ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, littering is still very much a problem in Singapore. Unsightly litter can still be seen frequently polluting our canals and drains. The same ugly litter is also seen all over the housing estates, especially in the evenings and early mornings, before the army of cleaners come to clear them away. The majority of us who do not litter have to bear with the unsightly litter thrown by the very small minority.

It is difficult to understand why there are those who persist in throwing litter out of their windows or out of their cars or when they are moving about in public places. They can very easily do the right thing. There are the refuse chutes in the homes for those who live in flats, the ash trays in cars for those who drive and smoke, and the thousands of litter bins placed all over Singapore for the pedestrians to use.

Singapore is our home and we must treat our 'home' with due respect and help keep it clean. If we can keep Singapore clean, we will not need so many workers to sweep up the mess. Public funds can then be better utilised elsewhere. Town Councils will also find that they do not need to spend so much on public cleansing.

Littering is an anti-social act that can be stopped. All it takes is a bit of effort on the part of everyone. Over the years, the Government has mounted campaigns after campaigns to educate the public not to litter. It is noted also that the fines imposed have not been sufficient deterrent to make people take that extra bit of effort to put litter in its proper place.

The Government, therefore, has decided that those who persist in littering or who commit serious littering offences will be made to clean up litter found in public places.

With the enactment of the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill, 1992, recalcitrant littering offenders and those who commit serious littering offences which directly cause pollution or give rise to cleansing problems will be liable to be issued with a Corrective Work Order by the courts. Offenders issued with a Corrective Work Order will be asked to report to a designated public place and will be assigned areas to clean up under supervision.

The Corrective Work Order will only be issued to offenders who are 16 years of age or above. The duration of work will not exceed three hours. If an offender fails to comply with any of the requirements of the Corrective Work Order, he may be summoned to appear before the court and the court may order him to pay a fine not exceeding $5,000 or may convict him to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months.

School children who litter will be dealt with according to the current practice which is to report them to their parents and to their school principals. In addition, my Ministry is considering making errant students attend a counselling session which my Ministry will conduct.

This Bill, presented before Parliament, seeks to introduce a greater deterrent against those who litter.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment Bill before us is historic, in the sense that, for the first time, we are instituting a law which may require an offender to perform corrective work as a form of punishment. Specifically, the proposed Act deals with offences relating to littering or dumping in a public place, and the corrective work involves the cleaning of any premises instructed by the supervision officer.

Sir, many Singaporeans today do not litter because they feel that it is not right to do so. Thanks to our many anti-littering campaigns. However, the littering problem persists because there are still many who do so. This can easily be confirmed by having a look around the grounds following a fun fair, the state of our beaches after a week-end or public holiday, and the amount of cleaning work town councils have to perform. There is, in fact, no reason for anyone to litter because, as the Minister says, there are litter bins everywhere. Clearly, the current legislation of a stiff fine is not effective in deterring people from littering. Some may ask: "Why don't we simply step up our enforcement action?" But may I ask: how many more officers should we employ to go about catching people littering? Is there not a better way to tackle the littering problem?

The amendment Bill which we are now considering is such a way. It will not only be more effective as a deterrent to others and for the reformation of the offenders, it will also be more equitable on the basis of just desserts. The imposition of a fine in the current legislation hurts different people differently, depending on their affordability to pay, whereas compulsory corrective work is no respecter of persons. Whether an offender is rich or poor, in a high position or low, he will similarly be constrained to perform the corrective work.

The proposed law will also be more effective as a deterrent because to many, the performance of corrective work would bring about a great sense of shame, a loss of face, especially in an Asian society. For the same reason, there may also be considerable apprehensions about the possibility of one being convicted for a minor littering offence. In this regard, may I ask the Minister whether he would only consider prosecuting people who have committed serious littering offence? May I also ask the Minister how many people have been caught littering, say, over the last six months? How many of these cases can be considered as serious enough to justify prosecution and what are they?

Sir, I support the Bill also because it reinforces the idea that it is a shame to throw litter about indiscriminately. It is therefore instructional. If people feel no shame in that, then something is certainly wrong. Society as a whole will suffer. The sense of shame rightfully then should lie with the offence, not with the punishment.

It is also extremely important that we inculcate in our young that it is a shame to litter so that they will grow up feeling that dirtying our nation is a shameful, anti-social act.

This brings me to my last point. The Bill, as it stands, caters for those over 16 years of age. As mentioned by the Minister, for those offenders who are under 16 years and schooling, the Ministry usually refers them to the school authorities after counselling them. Thereafter, there is no follow-up action on the part of the Ministry to find out what corrective actions the school authorities have taken. May I suggest that the Ministry monitors what actions the schools are taking. It should perhaps work with the schools in providing guidelines on the appropriate corrective actions. We must make every effort to correct the bad habit of our young.

Finally, I would also like to ask the Minister what he proposes to do with those offenders who are above 16 years but are still schooling. Will he send them to the school or to the court?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think any Singaporean who believes in good law and order and who values a clean, healthy and pleasant environment would disagree with the Government on the need for this Bill.

