Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.46 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Since our Independence, public hygiene has been a national priority. Our pioneer leaders knew that keeping Singapore clean would enhance our people's health and improve our quality of life. So, we embarked on programmes to improve public hygiene, stamp out public littering and clean up our rivers.

We have come a long way. Today, Singapore is widely regarded as one of the cleanest cities in the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of maintaining high public hygiene and sanitation standards. Maintaining public hygiene was our first line of defence in protecting ourselves and our loved ones. Even as pandemic risks subside, we must not rest on our laurels and forget the tough lessons learnt.

Just as importantly, COVID-19 showed how critical our environmental services like cleaning and waste management are to the well-being of our nation.

Our cleaning and waste management businesses and their workers support day-to-day functions in our economy and safeguard our population's health.

Our waste management sector also plays an important role in helping Singapore achieve our zero-waste ambition.

We need to support our cleaning and waste management businesses and their workers and ensure they stand ready to meet future demands while managing manpower challenges.

Even so, we cannot just rely on our cleaners and waste management workers to keep Singapore clean. Keeping Singapore clean is a whole-of-society responsibility that everyone must contribute to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this context, I will introduce the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill, or EPHA. The Bill will give effect to policies that strengthen our waste management and cleaning sectors and ensure that maintaining a clean and hygienic living environment continues to be our collective responsibility.

First, we wish to uplift our resident workers in the waste management sector.

In January last year, the Government accepted the Tripartite Cluster for Waste Management (TCWM)'s recommendations to introduce a Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the waste collection and materials recovery sub-sectors, which currently comprise around 550 firms. This will benefit some 3,000 eligible resident employees, including crew and drivers of waste collection trucks, sorters and machine operators in waste collection and recycling facilities and supervisors performing certain roles.

The PWM will uplift wages and boost productivity. The TCWM, comprising unions, Government agencies and service buyers, has proposed a six-year schedule of wage increases.

For instance, the entry-level baseline wage for waste collection crew will grow by 8.1% annually from $2,210 per month in 2023 to $3,260 per month in 2028. There will also be minimum amounts and scheduled increases for overtime payments and annual bonuses.

A structured career ladder, stipulating higher job roles, higher wages and minimum training requirements, will enhance career progression and prepare the industry for higher-value work.

The Bill gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the TCWM and implements the PWM through the licensing regime for companies providing waste collection and materials recovery services.

Sections 23 and 31 are amended to require applicants for waste disposal licences and waste collector licences, each called a waste management licence, to submit a Progressive Wage Plan with their licence application. The Progressive Wage Plan will cover details on the wage components paid to workers.

The new sections 23A and 31AA provide for the making of regulations to impose licence conditions relating to the training of workers and payment of progressive wages. This clearly establishes the PWM within the ambit of the EPHA and the waste management licensing regime.

Sections 23A(2)(d) and 31AA(2)(d) enable the imposition of licence conditions to prohibit waste management licensees from deploying individuals for waste management work unless they are their employees or employees of other waste management licensees. This will ensure that all waste management workers can benefit from the PWM wages.

The new section 31DA will require the Commissioner for Labour to specify by way of an order the wage-related components for each class of waste management workers under the PWM. This will provide greater clarity and certainty to the industry.

To effectively monitor compliance with licensing conditions, including those of the PWM, the new section 31DB empowers the Director-General of Public Health and any authorised officers to require licensees to produce relevant hardcopy or electronic records such as wage and training records of the licensees' workers for inspection.

I will next elaborate on changes we will introduce to the cleaning business licensing framework to build a resilient and productive cleaning sector.

The cleaning sector comprises around 1,530 licensed cleaning businesses, with a total workforce of about 53,600 cleaners. About 75% of these are resident workers.

We started on the journey to professionalise the cleaning sector as early as July 2010, when a Voluntary Accreditation Scheme was introduced. Subsequently, a licensing regime was introduced in September 2014 to mandate the minimum requirements for cleaning businesses, including the payment of PWM wages and the requisite training for cleaners.

The pandemic has intensified the urgency for cleaning businesses to transform. With rising demands for quality cleaning services, coupled with growing manpower challenges, cleaning businesses need to deepen their competencies, adopt productivity solutions and create better employment opportunities to attract and retain workers.

