Statistics and Further Measures on High-rise Littering

Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the trend of high-rise littering over the last three years; (b) how effective have NEA's enforcement actions been in arresting the culprits; and (c) whether there are plans to further improve the high-rise littering situation.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the situation of high-rise littering in housing estates has worsened; and (b) whether there can be a greater deterrence if the public is able to report and submit visual evidence to NEA similar to how the public can now report errant PMD users.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the past year, how many reports from the public have been received and how many of such reports have resulted in prosecution of the culprit on environmental issues such as littering and dumping; (b) what is the standard protocol for NEA to handle such reports; and (c) when the identity of the perpetrator is known, how long will enforcement action take.

Thank you. NEA received about 26,000 and 2,700 reports of littering and indiscriminate disposal of bulky items in public places respectively in 2018. Enforcement action is taken when there is substantiated evidence.

To this end, NEA first assesses whether sufficient leads are available from the feedback before investigating further. As part of the investigation process, NEA may interview witnesses and suspects, and conduct stakeouts and patrols to identify the offender and ascertain culpability. Cameras may also be deployed, where feasible, to monitor the situation and aid investigations. Once sufficient evidence against the offender is collected, enforcement action will be taken. Depending on the complexity of the case and the response time of the feedback provider and suspected offender, this process generally takes between 10 weeks to six months for most cases.

In 2018, NEA took about 39,000 enforcement actions against littering in public places, and another 30 for the unlawful disposal of bulky items in public places.

To the Members' questions on high-rise littering in particular, more than 7,700 reports of such offences were made to the NEA between 2016 and 2018. These figures have remained relatively stable over the past few years, hovering between 2,300 and 2,800 each year. In most cases, the situation improved following outreach efforts conducted by NEA, Town Councils, and grassroots organisations to caution residents against committing such acts.

However, there are some who persist with such inconsiderate acts despite our education efforts. To address this, NEA has, since 2012, deployed surveillance cameras with video analytics to catch offenders in the act. These cameras have contributed significantly to improving NEA’s enforcement effort. Between August 2012 and December 2018, more than 2,200 offenders were caught for high-rise littering, of whom 52 were repeat offenders.

Stiff penalties are in place to deter high-rise littering. First-time offenders can be fined up to $2,000 for each offence, whilst recalcitrant offenders face fines of up to $10,000 or Corrective Work Order (CWO) in addition to, or in lieu of, a fine upon conviction. Last year, about 2,600 CWOs were issued for all littering offences. Since May this year, NEA has also introduced standees with CWO-related information during CWO sessions and revamped the design of the CWO vest which offenders don to raise public awareness about CWO, increasing the deterrent effect.

The public can report high-rise littering offences through various channels. Members of the public can call NEA's hotline or submit information or evidence of an offence such as photos and video footage through the myENV mobile application.

While we have laws to deter littering and other environmental offences, it is more important that we foster collective responsibility for our environment and cultivate positive social norms. To this end, the NEA has been working closely with the Public Hygiene Council and partners of the "Keep Singapore Clean" movement to inculcate the habit of keeping our homes and neighbourhoods clean.

Significant resources are devoted to engaging a wide range of stakeholders, including residents, schools, communities, grassroots organisations, private and public organisations, as well as foreign workers. Many of them conduct ground-up activities such as litter-picking activities, beach and park clean-ups, and cleaner appreciation days, reflecting the whole-of-society approach needed to keep our public places clean. Residents should also bin their litter properly and contact their Town Councils for assistance in disposing of bulky waste items if they are staying in public estates.

The Government will continue with our efforts to develop greater environmental stewardship, but we cannot do it alone. Every one of us must do our part to keep Singapore a clean, green and sustainable home for our future generations.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. My residents have complained about high-rise littering but, somehow or other, the solution does not seem to be there. I wonder, of the 52 repeat offenders, how many did NEA refer to the Corrective Work Order. Would NEA be open to working with HDB to repossess the flats of recalcitrant high-rise litterers because, really, they pose a danger to the rest of the residents who are just there waiting to be hurt. The recent incident whereby a man died due to high-rise littering, that is something that is cause for concern for many innocent people who are walking around on the ground floor wondering whether a "missile" from above will hit them. I hope NEA can clarify and impose a stricter punishment against those who are recalcitrant.

As I have said, there are very stiff penalties for high-rise littering and the fine for repeat offenders for the third and subsequent offence is $10,000 per enforcement action upon conviction. In addition, of course, a CWO can be issued.

I do not have specific numbers of the 52 repeat offenders that had gone for CWO. I would assume it is quite a number, but I can give the specific number to the Member separately . As regards to working with HDB, actually there are provisions under the HDB legislation but these are extreme measures and we really need to consider all factors before the relevant authority can make a decision on this. So, I would not say that definitely this is an avenue that we will take, but it is something that is an available option depending on the factors of the case. Such as if it is killer litter, it is under the Penal Code, and the Police will investigate, and it is even harsher penalties.

