"KILLER-LITTER" PROBLEM

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the "killer-litter" problem and while education and penalties are accepted forms of deterrence, whether he will also consider other solutions such as building canopies around the building at the first storey so that any falling object will not fall directly on any person below.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member's suggestion of building canopies along the perimeter at the first storey of every HDB block may not be a very practical one, because they may instead pose other problems, such as security risk to apartment units on the second floor.

However, I wish to inform the Member that HDB will continue to look into ways to improve the design of our public housing estates with a view to minimising this problem. Recent improvements include provision of proper covered entrance porches at each HDB block and covered linkways within the estates, which offer some degree of protection to HDB residents.

More importantly, I would like to stress that design solutions alone cannot prevent killer litter. The root cause of the problem is the lack of civic consciousness among a small minority of HDB residents. For these residents who continue to ignore the public education messages and display blatant disregard for the safety of their fellow residents, HDB will take strong enforcement action as provided for in our legislation. This includes compulsory acquisition of a sold HDB flat when the lessee, his spouse or authorised occupier is convicted of a killer litter offence.

In the light of the recent spate of killer litter incidents and the public discussion and feedback generated, my Ministry, together with the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs, has decided to review the current legislation on killer litter offences to reinforce the legal infrastructure to complement our public education efforts. Meanwhile, we will continue to educate the public on the dangers of killer litter. The HDB, Town Councils and the grassroots organisations will impress upon HDB residents that they have a civic responsibility to their fellow HDB residents. Ultimately, everyone has a part to play in making our HDB estates a safer place to live in.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, there have been a lot of discussions in the papers about compulsory acquisition of flats. Does the Minister not think that the compulsory acquisition of a HDB flat is a bit too severe, because it punishes the family members who are innocent, rather than the offender himself? He has also said that he would review the range of penalties. Has the review been completed?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, first of all, on whether the penalties are too harsh, I think it is probably useful for us to remember that the victims of such offences are also suffering very severely. Killer litter offences, whether committed by the lessees or committed by members of their households, can injure, maim and even kill. As to whether the punishment is too harsh, in certain cases where such offences are committed deliberately, blatantly or where it is a case of a recalcitrant offence, I do not think anyone would disagree if we were to compulsorily acquire the flats.

However, I do grant that there may be other instances where such a penalty may be too severe, and this is the reason why I explained earlier that the various Ministries involved will do a review of the offences. The objective of this review is to make sure that the penalties for killer litter are strong but fair. We need to make sure that the penalties do act as a severe deterrence against future killer litter offences, because I think we do owe a responsibility to the other residents in HDB estates. After all, 86% or almost nine out of 10 Singaporeans live in HDB estates.

On the other hand, the penalties must be seen to be fair. To achieve this, we will look at the penalties to make sure that they are commensurate with the nature of such offences and yet be flexible enough for the punishments to be calibrated according to the severity of the offence.

Currently, a person who commits killer litter offences can be prosecuted by the police under the Penal Code. Under the Penal Code provisions against rash or negligent acts, the maximum sentence ranges from an imprisonment term of 3 months to 2 years and/or maximum fines from $250 to $1,000, depending on the gravity of the offence. There is no cap on fines for rash acts resulting in death.

The Ministry of Home Affairs will be introducing a specific provision in the Penal Code that targets at killer litter offences. This is different from the general provisions against rash and negligent acts under which killer litter offenders are currently prosecuted. Under the specific provision for killer litter offences, the maximum penalties will be enhanced to give the courts greater flexibility to mete out stiffer punishments on the offenders, if necessary.

The introduction of a specific and enhanced punishment in the Penal Code recognises the community's strong stand against killer litter. These new provisions for killer litter offences will form part of a review which MHA is currently doing of the Penal Code.

In addition to the court's punishment on killer litter offenders, the HDB, as the public housing authority, has a responsibility to help maintain public safety in HDB estates. Currently, under the Housing and Development Act, the HDB is empowered to compulsorily acquire a HDB flat if, as I said earlier, the convicted killer litter offender is either the lessee, the spouse or an authorised occupier above the age of 14. Depending on the gravity of the offence, the HDB can issue a final written warning in lieu of compulsory acquisition.

Feedback from Members of this House and from members of the public suggest that such a measure may be too harsh on the rest of the family, especially if the offender is not a flat lessee but an authorised occupier. HDB, as the landlord and public housing authority, has the responsibility to promptly move a recalcitrant killer litter offender out of a high-rise HDB flat, as he poses a threat to public safety. It is on this basis that the HDB's compulsory acquisition power is justified.

The HDB will continue to compulsorily acquire HDB flats of very serious or recalcitrant killer litter offenders. In other words, compulsory acquisition as provided for in the Act will remain. Such an offender will be debarred for five years from buying or renting another HDB flat.

For cases which are serious but not severe enough to warrant compulsory acquisition, the HDB will require the offender and his household to sell their flat and move out within six months. In order not to deprive the family of a roof over their heads, the offender will be allowed to buy or rent a ground or first floor HDB flat. However, he will not be permitted to buy or rent a HDB flat above the first floor for at least three years from the date of eviction. This is for cases which do not warrant compulsory acquisition.