To build capabilities and raise public health standards of cleaning businesses, the cleaning business licensing framework will be enhanced. Key elements of the voluntary Enhanced Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme will also be merged with the current cleaning business licensing scheme into a single framework.

The Bill will amend sections 80F to 80I to implement the revised cleaning business licensing framework.

The revised framework will comprise three classes of licences to differentiate cleaning businesses according to their capabilities, as opposed to the current licensing regime, which grants the same licence to all cleaning businesses as long as they fulfil a set of common licensing requirements.

The new classes of licences will come with a two-year validity period but the application requirements such as training, paid-up capital, bizSAFE certification and compliance history with certain written laws for each class of licence will be different.

The Class 3 licence, which is non-renewable, retains the same requirements as the current licensing scheme without imposing any new requirements. New cleaning businesses can be granted a Class 3 licence but upon its expiry, must apply for a Class 2 or Class 1 licence to continue operating.

Class 2 licensees will need to meet the new paid-up capital and bizSAFE certification requirements that are applicable to that class of licensees. The minimum paid-up capital or net worth of $25,000 ensures that the cleaning businesses are committed and able to pay PWM wages to their cleaners. The bizSAFE certification ensures that cleaning businesses inculcate a culture of workplace safety for its workforce.

The Class 1 licence is for cleaning businesses that want to further differentiate themselves in terms of capabilities. The Class 1 licence requires licensees to meet a higher minimum paid-up capital or net worth of $250,000 and to ensure that their cleaning workforce is trained in additional Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) modules. It provides greater assurance to service buyers that the licensees are equipped with more resources, experience and capabilities to undertake larger cleaning contracts and are committed to raising the skill level and competencies of their employees.

Existing cleaning businesses will be able to transit to the new framework easily with the Class 3 licence. They would have sufficient time, at least two years, to grow their capabilities and transit to the higher classes of licence as the revised framework will come into effect on 1 January 2024.

Prior to revising the licensing framework, the National Environment Agency (NEA) had consulted and received support from cleaning businesses on the revised framework. NEA will continue to work closely with key stakeholders and partner agencies to ensure a smooth transition for the cleaning businesses.

The Bill amendments will also empower the making of regulations to impose a licence condition to prohibit cleaning business licensees from deploying individuals to carry out cleaning work unless those individuals are their employees or employed by other cleaning business licensees. This will ensure that all cleaners benefit from the licensing framework and resident workers are paid PWM wages.

In addition, persons who supply cleaners will be required to be licensed. Such persons include companies which supply manpower to other cleaning businesses or premises owners to carry out cleaning work.

The enhanced licensing framework will ensure that cleaning businesses continue to upskill their workforce and pay progressive wages, while encouraging investment in innovation and technology to improve productivity and service delivery to boost their competitiveness as well as overcome manpower constraints.

Service buyers will benefit from better services and can also make more informed decisions in selecting cleaning businesses, based on the service buyers' needs and scope of cleaning work that they require.

Currently, Government Procuring Entities are required to engage only cleaning businesses with a Clean Mark Gold Accreditation. With the revised framework incorporating key elements of the Enhanced Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme, NEA will work with the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to require Government Procuring Entities to engage only cleaning businesses with a Class 1 Licence in the longer term.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now talk about how the Bill will encourage the sharing of responsibilities to sustain a clean living environment.

First, on pneumatic waste conveyance systems (PWCS). These are automated and enclosed systems that make waste collection more hygienic and efficient. Since April 2018, all new developments for strata-titled properties with 500 or more residential dwelling units are required to implement the PWCS. As the number of PWCS implemented in strata-titled developments in Singapore is expected to rise, there is a need to ensure that the equipment can be operated effectively over time.

Currently, the existing legislation places responsibility on building owners to maintain their waste collection systems, such as refuse lifts, chutes and chute chambers. The PWCS, which consists of a network of pipes to convey waste by air suction to the refuse bin centre, is also an integral part of the waste collection system.

The Bill will repeal and re-enact section 11 to make it clear that building owners have the responsibility to maintain their PWCS that serve the buildings and empower the Director-General of Public Health to take enforcement actions against owners who do not maintain, repair and replace their PWCS.