By and large, Singaporeans do support and observe the campaigns to keep our environment clean and healthy, even after the campaigns have been long over. Nonetheless, some people may, from time to time, break the laws or rules for the protection of the environment and environmental public health. They may have done so out of sheer bad habit or laziness or even in a moment of inexcusable forgetfulness. Some may have done so deliberately out of spite. If there are such people, I think they are a very small minority.

However, I agree that people who break the laws or rules for the protection of the environment and environmental public health must make up for their misconduct. Ordering the offenders to do corrective work seems to be a more constructive alternative to the usual sanction of fines and imprisonment.

But I do not think I am wrong in saying that the aim of the Bill is to reform rather than to punish the offenders. An order to do corrective work is intended, figuratively speaking, as a mere rap on the knuckles and not as a stroke of the rotan. In keeping with the tenor of the Bill, I hope an assurance can be given in respect of the Bill that an offender will not be publicly humiliated by being ordered to do corrective work publicly in the immediate vicinity of where he stays or works. Any such unnecessary embarrassment may breed resentment and defeat the aim of the Bill to reform the offenders.

Sir, if the proposed nature of corrective work is as indicated in the Explanatory Statement, I think the larger interests of the community will be better served by giving an offender an option to work out his sentence in the relative privacy of a selected charitable institution. By so doing, the Bill would kill four birds with one stone.

(1) The offender would be spared any additional embarrassment by being enabled to do his corrective work away from public attention.

(2) The offender would thereby be less resentful of the order to do corrective work and more likely to recognise and accept his obligation to protect the environment and the environmental public health.

(3) The offender might consequently become more aware and more understanding of the needs of the residents in the charity homes.

(4) It would definitely help to solve the problem of the shortage of voluntary helpers for charity homes, at least on a temporary, if not, permanent footing. 1.45 pm

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I view this Bill as an innovation in the manner in which we deal with those who commit the offence of littering. This approach is, to my mind, constructive in the sense that we seek to impart a moral education on the offenders, ie, that they should not litter. I hope the public will view this measure positively, so that we may all appreciate our responsibility in maintaining cleanliness.

Mr Speaker, littering is a long-standing problem in our country. It has prevailed even today, despite so many cleanliness campaigns being conducted year after year. The message that we need to keep the country clean has also been spread to students in all schools. And while these efforts have borne tangible results, this anti-social disease is still evident in a small section of Singapore society.

I support the introduction of the Corrective Work Order to be issued against offenders under this Bill. May I ask the Minister what sort of work would these offenders be required to perform. I hope the work to be done would not demean them so much so that society will look down upon them. Self-respect is very important to us Asians, Orientals. We want to preserve our family honour. The officers who supervise corrective work need to be sensitive so as not to hurt the feelings of the offenders. If our objective is to be constructive, those who perform corrective work must be treated with care.

I would like to ask the Minister in what locations the offenders will be doing their work. May I, like my colleague from Aljunied GRC, suggest that offenders be required to perform cleaning work in the welfare homes run by certain social organisations. These homes do have a need for volunteers to carry out such work. The supervisors of these homes could also supervise them. In this way, at least the offenders would be doing something useful for society. I hope the Minister for the Environment would consider these suggestions.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Mr Speaker, the idea behind this Bill is very clear, and I personally support it. I also support the views raised by fellow Members earlier.

However, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. There are Singaporeans who work as cleaners and sweepers, and I think some of them also commit such an offence. To ask these cleaners and sweepers to do cleaning and sweeping may not be a reformation or punishment because it is something they do almost daily. So for this category of people who commit this offence, maybe we have to look for another way to educate and train them to be more caring as far as taking care of the cleanliness of our nation is concerned.

Mr Ho Peng Kee (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

As Dr Chen has mentioned, this Bill is a landmark Bill in that for the first time in Singapore there is introduced to the arsenal of possible sanctions open to the court, what is called in literature "the community service order". Here, it is in the context of littering. Perhaps, with this beginning, the possibility of introducing such an order for other offences may be considered.

I have been talking to people. Looking at the problem of road bullies, is it a possibility that for road bullies, such an order be made available and road bullies be made to do short stints in hospitals so that they come in touch with the people they hurt? They will see at close quarters what sort of pain their actions, very often done in the heat of passion, can inflict.

Just now, we heard two viewpoints. One viewpoint was the effect or benefit of such an order in terms of deterrence. I think from that point of view it makes sense for the recalcitrant litterer to pick up litter in public. There is nothing worse in the Asian context than to be seen doing this in public. On the other hand, as the term suggests, the Corrective Work Order, or the larger phrase, the community service order, is linked to doing service for the community. We look at not just wanting to punish him, but also to correct him. Therefore, I would urge the Minister, when carrying out such a new sanction, to put emphasis also on the role of counselling, to inform and counsel him so that this benefit of correcting the person is not just effected through actions, but reinforced through words, through pictures, through slides, as to why littering is terribly anti-social and incurs high social cost. I hope that this balance can be struck between the deterrent effect and the reformative effect.