Sir, the Member mentioned about the recent unfortunate incident where a man was fatally struck by a falling glass bottle at a condominium, and the Police took swift action and made an arrest all in about 10 days, likely with the help of forensic capabilities that the agency have. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether can NEA also have that kind of resources and, hence, the efficacy and urgency to deal with some of these situations, some of which are actually fatal near misses as well? With that kind of capabilities, they can better deter as well as increase the chances of catching litter bugs at our estates.

First, let me say that I offer my condolences to the family of the victim who passed away due to killer-litter at Spottiswoode 18 condominium.

With regard to the length of time we take to investigate, which is what the Member is asking about, as the Member has rightly pointed out, we need to take prompt action. But having said that, we also need to make sure that our investigations are thorough and accurate so that we do not wrongfully prosecute a person. Therefore, there are processes put in place that we need to follow. Just let me put this in context.

First of all, NEA oversees a wide spectrum of enforcement offences, of which littering is one. That, of course, includes high-rise littering. In particular, for littering, we receive about 26,000 reports of such incidents per year. With such a large volume of cases and the fact that, of course, resources are not unlimited, we will have to prioritise. So, we do prioritise based on the severity of the littering offence, the type of litter and so on, to take action and investigate.

Having said that, let me also explain. I said enforcement action takes at least 10 weeks in general. The reason is because this is actually for the entire enforcement workflow, from the time we receive the feedback to investigation, to prosecuting. When we receive the feedback, first of all, we will need at least one week to verify the information, contact the feedback provider to get witness' statement, for instance. Then, we would need to decide if we can and should deploy camera surveillance and, if there is a positive hit, we would need to identify the flat owner, for instance, in HRL, interview them as well as the suspects and we need to give a two-week notice in order to get the flat owners and the suspect to be interviewed to take statements. All these will take about four to six weeks. After that, if there is firm evidence, we need to initiate the enforcement proceedings and that takes another three to five weeks. That is where the 10 weeks is coming from.

But in some instances where we have very specific intelligence and very clear evidence, and it is easy to establish the identity of the suspect, for instance, we could take less than 10 weeks to clear the case. So, it really depends. Then, in other cases when it is complex where multiple owners are involved where multiple rounds of surveillance cameras have to be deployed, it could take longer.

We do prioritise our cases and it also depends on the urgency as well as, of course, the evidence available. I would like to urge members of the public that if you do have evidence or information available regarding specific littering incidents, please provide that to us because that will facilitate and shorten our investigation process.

Sir, I have four supplementary questions. Very often, I receive replies from NEA that they carry out stakeouts when there is feedback. But as far as I can remember, there was zero success. Not a single time, they staked out and they managed to catch someone. At MPC@Khatib, because of lots of littering, there were CCTVs installed but there was no viewing. It is still a lot of littering. Only when I told NEA, "Why don't you view the CCTV?", that they viewed the CCTVs and managed to put five faces and tried to catch them. So, I would like to ask if NEA is reviewing its enforcement process and how to be more proactive and diligent in carrying out enforcement.

My second question is: there have been several high-rise littering of sanitary pads for many years. Until today, it is still not solved. Why? Because NEA deploys CCTV only for a few days and the problem persists. If you have a targeted ambition to catch the culprit, I am sure you would be able to catch him. Otherwise, it looks like this problem will only disappear when the litter bug "menopauses!"

The third question is whether NEA is short of CCTVs. How many CCTVs does NEA have?

And the last question: very often, my residents give feedback about their neighbours smoking along corridors, at the staircase and then, later on, littering the cigarette butts everywhere. If they are willing to come forward to give statements, is NEA willing to take enforcement action?

With regard to stakeouts, no success, in August 2012, as I have said earlier, we started deploying surveillance cameras. Since then, the number of successful enforcement actions has increased about 120 times. So, in 2011, the number of successful enforcement actions was about 10. Last year, in 2018, it was more than 1,200. So, the deployment of the surveillance cameras has helped us significantly. As you know, with stakeouts, you cannot be there 24/7. So, it really depends on intelligence from the ground for such effective stakeouts.

But having said that, I think the deployment of surveillance cameras is really not the panacea. Surveillance cameras themselves obviously have some limitations, for instance, whether you can find suitable vantage points that you can put them and, of course, safeguarding the privacy of the residents.

How effective we are with the surveillance cameras also depends on the information given. For instance, in the case of the sanitary pad issue that the Member talked about for a specific block in Yishun, the information given to us was just a photo of the sanitary pad with no other information about where it is likely to come from and so on. Therefore, for very high blocks, it is very hard even with a surveillance camera because we may not be able to train the cameras at the appropriate floors because the cameras do have a limit as to how many floors they can cover. Therefore, for this particular case, we have deployed the cameras multiple times and, the last time, in August, with no results. So, if the Member is referring to that. But we will continue to see what we can do together. Also, as I have said before, we cannot just depend on enforcement alone. It has to be coupled with community engagement and education.