Second, on littering from residential flats which is a persistent, growing issue that blights our heartlands, affecting many of our estates islandwide. Feedback on high-rise littering has increased by over 60% between two consecutive three-year periods, from an average of 19,000 cases between 2017 and 2019, to an average of 31,200 cases between 2020 and 2022. NEA has conducted extensive public education and outreach with stakeholders such as the Town Councils and Grassroots Organisations, enhanced its enforcement capabilities and increased public awareness on the environmental consequences of high-rise littering. Despite these interventions, such a rate of increase, if allowed to persist, will be detrimental to public health – our estates risk getting increasingly dirty and unsafe, and our resources will never be enough to clean up after the offenders or catch and enforce against them.

Stronger action is needed to address the root of the issue and prevent high-rise littering. We will do this by introducing presumptions to place greater onus on owners and tenants of residential flats to prevent littering acts from being committed from their units in the first place, and when such offences have been committed, for them to take greater responsibility to identify the offenders. Let me elaborate.

Today, when feedback is received on high-rise littering from residential flats onto any public place, NEA will first work with relevant Town Councils to issue advisories to residents in the affected block to advise them not to commit high-rise littering from their flats. If the high-rise littering issue persists, NEA will deploy surveillance cameras to monitor the blocks and identify the unit from which the high-rise littering is committed. Video footage from surveillance cameras detailing the act of high-rise littering from a specific unit is then used for focused investigations leading to enforcement action.

However, the investigation process can be laborious and protracted, inhibiting effective enforcement. Even if the residential units where the litter was thrown have been clearly identified from the evidence, significant effort is still needed to identify the offender before enforcement can follow. The existing provision in the EPHA1987 requires flat owners to provide information on the identity of every occupant of the flat at the time of the offence and NEA may have to interview every occupant to identify the offender. Despite our best efforts, there are cases where NEA cannot identify the offender because all the occupants deny knowledge of the act. This means that even with evidence that littering has been committed from a flat, NEA is unable to take enforcement action in such cases, which undermines deterrence.

The Bill will insert a new Section 17A to introduce rebuttable presumptions such that if there is clear evidence that a littering act has been committed from a residential flat the owners or tenants who have leased the whole residential flat, will be presumed to have committed the littering offence.

For the relevant presumption clause to take effect, the evidence would need to clearly capture the act of littering and the flat from which the litter had originated. Images or footage captured by NEA's enforcement cameras would be our main source of evidence, but we will also accept such evidence if submitted by members of the public, subject to the quality of the evidence necessary to support our enforcement actions.

Flat owners or tenants can rebut the presumption through various means in order not to be held responsible under the presumption. Namely, a flat owner or tenant can produce evidence that he or she was not present in the flat at the time of the offence, prove that someone else had committed that offence or provide the identity of the person whom he or she reasonably believes to be the offender. Flat owners or tenants will be given a reasonable stipulated time period to produce such information.

This would allow for more effective enforcement and at the same time, spur flat owners and tenants to prevent their occupants from littering from their flats. The current process of issuing advisories when feedback is first received and deploying surveillance cameras in persistent cases will not change. Even after the owner or tenant has shown that he or she was not present in the flat at the time of offence or provided the identity of the person whom the owner or tenant reasonably believes to have committed the littering, NEA will continue to investigate, including interviewing any relevant witnesses such as the other occupiers or the suspect named by the owner or tenant so as to verify the information provided.

NEA will ensure that our investigation process remains robust and that the law is applied judiciously. Care will be exercised in investigating cases committed by vulnerable groups such as young children and the elderly. This is already the practice today. For the elderly or other vulnerable individuals, NEA will engage the individuals and their family members or caregivers and work with social agencies to provide further assistance where necessary.

Third, we will enable more effective enforcement of the EPHA to ensure we maintain a clean and liveable environment. Currently, Section 20 of the EPHA already prohibits the use of a vehicle to dump or dispose of waste in public places, which poses environmental and public health risks and is a blight on public places.

The Bill will amend Section 20 to make it an offence to cause or permit such illegal disposal of waste. This is necessary because there have been instances of supervisors improperly instructing their workers to illegally dispose of waste. The amendment will enable enforcement action to be taken against supervisors and not just the workers.

