmugam also raised it in Parliament. The role of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints about the unfair administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness.
 
An ombudsman does not have the power to make decisions that are binding on the government. Rather, the ombudsman makes recommendations for change as supported by a thorough investigation of the complaint. A crucial element of the ombudsman is its independence from the executive or administrative branch of government. There are many variations of the ombudsman office around the world. Singapore can and should find a variation that suits local needs and conditions. An ombudsman with a well-defined role and clear mechanism for action can be beneficial for Singapore.
 
Sir, Singaporeans today are well educated, well travelled and well informed. This invariably leads to higher citizenry expectations when it comes to political and corporate governance. Higher expectations are not necessarily negative developments for they signify growing interest in local politics and the national agenda.
 
The establishment of an ombudsman will address higher citizenry expectations in two ways. First, it will signify the Singapore Government’s acknowledgement and respect of a maturing Singapore polity’s desire for a variety of institutions that can reflect the concerns of the ordinary citizen. This will serve to build trust between society and State. Secondly, it will develop local civil society by empowering institutions. While many would agree that capable and honest leaders are vital for good governance, the sign of a mature and self-sustaining society are decentralised and independent institutions.
 
The establishment of an ombudsman would also be in keeping with the Prime Minister’s vision for an open and inclusive society and, most certainly, in tandem with Budget 2012 which has also been characterised as an inclusive one.
 
An ombudsman is not designed to serve as a check on the Government. That is the opposition’s role. An ombudsman should not use its office or mission to disrupt the work of the Civil Service. It should not mischievously aim to embarrass Government agencies and offices or erode public confidence in the Civil Service. The need for an ombudsman, Sir, is not based on any inadequacies of the Singapore Government, but rather on the fact that Singaporeans and Singapore society have evolved. Singaporeans are now more politically mature. With maturity comes the need for empowerment. Empowerment is necessary for a sense of ownership to develop. An ombudsman would be a step in this direction.
 
(Pritam would like to thank a Singaporean blogger and expert for granting permission to use his analysis in the filing of this cut.)
 
Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 12:37 am
 
2. Dear hh 

See http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:26 AM, TKL Petition Volunteers <tkl100kpetition@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Mr hh 

We could publish your letter on our site.
Besides that, how else could we help you?

Civic Advocator 

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:24 AM, hh <blank> wrote:
 
Dear Sir,
 
              I hope you could publish my complaint. I will point out what happened between HDB, a neighbour and myself.
 
2.    Soon after I handed my letter of complaint to an interviewer at MPS (Meet-the-People Session), I noticed people shifting into the flat across the neighbour. Four weeks later there was a force-entry at the neighbour's flat. A few days later the neighbour approached me to ask that I compromised. Thinking back, it was his concession to me since by then he knew I could not do much to stop him.
 
3.    The neighbour kept at their works even as I continued to write and meet MPs at MPS. On my behalf they wrote to HDB, Town Council and Police. One curious fact was HBO (Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office) replied to all MP's letters to HDB except for one from the Town Council when it was indicated to him in the cc that the letter and an attachment from the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service was for his information only. In reply to the MPs' letters, HBO stated there was no excessive noise and I may obtain a court injunction or seek assistance from other government agencies. There were five such letters, each without much variation with cc to MP.
 
4.    I know all along the neighbour is carrying on a trade of some kind. Different types of noise are heard throughout each day. I know officers at the Branch Office and some community centre members at MPS cannot be relied on, but I had some help from insiders and MPs. For example someone sent a bcc from HBO to the Chairman (Residents' Committee) in a letter HBO had replied earlier. In the bcc he wrote no noise was detected during their house visit and asked the Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to me.
 
5.    The bcc tells me the house referred to the-flat-across-the-neighbour. It mentioned the date of their visit and the Chairman would be meeting the Treasurer before a visit to me later. I noted they visited me the same morning after HBO and Chairman had their house visit and the incessant knocking that morning before the Chairman and Treasurer's visit was deliberate. I also suspect that to maintain noise down to acceptable level, there may be a device that detects and records noise in the-flat-across-the-neighbour.
 
6.    I think a deal was struck with the neighbour after the force-entry. They could have been evicted. In fact an occupier was evicted from the flat many years earlier followed by a transfer of the flat from the first owner to the neighbour, and the neighbour was stopped by an insider before the current complaint. I had written first to HBO and later to MPs about it.
 
7.    Since the noise has not stop, I would be forced to leave. The solution is for the issue to be made known. 
 
Regards,
hh         

Note: Civicadvocator.net was closed down sometime later.

