CORRECTIVE WORK ORDER (Number of first offenders)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Acting Minister for the Environment how many first offenders were served with Corrective Work Order since the amendment to the Environmental Public Health Act came into effect.

The Acting Minister for the Environment (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Corrective Work Order (CWO) was introduced in November 1992. Those convicted of a serious littering offence will be liable for CWOs issued by the court, even if they are first-time offenders. A serious littering offence includes littering with a large object, eg, a drink can, a packet of food, a cigarette pack, etc. Minor littering offences, such as littering with cigarette butts, bus tickets, etc. can be compounded with a fine of $150 after the offender attends a counselling session. However, if a person who has committed a minor littering offence is a repeat offender, then he will be liable for CWO.

From November 1992 to now, out of 13,631 littering offenders, 921 or 6.8% were issued with CWOs. Of the number of CWO offenders, 737 were first offenders charged with serious littering offences. The remaining 184 were repeat offenders.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Is the Acting Minister aware that during the Budget debate the then Minister for the Environment reiterated that the purpose of CWO was for recalcitrant offenders. How does he classify "recalcitrant" offenders? For a first time offender, can he say that he is recalcitrant?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, as I have already mentioned just now in my answer, we apply CWOs to persons convicted or charged with a second or more littering offence and also on those persons who have committed serious littering offences. I think that Singaporeans know littering is an offence and there is no excuse for not knowing that littering is an offence. I had learned that in school since I was in my short pants 30 years ago. So I do not think any Singaporean can claim that he does not know that littering is an offence. That being the case, I think there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to litter in Singapore. For those who choose to be socially irresponsible and litter indiscriminately, then they should face the penalty. I do not really understand why Mr Low seems to be taking the side of those who are socially irresponsible.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: While I agree with what the Acting Minister has said that no one should condone littering, I am concerned with the spirit and intention of the Bill passed by Parliament. As I mentioned just now ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, no speeches. Ask your question.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: My question is whether the Ministry would consider it fair to issue CWOs to first offenders because the public understands that the CWOs are for recalcitrant offenders. It is a well-known fact that anyone who litters will be fined. But would it not be unfair to the first offenders by issuing them the CWOs?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, as I have explained, repeat offenders are subject to CWO. First-time offenders, who are serious offenders, are also subject to CWO. If there is any doubt about that, I hope that this clarifies it completely.

Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure why Mr Low seems to be taking the side of those who are socially irresponsible as compared to the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans. Only 921 persons were issued with CWOs since November 1992. There are three million other Singaporeans who are quite socially conscious and civic-minded persons who would want to see a clean and green environment.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, let us not side-step the issue. Does the Acting Minister agree that, while people who litter should be punished, the understanding of many people is that first-time offenders would be fined instead of being issued with CWOs? Many of them are not aware that if they are first-time offenders they could also be issued with CWOs. I have such a case.

My second supplementary question is: how does he classify an offence as serious or minor? And why does he say that a first-time offender who commits a serious offence, eg, throwing a drink can, as mentioned by the Acting Minister, is considered a recalcitrant offender? How does he justify that?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I think I have already explained quite clearly when people are subject to CWOs. Serious offences are subject to CWOs. Throwing a can is considered a serious offence. Those who have repeat offences, even though they are minor offences, are also subject to CWOs. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not understand why Mr Low seems to be taking the side of those who are not civic-minded.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: First of all, I have no quarrel with people who are punished under the law for littering. I do not want to repeat myself as to why I asked that question. The issue now is on the first offenders.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Low, can you make your point?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: My question is: if a first offender - we are talking about first offender - throws a bus ticket and another person drops two bus tickets, which one of them will be issued with CWO? The act was done at the same time.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, my public health inspectors will use their discretion. And also if we bring them to court, the court will decide. But I wish to reiterate that there is absolutely no excuse for any Singaporean to claim that he does not know that littering is an offence. As I said, since 30 years ago when I was in my short pants, I knew that littering was an offence. We teach them in our schools, we teach them in our kindergartens, and to try to make excuses for people who litter from punishment, which I think is well deserved, is really a very strange position for Mr Low to take.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Acting Minister agree that the CWO, as mentioned by the then Minister for the Environment, was for the purpose of punishing recalcitrant offenders? Does he agree with that?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained quite clearly the circumstances under which CWO will be applied.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Under what circumstances would the Acting Minister consider or presume a first offender as recalcitrant?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I am not sure how I can explain this better. I have already said that a serious littering offence, even for the first offence, is subject to CWO.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, how does the Ministry of the Environment classify clearly what is a serious offence? Was it published? How do you classify? I think we have got to make it clear to the public so that they can be deterred from committing serious offence.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I hardly think that is Mr Low's purpose, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Low is just simply making excuses for people who ought to be appropriately punished when they commit littering offences.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have no objection to people being punished for littering. My question is whether it is fair to people who do not know that they will be punished with CWOs under the Act even though they are first offenders. Secondly, would the Acting Minister consider it fair to presume that first offenders are recalcitrant offenders? Is it fair?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think through the efforts of Mr Low and others, the press, and so forth, CWO is very well publicised in Singapore. Fines for littering are very well publicised in Singapore. They are even the butt of jokes in other countries about Singapore. So to claim that any Singaporean does not know that he faces penalties if he litters is really quite amazing to me. And all these sound to me like excuses that Mr Low is making for a particular case which he may have of someone who has been socially irresponsible, has littered, and caused a nuisance to the majority of Singaporeans. More than 99% of Singaporeans have not encountered any such difficulties. They are civic-conscious; they want to see their city clean; they want to see their country clean and green. And I do not see why Mr Low keeps on defending them.

Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Low, you seem to be labouring on the same points. Do you have something new to add? If not, we move on to the next question.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes. Does the Acting Minister agree that while we should not condone litterbugs and also to punish them ---

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: We do not condone.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: --- we should also be fair in administering the legislation in accordance with the spirit it is passed by Parliament? And I do not think the Minister has answered my question on how he presumes a first offender as recalcitrant. Would the Minister like to further clarify and would he like to publish to the press under what circumstances will littering be classified as serious offences, so that Singaporeans are aware that they can be issued with CWO even if they are first offenders? Will the Minister agree with that?

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, it is the same question that you are asking again.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: No. I am asking whether the Acting Minister will publish in the press because I think a lot of people do not know.

Mr Speaker: I think you have asked the question already and the answer has been given. Unless the Minister has something to add, I propose to move on to the next question. RAdm Teo.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I have nothing to add.