Another amendment relates to the one-year limitation period which prevents NEA from prosecuting an accused person for offences committed under the EPHA unless it is within one year from the date of offence. There have been instances where NEA had been unable to enforce against an accused person within the one-year limitation period. This could have been due to protracted investigations for complex cases or the late referral of cases by members of the public.

The Bill will thus amend Section 95 to extend the limitation period mentioned in that section from one year to three years to allow NEA more time to investigate complex cases. However, the time bar does not apply if, by reason of the offence complained of, an injury or danger to health subsists at the date of the complaint.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. This Bill represents another milestone in our journey towards safeguarding public health and maintaining high standards of public cleanliness that Singapore is known for. We must continue to help and support our waste management and cleaning companies and workers to upgrade, transform and thrive. This will enable them to deliver high-quality services with a better skilled and engaged workforce. We must also take a firm stance against actions that create disamenities and endanger public health. Keeping our living environment clean has been and will continue to remain a shared responsibility for all. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.10 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the amendments in this Bill will facilitate enforcement against high-rise littering, hold cleaning businesses to higher governance standards under the cleaning business licensing framework and extend the Progressive Wage Model for workers in the cleaning and waste disposal sector. It is a Bill that is a step in the right direction and one I wholeheartedly support. It will address a lot of the high-rise littering issues we all see on the ground and very importantly, it will uplift our workers in the cleaning and waste disposal sector.

That said, I just have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). The new section 23A introduces powers to impose conditions on the payment of progressive wages to Singaporean and permanent resident (PR) holder waste disposal workers. But what about our migrant workers? PWM is also about improving productivity, which will improve business profits for employers and service buyers also enjoy better service standards and quality. But all these cannot happen if the bulk of the workforce is not getting the PWM.

Both our local and migrant workforce deserve to earn fair and liveable wages. I shared in this House previously about how I have seen first-hand the sacrifices that our migrant cleaners make to keep our homes clean.

In 2019, I visited Bangladesh and invited all our Nee Soon East cleaners' families to lunch in Dhaka. We arranged for them to do a video call with their loved ones in Singapore. It was heartbreaking to see them cry as they spoke to their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. It was even more heartbreaking that I was meeting many of our cleaners' children even before their fathers even met them.

I met the daughter, Jannath, of one of our cleaners, Mazibur. She was seven years old and had never met her father before. I felt bad that Mazibur's daughter met me before meeting her father. As a father, I cannot imagine not being not being there for my daughters' first words, first steps and many other firsts in their lives.

I am not asking for more for our migrant workers. I am asking that we be fair to our migrant workers too.

In 2018, I spoke on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill on the need to ensure that the PWM will apply to cleaners who are hired directly by an F&B establishment and for foreign cleaners. I am glad that we are now ensuring that cleaners who are hired directly by an F&B establishment will get the PWM, but again, what about our migrant cleaners?

In 2020, I spoke on the Building Control (Amendment) Bill on ensuring that the PWM will apply to our foreign lift technicians as well.

As a matter of fairness, it makes sense for the PWM to apply to all our workers. In the spirit of increasing productivity and better service standards and quality, it also makes sense for PWM to apply to all our workers. I hope the Ministry for Sustainability and Environment (MSE) will consider eventually extending the PWM to cover our migrant cleaners and waste disposal workers as well.

My second point is on the conditions under the new cleaning business licensing framework. The framework will introduce three classes of licences. A Class 1 licence will require businesses to have a paid-up capital of $250,000 and a clean record with no conviction history in the past 24 months. Can Minister share if the Class 1 licence will also require that no stern warnings or a composition fine was issued against the company? If not, can Minister share the reasons why not?

In addition, a company acts through the hands and minds of its directors and executive officers. There may be cases where prosecutorial direction was exercised not to pursue charges against the company but prosecution was brought against a company’s directors and/or executive officers. There is public interest in ensuring that the directors and executive officers are personally incentivised to comply with the law. Can the Senior Minister of State share if the Ministry will consider also requiring for a Class 1 licence that the directors and executive officers have no conviction history with regard to offences related to the company in the past 24 months? If not, can the Senior Minister of State share the reasons why not?