Observation The post at civicadvocator.net on 11 May 09 was followed two weeks later by DPM Teo Chee Hean saying that the government was on the lookout for "bold and visionary" leaders and people who could adapt to changing environments. On 30 Mar 10 he said public officers would be encouraged to keep to the logical rather than ideological path and stayed pragmatic in making polices. And on 13 May 11 after the General Election he said politicians were forced to admit they need to connect to the people, and Public Service was forced to re-look at the way in which it formulated policies with respect to citizens. 
 
The posting of Committee (27) on 15 Oct 11 may have generated a debate in Parliament that led the Worker's Party's General-Secretary to say his party would act as a voice for the people in Parliament on 21 Oct 11. His remark is at Overview (28).
 
The CUTS at the Worker's Party's website dated 7 Mar 12 was posted after Dissent (30) on 11 Feb 12.
 
The owner started his blog on Aug 09 and noise subsided some time after Standpoint (34) in Aug 12. It was the only way to resolve his problem.

61. Wrongoings

30 Oct 2016

President
Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823

Dear Sir,

Wrongdoings

I wrote five times to the Prime Minister (PM) and this will be the fifth time I write to the President. Except for my first letter to the PM and first letter to the former President, all the letters are under the category Complaint in my blog.

I like to think my blog has led to certain changes to the presidency. It is about strengthening the Council of Presidential Advisers in PM’s parliamentary speech on Jan 2016 and the integrity of the public service in Reach’s Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency, a public consultation period from Feb 2016 to Mar 2016.

How do Singaporeans feel when officers could not be held accountable? In a series of complaints starting from 2007, the evidence makes clear officers do not reply to issues.

From people in the flat next to the neighbour’s flat employed to protect the neighbour--to messing with the sale of my flat, my CPF Account and CPF Life--to causing trouble elsewhere.

It was a grave matter to write about, but what else could I do?

If amendments to the elected presidency are effective, the mistakes will be corrected. Or will it continues to be kept under cover? In practical terms, why is there no reply from the authorities?

There has been no official acknowledgement and no report in the press of the problem.

Sincerely,

Observation

1. The owner hopes his letter to the president, after amendments to elected presidency, will draw his case to a close.

2. More correspondence were added to Defect (23) showing officers did not reply to evidence and would not refer to their superior. The case is about a flourescent fitting dropping from the ceiling of studio apartments.

3. In Assurity (23), officers repeatedly caused delays by not sending him the pin mailer to activate  Singpass 2FA (two factors authentication).

4. In Singpass (23), officers blocked the updating of account details required for the change of password. The website automatically prompted updating of account and requested mobile phone and/or email upon his mother’s first log-in, but he was unable to help his mother complete the process. Official document dated 5 Jul 2015 indicated those features have been in place for about a year.

5. In Enlightenment (25), the writer quotes sayings and proverbs applicable to past and current events. And Tradition (27) is on the importance of rules. Articles are in Chinese.

Under the category Complaint, it could be seen that officers did not reply to evidence and did not refer to their superiors when requested over many issues since 2007.

6. In Abuse (61), a Taiwanese writer is against the death penalty because of danger of abuse by people in government. Written in Chinese. (For those whose Chinese is not up to the mark, use https://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php for listening and translation.)

7. In Constitution (61), passages from The Constitution of Singapore  A Contextual Analysis  2015 are quoted to better understand how his case could come to be. The unresolved case having to do with dishonesty and corruption of public officers.

8. The lessons in Wealthy Families (71) may apply to officers with strong backing:

‘The proverb “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” is not used to mock the third generation; it is not stupidity or incompetence that leads to the demise of family wealth. The key message of the proverb is that there are invisible forces at work that have a debilitating effect on character building. These invisible forces, which we refer to as the “wealth trap,” make it very difficult to pass on the first-generation mentality and values to the second and third generation--precisely the mentality and values that brought financial success to the family.’

9. Dialogue from Better Living Through Criticism (of Criticism [50]):

Q: What about the public’s interest, though? We have so much to choose from, and so much of it is cheap or free. And a lot of it is better than what came before. Greater abundance, higher quality, seamless distribution--why complain about any of that?

A: I’m not! But there are hidden costs, and lingering questions. How are you supposed to choose, in the face of this abundance? What will guide your choices? There are really only two options: marketers, whose job is to sell--that is, to spin, to hype, to lie--and critics, whose job is to tell the truth.

Q: How can it be the truth, though? It’s only your opinion. I thought we’d established that: your voice.

A: You haven’t been listening. The voice of the critic is, above all, an honest voice, a voice that can be trusted. Not obeyed or blindly agreed with, but trusted in the way you’d trust a friend.