Debated in Parliament on 13 May 2013.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the number of offenders apprehended and prosecuted since the use of close circuit cameras to monitor high-rise littering was piloted in 2011.
High-rise littering is a dangerous anti-social act. Since 2011, we have installed surveillance cameras in certain hot spots and we have identified 12 suspects who were caught in the act of high-rise littering. So far, five of them have been prosecuted in court, and the courts have imposed fines ranging from $800 to $1,500.
I want to emphasise, however, that surveillance cameras should only be used as a last resort. Our primary line of defence must remain the adoption of personal responsibility and the cultivation of appropriate social norms within our neighbourhoods. NEA will continue to work closely with residents and the Town Councils to deal with this scourge of high-rise littering.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, given the very small numbers that are prosecuted and then given the high numbers of complaints that we are facing, whether the Minister is happy with the performance of the CCTVs currently? Since the Minister mentioned that the use of CCTV alone should not be the main measure to control high-rise littering, what other measures is his Ministry considering to help to curb this high-rise littering issue?
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for that question. The answer is, "No, I am not satisfied with the situation". Just to give Members an idea of scale – we received more than 8,000 complaints of high-rise littering a year. Over the years, the number of cases that have been brought to the Courts would only be single-digit numbers. Ten to 12 a year, maximum. We introduced high-rise surveillance in fact recently, just a year and a half ago, in order to try to improve the probability of being caught. To be honest, I do not think it is high enough. On the other hand, I cannot imagine us having cameras trained on every single HDB block in the island. I do not think that is something that we want.
What else can we do? I think, given the fact that most recent cases were only fined between $800 and $1,500, Members of the House would agree with me that we probably need to review the penalties. The penalties need to be significantly raised.
The other aspect – which is something I am sure Members of the House can identify with – is when we do our block visits, many of us will receive complaints. Most times, people roughly know who the culprits are. But in our traditional Asian way, we do not want to be the finger-pointer. We will have to find a more effective and local way of identifying the culprits and of resolving it at source. I do not think installing cameras is going to be the final solution, or indeed, should it be the primary solution for this problem.
Madam, I thank the Minister for mentioning that the use of CCTVs to monitor littering is to be used only as a last resort. I would like to ask Minister to define what "last resort" is. And what if the littering really amounts to "killer litter" – for example, in some of my blocks at Beach Road where there was real danger and it was a concern for many of the residents?
Usually, the local Member of Parliament is the person who is first aware or is kept informed of the situation. Members of the House would also agree with me, that we usually try at the Town Council level, at the Member of Parliament level, to visit the blocks. We know which column it originates from, and we would knock on every door. If that does not work, they get NEA involved, then NEA would do at least two rounds of knocking on doors and trying to persuade and educate people on the need to be responsible. Only after that is done and if the problem continues, do we then resort to high-rise surveillance cameras.
Even then, our current SOP is that we will send a letter to all the households to say we are putting up a camera; so we are not trying to invade your privacy. We even go so far as to tell people exactly when we are doing that. In quite a significant number of cases, once the cameras are up, everything is fine. Then when the cameras are down, some cases resume − the bad habits − and in which case, NEA would have to go back and put it on again. We are reviewing the SOP. For second and third deployments, we will probably not have to reveal exactly when it is up, in order to have a greater deterrent effect. Right now, we see irate emails from complainants. They say, "This is ridiculous! You put up the cameras and you tell everybody exactly where and when you are putting it up. The person will naturally make sure he does not litter at that point, and then he resumes after that."
So, yes, we will make some changes, but I still want to emphasise that this cat-and-mouse game cannot be the real solution. We need more effective assumption of personal responsibilities and we need local action, on the ground by people who are living there and who know who the culprits are.
Having said that, there is also a very small minority who, frankly, have mental problems. Even their family members are aware of it, and have sometimes reached the end of their limits. In those cases, what they really need is psychiatric help and treatment, and it is not a matter of penalties and photographing them on camera.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, out of the 12 suspects and the five charged, how many of them are from owner-occupied flats, how many are tenants, and are they foreigners or Singaporeans? The other question is: apart from a fine, are those who are charged made to do compulsory community service through Corrective Work Orders (CWOs)?
I am sorry I do not have the breakdown of the 12 cases on nationality and whether they are rental or owner-occupied. If the Member wants to, I can check on that. But I do not have the data here. The larger question the Member has raised is the range of penalties available. Just now, Ms Phua asked what happens if it is killer-litter? In fact, if you go through our regulatory regime, in extremis, HDB can even acquire your flat so that you are not ever in a position to be able to throw any killer-litter. But this is a very extreme position. Sometimes, we, in fact, need a spectrum of penalties which makes it easier or less restrictive when the agencies need to take action against them. So, this all-or-nothing approach is not ideal as far as enforcement is concerned.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, besides using CCTV, is there any other technology that can be used? Very often, we see very unsightly sanitary pads being thrown down, diapers being thrown down; if other technologies like DNA testing and so on can be utilised. The next question is: I also understand that catching the culprit is not easy because you need to identify him and a witness must be sure of the face or the hand which threw the litter. Can we change the regulation in such a way that so long as the litter comes from that unit, you can take action; similar to how we penalise speeding traffic offenders?
I thank Er Lee for her suggestions. I think we will have to look at this carefully. It would involve legislative changes. As far as DNA testing is concerned, the answer is, technically, it is possible. But even if I do DNA analysis on the sanitary napkin, in order to pin it to the culprit, it means I have got to have a DNA database on everyone living in the block. So, technically possible, but I think this really takes – how shall I put it – intrusive surveillance to new heights.
Ms Phua, last question.
Minister, I would like to ask if you could re-install the CCTV for the land between Blocks 4 and 5 Beach Road. It is not soiled diapers or sanitary pads; it is beer bottles, so it is really killer-litter. So, I would appreciate some action on that.
We will look into it.
PAPERCUTS