My final point is one I am sure Senior Minister of State Amy Khor expects me to raise and so I do not want to disappoint her. I also know that so many Singaporeans are affected by second-hand smoke and they hope the Government will help them and literally save their lives. It is not a neighbourly dispute, it is not about being uncomfortable with smelling second-hand smoke and it is not a problem you can adapt to and live with. It is about how second-hand smoke kills and people are trapped and need us to rescue them.

I am glad we are doing so much to tackle high-rise littering. It is a huge problem on the ground and the amendments in this Bill will help significantly. What I propose we do is extend the presumption introduced for high-rise littering to smoking in flats that affect other residents. The new section 17A will introduce a presumption clause that the litter proven to be thrown from a flat was thrown by every owner or tenant of the flat. The introduction of this presumption is recognition of the public interest in catching and deterring high-rise littering given the evidential difficulties and enforcement costs in having to prove who threw the litter out of a flat.

A problem that poses similar enforcement difficulties and costs is second-hand smoke in flats. Second-hand smoke is just as deadly or perhaps even more than high-rise littering and equally needs our urgent attention.

On 10 January, Ms Tham wrote to Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and copied me in the email. She shared, "I was delighted to read about the statutory presumption clause for high-rise littering, aimed to place greater onus on flat owners and tenants to prevent littering. Initially I wondered how NEA could prove the littering, then I found out about the surveillance cameras (though, as I understand it, the main effect is achieved through greater deterrence than the presumption clause). I would like to ask whether these two measures (surveillance and deterrence) could be applied towards banning smoking in balconies. I understand the key issue was around not being able to prove the culprit was smoking, but if there were surveillance cameras, would this not be possible? To be honest, merely making it illegal would be a great help, plus the suggestion that surveillance might catch them in the act."

"This is my story" – that Ms Tham shared: "I have an upstairs neighbour who smokes several times a day. The smoke wafts down, even if we close all our windows and doors. We’ve tried appealing to him (and his landlord). We’ve asked him to alert us in advance when he is about to smoke, or smoke at designated times so that we can close our windows and doors in advance. However, he refused to do so and the response we got from him and his landlord was that 'it is not illegal' for him to smoke in the balcony."

"My father-in-law passed away in 2021 from nose cancer, despite not being a smoker. Both his elder brothers passed away from nose cancer. His sister passed away from lung cancer. This is why my husband and I are highly concerned about second-hand smoke."

Sir, I hope we can put ourselves in Ms Tham's shoes and imagine her helplessness to protect her family from the silent killer that is second-hand smoke. Her story is one that would be familiar to many Singaporeans and Members of this house. I know I sound like a broken record but I hope the Ministry will study this issue much further and consider whether a similar presumption clause may help to address the problem of second-hand smoke in flats. Sir, notwithstanding these points, I stand in strong support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

2.17 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill seeks to make several changes. One group of changes affects the licensing of cleaning businesses and the roll-out of the Progressive Wage Model for this sector. Another group of changes relates to the dumping of waste from vehicles and yet another, extends the time period for which an offence can be determined.

Sir, I support this Bill, as the measures are, taken as a whole, a step in the right direction for evolving the cleaning sector and regulating the penalty regime for littering and dumping.

However, I will raise several points of clarification on areas where there are risks associated with the provisions in this Bill, where I hope the Government can provide some assurances and consider appropriate provisions in subsidiary legislation. My clarifications and suggestions centre on clause 5 of this amendment Bill which amends section 17 of the original Bill.

To be clear, littering from residential flats is a serious problem. It poses public health challenges and lessens quality of life.

High-rise littering cases are on the increase, as is NEA's deployment of cameras and enforcement actions in respect of high-rise littering.

In spite of the number of cameras and enforcement actions, the level of deterrence embodied in the law and enforcement mechanisms will need stepping up to address the fact that more flats, which are taller and denser, are being built across the island; and the fact that more people are working from home all or some of the time.

In this Bill, the new Clause 17A holds the owner or tenant to be responsible for litter emanating from any flat that lands in a "public place". It then holds every owner or every tenant of the flat equally liable.

The Ministry's press release states and I quote: "The presumption can be rebutted by the owner/tenant by proving that he/she was not present in the flat at the time of the offence, by proving that he/she could not have been the offender, or by providing the identity of a person reasonably believed to be the offender to NEA within 14 days of being required to do so."