For less serious cases, HDB will issue a final written warning to the offender. And if the offence is repeated, then HDB will take compulsory acquisition action. These are the various levels of actions that HDB will take, depending on the severity of the offence. The objective of these different levels of severity is, in the ultimate, to make sure that the offender does not remain in the flat and does not have an opportunity to commit the offence again.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, does the Minister think that it is equitable to all Singaporeans, in terms of compulsory acquisition of HDB flat for killer littler offence? If a killer litter offender lives in a private condominium, is there any law that his private condominium unit can be acquired as well?

Secondly, there could be a situation where the killer litter offender is a mental patient. In such a case, would the HDB consider moving the offender down to ground floor to solve the problem?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, the Member asked, firstly, whether it is equitable for killer litter offenders to lose their flats. Again, I must qualify that it depends on the severity of the offence. If the person is a very serious offender, a recalcitrant or repeat offender, then under the revised guidelines, he will lose his flat. Under such circumstance, I do not think any member of the public will feel that this is unjustified.

On the question whether a person in a private housing estate will also be similarly evicted, the answer is no, for the simple reason that the HDB does not have powers. The Housing and Development Act does not confer any powers on the HDB to move into a private property. Private properties are managed by their own management corporations under the Land Titles (Strata) Act. However, if there is an offender in a private estate and if that person is convicted, he will be subject to the specific provisions which the Ministry of Home Affairs will be promulgating. In other words, if you throw something down in a private condominium and you are caught and convicted, you will face the same severe penalties. Whether you are in a private or public estate, you will be subject to the same laws.

However, as to whether his flat will be taken back, I think that is a separate matter. As I explained earlier, HDB is doing this because it has a responsibility to its residents. It does not stop or prevent management corporations from taking similar action against offenders in their estates. It is entirely up to them. So there is no question of whether it is fair or not.

On the second point he raised about mental patients, first of all, it is up to the police whether such a person will be prosecuted. The police has the discretion whether to bring such a person to court or not, depending on the investigations. It is difficult for us to say that when a person claims insanity, therefore he cannot be prosecuted. If we were to accept that, then everybody will claim insanity. So it is really up to the police who does the investigations and who decides whether such a plea is justified or not, or whether that person should be brought to court. Having made the decision, then it is left to the courts to decide whether that accused person is guilty or not and, if so, to mete out the relevant punishment. It is only when the person is convicted that HDB has the power to then decide what to do. Here, HDB now has a range of options to decide whether to acquire the flat immediately, to evict the person and allow him six months to leave, to sell the flat and to buy a flat on a lower floor or, if need be, to just issue a final warning. These are the various options the HDB will have. Compulsory acquisition is not the only option that will be available to HDB.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta-Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this more calibrated approach to killer-litter offences by MND as well as MHA. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in the light of this approach, the Housing and Development Act could be reviewed to raise the maximum penalty from $1,000 to $5,000, same as the penalty imposed by the Town Council, for the non-penal offences.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I would like to acknowledge that the Member has actually pointed this out to the Ministry and I wish to inform him that immediate action would be taken to regularise and harmonise these two provisions to make sure that there is no confusion. In other words, when such an offence is committed, both the Town Council and the HDB can act either separately or together.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that before the HDB compulsorily acquires the property, the offender is taken to court and punished. Does the Minister realise that this is double jeopardy, which is wholly wrong in principle?

The other question that I have is the one raised by the Member for Hougang, which I was going to ask. Is the Minister not discriminating between a dweller in public housing and a dweller in a private flat? Why the discrimination? If it is bad in one case it is bad in the other. The Government can acquire that flat and sell it. Why is he showing discrimination? May I have short answers?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: The short answer to the second question is that the Government is not discriminating. When a person is convicted of a killer litter offence, whether he is staying in a private condominium or he is staying in a HDB estate, he goes to jail or he is fined, whichever the case is, and the level of penalties meted out will be the same irrespective of where he stays. So where is the discrimination?

In so far as the action taken by HDB is concerned, this is entirely a matter between the landlord, which in this case is the HDB, and the lessee. It is surely the responsibility of the HDB as the landlord, in the same way that it will be the responsibility of a management corporation of a private estate, to make sure that the safety of the residents in its estate is safeguarded. I do not see what is wrong with that. It is entirely within the rights of HDB to make sure that the residents who live in HDB estates can walk around in comfort and safety. So by moving the person from a high-rise flat to a low-rise flat to make sure that that person does not repeat the offence is an eminently reasonable thing to do.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister has not answered my question. Does it not infringe the double jeopardy rule?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: These are two entirely separate matters. One is the conviction by the court.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But you are punishing the person twice.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: We are not punishing the person twice. Firstly, he is punished in a court of law. Secondly, he has violated a condition of the lease between the landlord and the lessee. If he is in a private estate, similarly if he violates any of the conditions of the lease, he can be kicked out.