Perhaps, one suggestion is that, instead of emphasising one at the expense of the other, we could have a graduated scale, starting off maybe with doing community service in privacy first. If the person is still recalcitrant, then we move towards a position where we expose him and humiliate him in public. I will humbly suggest that we should not at the outset just expose him to public humiliation, but work towards a position where, if the person does not want to reform, then we expose him fully and make him lose face in public.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, while I agree that corrective measures are good, I tend to feel that we may demean the whole situation and get us back to those who have actually gone into voluntary service. Schools which have been organising students to clean the beaches and so on will take that they are all to be seen as offenders in future. I think the negative part will come in.

It brings me back to my school days when we were sent to detention classes and asked to pick up papers in the school compound. That means, when there is voluntary work in actually cleaning the school, people tend to keep away because they fear that they will be seen to be offenders. So I think we look at the whole "fine" situation that we are imposing and it does not go down to the people of Singapore in that our education system, our civic consciousness does not come through.

With the passage of this Bill, maybe we have to see to the part on implementation which Mr Chin mentioned: how do we get these people into voluntary services? How do we coerce them, how we counsel them, how to win them over? I think the point about just simply putting corrective measures and then later charging them in court is, again, a very heavy stick. I would like to propose that we look at some softener. People who are actually coming forward to help should not be seen to be offenders at the end of the day.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank hon. Members who have spoken on the Bill. I shall attempt to give replies to the points they have raised.

Sir, as I have mentioned in my speech, the Corrective Work Order (CWO) is intended for recalcitrant littering offenders and also for those who commit serious littering offences. My Ministry will decide whether an offence is serious or not and refer those considered serious to the Court for hearing. If the court is satisfied that it is expedient that the offender should be made to clean up litter at a public place, with a view to his reformation or protecting the environment and the environmental public health, then the court shall issue a Work Order to the offender. Of course, in making the Corrective Work Order the court will take cognisance of the offender's physical and mental condition as well as his suitability for carrying out the Work Order.

A serious littering offence is one which will directly cause pollution or give rise to cleansing problems. Dropping or throwing out or leaving behind bags of refuse, styrofoam boxes, packets of food, old furniture, are some of the good examples I can think of. What the Environment Ministry may consider as minor littering offence would be littering with cigarette butts, or car park coupon tabs, and things like that.

For minor offences, Sir, the offender will be offered a composition fine of $150. He is also expected to undergo a counselling session conducted by the Ministry. However, Sir, if an offender who has committed a minor littering offence is a recalcitrant offender, then I am afraid he will not be offered a composition fine. Instead, he will be asked to appear in Court and may be liable for a CWO.

Sir, Dr John Chen mentioned that the Bill is designed to shame the offender, and he is right in that. Sir, the aim of the CWO is to reform or rehabilitate the offender so that, hopefully, he will not in future litter again, which otherwise would cause problems to the environment and environmental public health. The form of punishment prescribed in the Bill will serve as a deterrent against littering.

But really, Sir, the bottom line is that one can choose not to litter and this choice is not a difficult one to make. Therefore, anybody who chooses to litter must, at the same time, be prepared to face the consequences.

If we go along with suggestions made by Mr Chin Harn Tong, Encik Ibrahim Othman and a few others, namely, that the offenders be made to carry out the CWO in charitable homes, away from the glare of publicity, then I am afraid the objective of the Bill will be lost. For it to be an effective deterrent, the CWO will have to require the offenders to clean and pick up litter in public places, such as beaches and parks. Of course, offenders on CWO will be supervised by public health inspectors of my Ministry.

With regard to students who litter, my Ministry will be drawing up some guidelines to assist principals. True, Sir, up to this point of time, school principals have not been given guidelines by the Ministry of the Environment to deal with such students. However, I have been made to understand that besides being counselled by the school principals, some of these students are also being made to pick up litter in the school compound.

Dr Chen also wants to know the number of people caught littering this year. Sir, there were about 2,000 littering offenders apprehended in the first seven months of this year. Of this number, Sir, 3% were repeat offenders and another 13% committed serious littering offences. Had the CWO been introduced at the beginning of this year, it would mean that about 16% of littering offenders apprehended in the first seven months of this year would be dealt with under the CWO scheme.

Mr Mohamad Maidin has suggested that if offenders are cleaners themselves, they should be subjected to other forms of punishment, because cleaning is something which they do every day. I will ask my Ministry to look into the suggestion. Maybe they should be made to do something else other than cleaning.

With regard to Mr Ho Peng Kee's suggestion that perhaps those who are carrying out the CWOs should be counselled at the same time, I certainly welcome that suggestion although at this point of time only those who commit minor littering offences and made to pay composition fines will be subjected to counselling. I certainly welcome his idea that even those who are carrying out the CWOs be also counselled by the Ministry. I will certainly take up his suggestion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ahmad Mattar].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.