The effect of the presumption is that unless rebutted, it presumes that the owner or tenant is the offender and thus makes the owner or tenant liable for the acts of the offender, if the owner and offender are different people. In cases where the offence may have been the result of someone else – say a visitor or workers working in the flat – in such cases, the burden of proof will be on the owner or tenant to prove their innocence in the face of a default assumption of their guilt.

I have the following clarifications to make. Going forward, when I refer to the owner, I will mean either the owner or tenant depending on what is relevant in each case of an offence.

My first clarification is, what is the standard of proof that needs to be met by the owner to rebut the presumption of guilt? Must the owner prove this beyond reasonable doubt or can they prove this based on a balance of probabilities?

For example, if there was some other culprit – say a team of workers doing renovation work in the apartment – would the owner need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not at home at the time of the offence in addition to demonstrating that the works were being done at the time?

Also, can the Government share some examples of what such proof would look like? Some information from an IT system that shows the location of one's mobile phone and/or computer at the time, for example? Or the testimony of an eyewitness who is not conflicted, who could place the person somewhere else at that time?

Another scenario – if there are joint owners, would the authorities remove liability from one of the owners if he or she demonstrates that he or she was not present in the flat at the time of the offence, leaving the other owner to bear 100% of the fine?

One observation I will make here is that if the burden of proof falls on the owner in all cases, this may result in unintended consequences and I will return to that later.

I have another clarification here to put to the Government. Section 17A(5) provides that the presumption of guilt is rebuttable by proving any of these: (a) contravention committed by person other than presumed offender; (b) presumed offender not in flat at time of offence; (c) presumed offender reasonably believing someone else is the actual offender and providing the identity of that person.

My question is on part (c), what constitutes a reasonable belief? Is it the legal standard meaning that some evidence must be adduced or merely a belief accompanied by a reason?

Next, HDB flat owners have a greater likelihood of being caught for high-rise littering vis-à-vis private apartment owners. This is because the new section 17A will only apply to private apartments if the litter lands in "a public place".

This is similar to how the existing prohibition against littering under the Environmental Public Health Act applies only to publicly accessible places, rather than private estates like executive condominiums and strata-titled condominiums.

In Parliament in 2018, the Government said that private estates such as executive condominiums and private strata-titled condominiums are not regarded as such public places in law as access to these places are restricted. However, the management committee of such estates generally have by-laws to deal with high-rise littering and may turn to the courts when dealing with errant residents.

My clarification here is that would the Government work with the Management Corporation Strata Title (MSCT), the committees of private apartment developments to make available its learnings in terms of enforcing these laws and regulations in HDB estates, so that those MCSTs who wish to pursue a more rigorous approach to anti-littering enforcement are able to draw on this experience?

Next, I would like to ask the Government to elaborate on how care will be taken when deciding whether or not to fine or charge vulnerable groups of possible offenders.

In the NEA's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section on the new Bill, it was stated and I quote, "Will the new legislation be applicable to home owners/tenants who are elderly or mentally/physically disabled?

NEA will be sensitive and enforce judiciously against offenders from such groups. NEA has in place an existing enforcement framework for the elderly and physically/mentally disabled offenders. The offender or his/her family members/relatives may write to NEA and provide relevant supporting documents. NEA will then fully review and consider the relevant circumstances of each case before taking any appropriate action against the owner(s)/tenant(s), which may include the issuance of a warning."

I would like to ask if a possible offender does not have the ability to write in to NEA and hence does not respond to the notice of a fine in time and does not have relatives to assist, how would the case be handled, so as to give that person a fair hearing as regards to possible evidence of innocence that they might be able to share?

In the same vein, owners who may not understand written English and may not be able to read any written notices sent by the NEA may be disadvantaged. And lower-income owners may not have the time or resources to submit evidence to prove that they were not responsible for the high-rise littering.

So, my question is, will sufficient consideration be given to such factors if such individuals seek to appeal against a fine by providing some evidence against the presumption of guilt but they have missed the deadline, for these reasons?

Lastly, Sir, I would like to discuss possible unintended consequences arising from this new presumption of guilt embodied in the new clause 17A.

