HIGH-RISE LITTERING

HIGH-RISE LITTERING: 3.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he would provide an update on the fight against high-rise littering; (b) how many complaints were received and how many summons were issued for such offences in the last three years; and (c) whether stronger measures are needed to further reduce high-rise littering.

4.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he would provide an assessment on whether existing laws are effective in tackling high-rise litter; (b) whether the current law limits the effectiveness of enforcement by requiring enforcement officers to identify the offenders in person and if the Ministry will consider changing the law to hold the household responsible; and (c) whether the Ministry would consider using surveillance tools to make enforcement more effective as manpower is limited and cannot be committed over long periods of time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together.

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: To combat high-rise littering effectively, NEA adopts a two-pronged approach, namely education and enforcement. Education helps to mitigate the problems by raising awareness on the dangers of high-rise littering and the need for greater social responsibility by dwellers of high-rise buildings. This is supplemented by enforcement action to punish and deter offenders.

Column: 2182

Our laws against high-rise littering require the witnessing of the offence being committed before prosecution can take place, as enforcement action and prosecution need to be substantiated with evidence. On receiving feedback, NEA and the relevant Town Council will identify the unit from which the litter may have been thrown. If there is sufficient evidence, NEA will proceed with enforcement action. Otherwise, letters are served to residents of the suspected unit and those in the same column, advising them to refrain from committing such acts. A warning letter will follow if the acts persist. Surveillance and monitoring operations will also be conducted in the area when necessary.

Apprehending high-rise littering offenders is manpower-intensive and involves long hours of staking out to catch the offender in the act. Despite the best efforts of our enforcement officers, it is not always possible to catch the offenders as most of the offences are committed at night which make it a greater challenge to identify the offender clearly.

The number of feedback on high-rise littering is on the rise, from 2,499 in 2008 to 3,475 in 2009, and 4,449 last year. During this period, NEA took enforcement action against nine cases of high-rise littering, where the offenders could be identified. High-rise littering offenders are sent to Court where they may be imposed with a Corrective Work Order (CWO).

In addition to CWO, repeat offenders may face a fine of up to $5,000 upon conviction. In the majority of other cases, the offenders either could not be identified or the littering stopped after warning letters were issued.

High-rise littering is a challenging problem in Singapore because of our urban landscape. We will continue to study ways to tackle this challenge. For instance, NEA has experimented with the

Column: 2183

use of surveillance devices in their stakeouts. However, the use of such technology is limited by costs and physical considerations at the site.

As part of the anti-littering campaign, our Litter-free Ambassadors will share anti high-rise littering messages with residents during their house-to-house visits. Ultimately, we need the support of the community to provide information on the high-rise litterbugs so that NEA can take action against the culprits and send a strong message that such unsafe and irresponsible acts will not be tolerated.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, notwithstanding the statistics given by the Minister of State on the number of cases and so on, I think on the ground, when we visit the residents, we know that there are many cases of high-rise littering that go unreported and hence not captured in the data that the Minister of State has just revealed. My first question to the Minister of State is: should there be more and even stronger measures to deal with high-rise littering and perhaps more resources allocated to this? Secondly, the problem of high-rise littering in HDB estates cuts across a few agencies – the HDB, Town Council, even the Police, in addition to NEA – it seems that there is no clear ownership and accountability of this problem. So I would like to ask the Minister of State whether NEA should be the agency that takes ownership of this problem and that will coordinate with the other agencies so that we can deal with this problem decisively.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Firstly, I note the Member's concern about the problem of high-rise littering. Let me assure him that we are equally concerned, and we will continue to study and look at how to tackle this challenge more effectively. As regards the coordination among the different agencies: since October last

Column: 2184

year, NEA has formalised arrangements with the various agencies, including the Town Councils and HDB to step up the engagement and education efforts to residents as well as to conduct joint operations, surveillance and enforcement actions when feedback or complaints are received regarding high-rise littering.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Sir, concerning the statistics put forward earlier, I think having just nine cases that were brought to Court is an under reflection of the situation today. If Members look at the estates today, there is a lot of litter on the ground. I think it is not a question of effort, but it is a question of the lack of proper regulation or ineffective regulation today. Hence, the person throwing the litter makes it quite ineffective for a lot of officers even though NEA deploys a lot of manpower on the ground. I would like to ask if the Ministry will continue to experiment with the surveillance tools until we get the right formula so that we actually save costs on manpower resources. It is also ineffective because most of our manpower resources are deployed during the day and no one is at home during the day most of the time. At night, they cannot see as clearly.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy, your questions are getting longer now.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Thirdly, would the Ministry consider changing the regulation like the way we enforce vehicle speeding, for example, where you make the House accountable and identify the perpetrator from the home?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Just to share with Members regarding the use of surveillance tools, CCTVs, and so on. Last year, NEA carried out two preliminary trials with Certis CISCO and ATOS, using different mix of surveillance cameras. The trials revealed several constraints in the use of surveillance cameras, including the placement of cameras, lighting,

Column: 2185

zooming capability, weather conditions, presence of physical obstruction like trees and availability of sites for the mounting of cameras. These factors actually affect the quality of the video clip and hence their admissibility as evidence for prosecution. Cost, of course, as I have mentioned earlier, is another consideration as more than one camera may be needed for every stakeout. So the use of CCTV and other surveillance cameras has been limited to trials but, nonetheless, we will continue, as suggested by the Member, to try and test out different surveillance tools with a view to using some of these to help us in our enforcement action. As regards looking at amending legislation, as I have noted, we will continue to look into ways to more effectively tackle the challenge. We will take the Member's suggestions regarding the amendment and enhancements of legislations into account in our deliberations.

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Related to the littering issue is that of a dog poo issue. There has been a rise in pets being kept in HDB estates and many a time, it is not just the owners who take their dogs out but sometimes the domestic helpers will take their dogs out for a walk and to do the necessary call of nature. They do not pick up after the dogs, leaving not just unsightly poos but also giving rise to hygiene issues. I think for the Muslim population, it could also be quite offensive. So my question to the Minister of State is whether the Ministry has considered some by-laws to nab those who leave dog poo behind and whether they could consider working with MOM in training the domestic helpers in ensuring that they will pick up the necessary poo after walking the dogs.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, I would like to comment that the train of questions show that ultimately we need all residents to play an active role in tackling this littering problem, including dog poo. We need the residents to refrain

Column: 2186

from committing such socially irresponsible acts, to spread this message to their family members, friends, neighbours as well as to alert us if there are such litterbugs or irresponsible people around. As regards by-laws, if I am not wrong, I am quite sure the Town Councils already have by-laws with regard to littering – not picking up dog poo is also a littering issue. If the offender is caught in the act, enforcement action will be taken against him. But like I said, ultimately, we really need the community to be socially responsible. We need all residents to play an active role in tackling such issues.