Just let me give Members an example. Last year, there was a pilot project which my parliamentary colleague Ms Sun Xueling also mentioned earlier in this House, which is with Ang Mo Kio. It is a High-rise Littering/Pigeon Feeding Pilot Project that was carried out for two blocks of flats that had persistent issues with high-rise littering and pigeon feeding. Through a combination of very proactive engagement by the grassroots organisations, together with the Town Council, NEA and MSO, the grassroots formed a community watch group that actually went to engage every resident in the two blocks to raise awareness about the issue. MSO actually came up with a whole new set of publicity materials, including standees, to raise awareness about the issue too, and also to inform the residents about the number of people caught in that area for high-rise littering together, of course, with active enforcement. So, we put up surveillance cameras. That has improved the situation in that area significantly, in fact, from 21 cases in the previous six months to about nine cases. So, they are planning to roll out this programme to the rest of the GRC in the coming months.

As high-rise littering and pigeon feeding are human actions and require a change in mindset and behaviour, the long-term solution and a more sustainable approach must be greater community involvement, of course, facilitated or complemented by enforcement actions.

On CCTVs, as I have said, resources are never unlimited. But having said that, we will deploy surveillance cameras where it is possible and where it needs to be done. On the duration of deployments, as I have said, even in one of the Yishun blocks, we have deployed the cameras multiple times. As far as the Khatib case is concerned, initially, when the CCTVs were deployed, they were actually done by the Yishun Town Council, if I am not mistaken. We worked together with the Town Council because this is their basketball court and the problem is generally from the basketball players and there was outreach and education. It did not work. So, last year, NEA came in with our own surveillance cameras and we managed to catch one last year and four this year. We will continue to work with the Member's constituency on this.

As to smoking and evidence, as I have said in my reply earlier and also in my appeal that if you do have information, whether it is video footage or photos and so on, you can submit to us. But the feedback provider must be willing to be a witness if there is a need to be in Court.

Sir, I think the problem is the surveillance cameras. So, I want to ask whether we are going to improve the surveillance cameras. I also want to share that where I stay, I do have a neighbour that was throwing cigarette butts almost every other day. NEA did deploy the surveillance camera there. But for that week, this resident could see there was a surveillance camera, so the person did not throw any cigarette butts. We could not catch anyone. The minute they removed the camera, the next day, the cigarette butts started to appear again.

So, the problem might be our surveillance cameras are so big that the offenders can see them, they do not litter and that is why we do not catch anyone. We have limited cameras and they cannot be deployed all the time. So, the question is: can we improve the surveillance cameras? Make them smaller so that people cannot see them and then we might be able to catch more people and we do not need to wait for the resident to reach menopause.

First, let me correct the Member. It is not that we did not catch anyone. As I have said, I think the effectiveness has improved. But the idea is to try and change behaviours. So, it is a longer term solution and we want to encourage considerate socially responsible behaviour and civic-mindedness. That should be the priority and not to catch as many people as possible.

If the person can be rehabilitated, why not? If he sees the camera and he stops littering, I think that is a good enough deterrent effect.

Having said that, I agree. We do continue to look out for better technologies which are suitable for investigating our high-rise littering incidences, including, of course, cameras, whether it is smaller cameras, more effective cameras in terms of image resolution, detection capabilities, better video analytics programme, we are doing that. And if we can find something, definitely, we will look at trying it out.

Sir, the Senior Minister of State described the 10-week process to nab the culprit of the high-rise littering and so on. But the fact of the matter is that the Police take about 10 days to arrest the suspect. So, there must be something that they have done that can expedite this whole process. Perhaps, NEA should look at how the Police have done it and, maybe, reduce the pain points that NEA officers have to face trying to find the culprit.

As I have said earlier, there is a need to prioritise, depending on the public health risks and so on. I think the Police also do the same thing.

Sir, I have two questions. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that I only gave the photograph of the sanitary pad. If this is what your staff told you, then it is not true. I even took a photo of the stack of the windows. So, in fact, it is well-known which stack of the windows it came from.

Next, if CCTV is deployed many times because it is a five-day cycle, who has menstruation in five-day cycles. So, I would like to ask whether NEA would use DNA to catch the culprits.

The next question is that, there are surveillance cameras in the covered basketball court at MPC@Khatib. How often do you view the surveillance camera? Recently, four have been caught because I told NEA, "Quickly go and view because it is so dirty. You have surveillance camera but you never view." Then, they managed to show five pictures. So, four were identified and caught. So, I would like to ask how often these surveillance cameras are being viewed.

First, with regard to the photos, that was what I was given to understand. But, as I have also said, we have actually deployed cameras for that particular block multiple times. Which means that, at the end of the day, we do have some idea of where the stack is and it could be additional information that the Member has given. But having said that, if you deploy a camera for a certain period of time and you cannot catch the culprits, then obviously, you have to review whether it is the camera's positioning or whether it is the right stack or the right floor levels and so on, before you re-deploy again. And that is a process that we go through for all kinds of high-rise littering offences.

With regards to DNA, I think we have answered this in Parliament before. First of all, when the litter comes down onto the ground, it is unlikely it is the DNA of the culprit alone that will be there. So, it will be very difficult. At least, as far as we know, the technology involved – I am not referring specifically to sanitary pads – but we are talking about in general. There will be many other DNA involved. So, that is where we are.