What if owners require tenants to lock windows as a result of fear of fines? Or what if owners use this law as a reason to install CCTV cameras to make sure they have evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt vis-à-vis their tenants or domestic workers, which raises privacy issues? And what if the new law fuels tension between joint tenants or joint owners who may wish to push the blame to the other? To be sure, if these scenarios materialise – I am not saying they necessarily will or to a very great extent – the individuals affected may have other recourse, other means of recourse in law.

But I raise this point because the new law may, to some degree, have unintended consequences for the dynamics of relationships between and amongst the owners, other residents, tenants and workers living and working in flats. I hope the Government and other stakeholders will keep an eye on this to be ready to implement changes to the law or to how the law is enforced to address these and other possible unintended consequences.

2.26 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, Parliament amended the Environment Public Health Act (EPHA) in 2014, about eight and a half years ago, to impose a legal obligation on flat owners or occupiers to provide information to the authorities to enable them to better identify the person responsible for high-rise litter. The Act was also amended to double the maximum penalties for litter-related offences. I recall speaking on the Amendment bill in 2014 and supporting this Bill. I was hopeful that with the enhanced powers, NEA would be able to reduce the incidences of littering. However, I was disappointed.

Over the past few years, I regularly carried out litter picking exercises in my constituency. On each occasion, I get extremely frustrated by the huge amount of litter collected from the public areas. You can pick up used face masks, cigarette boxes, plastic bags, drink cans, drink bottles, carton boxes, all of which were thrown onto the ground. It seems that a small minority of inconsiderate litter bugs have made the environment less pleasant for the majority of residents.

I also frequently receive feedback from residents complaining about their upstairs neighbour throwing down lighted cigarettes. Residents are fearful that a lighted cigarette may land inside their flat thereby causing a fire. They also expressed frustration that NEA could not identify the offender and were unable to stop the high-rise litter.

I also get other complaints about residents who throw rice or bread from their flat to feed pigeons. The pigeons in turn cause a health hazard with the huge amount of pigeon feces all over the ground level. Many Members of Parliament would also have received complaints about high-rise litter bugs who throw food waste, plastic bags, tissue paper and other types of litter – making the ground floor unsafe for residents walking by the area.

I spoke about the issue of littering during Committee of Supply (COS) Debate in 2010 and 2018. I also filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in May 2022 asking NEA, what other measures can be taken to prevent littering. Minister Grace Fu in a Parliamentary reply in July 2022 said "NEA carried out enforcement actions on around 7,400 cases of littering between 1 January to 31 May 2021. For the same period in 2022, there were around 7,800 cases."

In a subsequent Parliamentary reply in October 2022, Minister Grace Fu then said, "feedback on high-rise littering has continued to outpace our efforts to enhance capabilities and measures. Prior to 2019, an average of 16,000 feedback cases were received each year. From 2019 to 2021, the feedback had increased to 22,000, 35,000 and 32,000 cases respectively." The Minister further elaborated that "Investigation into high-rise littering cases remains resource-intensive and time-consuming despite our best efforts. Effort is required to gather information to guide camera deployments and, subsequently, identify the high-rise littering offender."

Sir, this situation is really unacceptable. There is a need for the Government to send a strong signal that littering is an anti-social habit that society must frown upon.

When the Keep Singapore Clean campaign was launched on 1 October 1968 by our then-Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the campaign aimed to make Singapore the cleanest and greenest city in the region by addressing the problem of inconsiderate littering. The campaign sought to instil in Singaporeans the importance of keeping public places clean. For many years, Singapore was considered one of the cleanest cities in the region. Why have we deteriorated to such a situation today?

Hence, I support clause 5 of the current amendment Bill to insert a presumption clause to better identify the litter bug in the flat unit. The onus now falls on the owner or occupier of the flat to identify the person responsible for any litter that originates from the flat.

Sir, I would like to humbly make three suggestions to reduce incidents of littering.

First, we should make more use of technology to ensure that litter bugs would be identified. Thus, in Marine Parade Town Council, we had bought a total number of 73 mini surveillance cameras to be deployed at areas where there are persistent complaints about littering. We also installed large signs to tell residents that there are surveillance cameras in the block. The message to the litter bug is this: if you throw litter from your flat, you will be caught and you have to face the consequences.

