Question by Mr Thiam Poh:

To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many cases of high-rise littering are reported in 2015; (b) what is the number of resultant injuries and deaths; and (c) whether the current measures to deter high-rise littering are satisfactory.

Reply by SMS :

In 2015, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received some 2,800 reports of high-rise littering. High-rise littering is an anti-social act and offence that can pose a threat to public health and safety. NEA has been working with the Town Councils and grassroots organisations to remind residents of the dangers of high-rise littering. In addition to the reports received by NEA, SPF’s records showed that in 2015, 2 persons were arrested for throwing killer litter which resulted in hurt. SPF did not receive any reports of death from killer litter in 2015.

2 Due to the nature of the offence, high-rise litterbugs are traditionally difficult to apprehend. When feedback on high-rise littering is received, outreach and education efforts to caution residents against high- rise littering will be conducted by my Ministry, the Town Councils and grassroots organisations, and in most cases the situation will improve after these efforts. However, in cases of persistent high-rise littering, NEA will deploy surveillance cameras once a suitable deployment site has been identified.

3 NEA has stepped up the deployment of these cameras over the years and has conducted close to 3,000 deployments since August 2012. Last year, NEA took more than 800 enforcement actions against high-rise litterbugs, an eighty-fold increase compared to 2011, when the surveillance cameras had not been introduced yet. Offenders who were prosecuted in Court received fines ranging from $700 to $5,600.

4 NEA will continue to tackle high-rise littering by deploying surveillance cameras and secure the conviction of high-rise litterbugs. While the effective conviction of high-rise litterbugs will serve as a deterrent to would-be offenders, I would like to urge every member of the public to play his part to cultivate social graciousness, good habits, and a sense of shared responsibility for the cleanliness and safety of our neighbourhoods.

Supplementary Question by Ms :

Thank you SMS for the answer. I would like to ask about recalcitrant high-rise litterbugs, would the Ministry consider imposing a certain limit whereby if they have exceeded a certain number of times they were caught for littering, that harsher measures beyond just fines will be imposed on them. For example, in very extreme cases, the confiscation of their flats. Because I believe there are some cases which the litterbug has been really recalcitrant despite the many, fines already imposed on the person.

And also, one of the issues is that the high-rise litterbugs continue to do it on a daily basis thinking that they can get away with it. So, whether the Ministry will consider revealing the identity of litterbugs who may be caught on cameras, so that perhaps the grassroots can follow-up with these persons more specifically to make sure or to persuade the persons not to do so in the future. Thank you.

Reply by SMS Amy Khor:

I would like to thank the Member for her question and suggestions.

Firstly, for recalcitrant litterbugs, to consider if we should cap the limit of the fine imposed – for high-rise litterbugs, the fine is not compounded. They have to attend Court and the Court will decide on the fines to be enforced. But certainly this is something we can follow up on.

Regarding the acquisition of property, I think we need to carefully consider this. In most instances, in fact since we started the implementation of surveillance cameras, as I have noted earlier, we have been able to effectively enforce on a significant number of litterbugs. So last year, for instance, more than 800 enforcement actions were taken. And we hope that this would be a deterrence. In fact, before we even deploy surveillance cameras, we actually undertake education and outreach efforts, including house-to- house visits. In most cases, the littering would stop or the numbers improve.

Having said that, for recalcitrant offenders, we have to also look at the facts of each case. In cases where it may be due to mental issues, we work closely with the grassroots and the family members to see what assistance can be rendered, as well as, to implement measures to ensure or prevent this littering from happening again. So I think we need to look at each case, and be mindful that some of these may be due to specific issues.

Supplementary Question by Er Dr :

I would like to ask how many surveillance cameras NEA has, and how long does it take to deploy them for surveillance cases. The reason I am asking this is because there are many near-miss cases. Residents would show me their clothes that have been burnt by cigarette butts, but whenever I asked for action, NEA officers would say they ambushed, and then they would tell me that they did not catch anyone. So I have the impression that NEA did not have sufficient surveillance cameras and it took a long time for them to deploy. Thank you.

Reply by SMS Amy Khor:

In response to the rising number of high-rise littering feedback, we have done a number of things. Firstly of course, we have stepped up our outreach and education efforts. And secondly, we have increased the number of camera deployments, since the adoption of this method to catch persistent high-rise litterbugs in 2012. We have increased the number of camera deployment by more than four times to close to 3,000 over the last three years. In fact, just last year alone, there were more than 1,000 camera deployments. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground to see if we need to deploy more cameras.

But let me assure the Member that we will deploy a surveillance camera when it is assessed that there is a need to do so, for example, when our outreach and education efforts do not resolve the problem. Notwithstanding the fact that resources are ultimately finite, and like everyone else, we do experience a resource constraint too, if there is a need and it is feasible to deploy the camera, we will do so.

With regards to the time required to deploy the cameras, normally, upon confirmation of the need to deploy the camera, we can install it as soon as four days from the date of confirmation. We need the time to do a detailed site assessment, to determine the feasibility of the installation of the camera, as well as to further study where is the best position or vantage point to deploy the camera to increase the success rate of catching the high-rise littering act, while safeguarding the privacy of residents around.

Supplementary Question by Mr

I thank SMS for her answers, and I concur with my parliamentary colleagues that this is a big concern. In Clementi, some of my residents have had cigarette butts going into their homes where there are young children. Some have reported faeces being thrown from high-rise sources. I have three supplementary questions.

Firstly on the camera deployment, what proportion of deployment led to an identifiable perpetrator that could be successfully convicted or warned? Secondly, whether the ministry will continue upgrading the camera technology so that there can be better night vision image acquisition, as well as higher-resolution images. And thirdly, I also second Ms Tin Pei Ling’s suggestion that offenders should be named and shamed, similar to how litterbugs were dealt with some years ago.

Reply by SMS Amy Khor:

I think we agree with members that high-rise littering is an anti-social act, and that it is something we must not condone and not tolerate. It poses a threat to public health and safety. At the end of the day, I think all of us need to play a part to cultivate social graciousness, good habits as well as a sense of shared responsibility. Deploying more and more cameras really is not sustainable, and it is also not desirable.

But having said that, we take every high-rise littering feedback seriously, and where there is a need to install or deploy the camera, we will do so. The success rate based on the number of cameras we deployed is about a third. The reason is, very often when we install the cameras, it may deter the litterbug from littering if he is aware that there is a camera focused on him or the unit.

Regarding name and shame, I think it is something we will continue to monitor and consider.

(ends)