ILLEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AREAS

ILLEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AREAS:

(Deterrence measures): 9.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport how much does LTA spend each year on non-stick paint to deter illegal advertisements on its lamp posts, railings and other public areas.

10.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) in 2009, how

Column: 2202

many people had been arrested and charged for sticking bills at bus stops, MRT stations and on lamp posts; (b) what were the penalties imposed; (c) what measures, if any, have been taken by the Ministry to curb this practice; and (d) whether the Ministry will enhance the penalties to deter future offenders.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.

Illegal advertisements that are pasted on street furniture such as lamp posts, traffic light posts and direction sign posts are unsightly, and mar our streetscape.

Offenders who put up advertisements illegally can be fined up to $2,000. They can be fined a further $100 a day if they continue to persist with their offence. In 2009, LTA took action against 1,091 such offenders. However, in addition to taking enforcement action, LTA also has to remove these advertisements, taking up valuable resources which could otherwise be re-deployed for other functions. Moving forward, LTA is adopting a multi-pronged approach to tackle this problem, by leveraging on innovative engineering solutions, providing other avenues to display advertisements and public education, in addition to regular maintenance and enforcement.

In July last year, LTA conducted a trial on the use of anti-stick paint at the sheltered linkway leading to Jurong East MRT Station. LTA found that the columns painted with anti-stick paint remained free from illegal advertisements. Following the success of this trial, LTA started a pilot project to apply the anti-stick paint at three other locations, at Marine Parade, Geylang Road and Sims Avenue earlier this year. The anti-stick paint will progressively be applied at 16 hotspots

Column: 2203

where the illegal posting of advertisements is rampant by early 2011. The annual cost of applying anti-stick paint at these 16 hotspots is around $70,000. In contrast, without the anti-stick paint, it would cost LTA $225,000 annually, or more than three times as much to maintain the cleanliness at these 16 hotspots.

LTA is also providing other spaces for people to put up notices and advertisements. As a trial, LTA will be providing and managing notice boards near transport nodes for low cost advertisements. By providing such facilities for the public to display their advertisements, LTA aims to discourage the indiscriminate posting of advertisements.

I wish to emphasise that everybody has a role to play, to exercise social responsibility in making sure that the public streets we all share remain clean. In the months to come, LTA will be embarking on public education initiatives to increase public awareness that the indiscriminate posting of advertisements is an offence.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. According to a newspaper report, the number of offenders have doubled from 201 offenders in 2008 to 457 in 2009. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary was telling us that there were 1091 offenders last year. A newspaper report also quoted that the composition fine is $300 for the first-offender to $400 for the second-time offender. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is of the view that this composition fine is of sufficient deterrent to the advertisers? And may I also ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary rather than wasting money on non-stick paint, would LTA consider requiring offenders to remove their own advertisements some

Column: 2204

what similar to the Corrective Work Order which was imposed for littering and failing which, a heavier penalty will be imposed on such offenders.

Mr Teo Ser Luck: Sir, we believe that adopting a multi-pronged approach will tackle this problem, would actually be more effective. And I think as for enforcing the regulation against putting up these illegal advertisements, the entire process itself, may not seem to be cheaper. Because in enforcing the regulation, the LTA inspectors first have to take photographs of the daily advertisements on the public street facilities where they are found, and then possibly, have to call the number on the advertisement. And when they call the number advertised, the answering party may not co-operate. When that happens, subsequent follow-ups become more difficult to track down the offenders. When LTA issues the notice of offence, these offenders may also appeal for waiver of the composition fine and then these appeal cases will then have to be assessed on their own merits. So for the repeat offenders, LTA will also have to put up a report of offence before the notice of offence is issued to them. The entire process is quite tedious, lengthy and costly in view of the man-hours needed but nevertheless we will still be putting enforcements and also at the same time provide public education.

The anti-stick paint is another way and when it was piloted, it proved its effectiveness in that no illegal advertisements were put up. We believe that the multi-pronged approach will be more effective in this sense.