The present amendment to the law will assist NEA in that they can then rely on the camera footage and identify the flat from which the litter originates. It is, thus, for the flat owner or occupier to identify the litter bug staying in the flat.

In addition to any fine imposed, I would like to suggest that NEA impose a Corrective Work Order (CWO) on all littering offenders and they should serve the punishment in the estate where they were caught littering. In May 2022, I had asked the Minister for Sustainability and Environment about imposing a CWO on littering offenders. The Minister replied then that "we would also like to give first-time offenders a second chance, so that they can learn from their mistakes."

I would like to humbly urge the Senior Minister of State to reconsider the position. A CWO is meant to assist the littering offender to see for himself the huge amount of litter in the public area and to learn that it is hard work to pick up all the litter in order to keep the estate clean. And after picking up litter for two hours, the offender should go away with a better understanding that there is an urgent need to keep the public area clean. If the offender litters again, then double the CWO hours for the second-time offender.

Finally, my third suggestion to NEA is for recalcitrant offenders, HDB should consider exercising its right as the lessor to terminate the lease of the flat owner and take back the flat for breach of the terms of the lease. This is a drastic action but for those residents who are not littering offenders, there is really nothing to worry about. The Government should send a strong signal that littering is not to be tolerated and that stern action would be taken to ensure that all citizens would be able to enjoy a clean environment.

Sir, I also support the other clauses to the amendment Bill. I look forward to the day when Singapore is able to reclaim its position as one of the cleanest cities in the region – not because of our army of cleaners, but because everyone in Singapore takes their social responsibility of keeping the public area clean seriously.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan

2.33 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I support the amendments in the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. However, I do have some concerns with the new proposed section 17A which creates a presumption that the owners or tenants of the property are responsible if any refuse or article is deposited, dropped, placed, thrown, scattered or spilled in or into a public place from a residential flat, for the current section 17(1)(a), (d) and (f), unless they can prove that the act was committed by another person, that the owners or tenants were not present at the flat or they are able to provide the identity of the offender within 14 days. The proposed amendments will also apply to section 17(1)(g) for any ash, hair, feathers, lime, sand, wastepaper or other substances carried by wind in a public place, and also spit or mucus, and that is under section 17A(4).

While I can understand the intention of the authorities to make it easier for the enforcement, especially with the rising number of high-rise littering cases and the amendments may well help to make prosecution easier, I am concerned that the presumption of guilt on the part of owners or tenants may place these persons in a difficult position to clear themselves, even if they were not ultimately or directly responsible for the littering, spitting or disposing acts.

I would like to give a few examples. Firstly, as regards to the Bill making a live-in landlord or landlady responsible for their adult tenants if the latter were to commit an act of high-rise littering, there is an issue of fairness. Is this really desirable, given that the tenants are grown adults and it may not be practicable to expect a landlord to be able to require the obedience of this adult tenant?

A landlord or tenant who was either not at home or even if he was at home, he might be asleep or working and had no idea whether his tenant or even family members had littered. And if he had tried asking and no one wanted to own up, would it be fair for an owner to be made responsible or be punished in such circumstances?

Many live-in owners who rent out rooms may be seniors and may not be the best persons to impose themselves on their tenants in this regard. What if an owner or live-in landlord, landlady or tenant has reasons to fear an occupier of the flat? This can be a tenant, a co-tenant or even a family member. The owner may have cause to be concerned that such a person may become abusive or intimidating.

What about parents who do not wish to inform on their children? What if two unrelated tenants of a public rental flat are confronted with such a complaint? Unless one owns up readily, one can imagine how such a complaint with the presumption of guilt will cause distress to the household of two.

This new law will put such owners or tenants in a spot vis-à-vis other tenants or family members. They may end up taking the blame themselves as passing on the allegation to the other persons may subject him, or her, to some of form of threat or abuse and going to the Police may not always be a desired course of action for a loved one.

Will the authorities exercise some form of discretion not to prosecute owners or tenants who might be put in a spot by the new law in the way that I have described? If so, will the Senior Minister of State explain how this may work, so that there will be sufficient clarity, as well as certainty?

The prosecution under the new proposed provisions would envisage not just complaints made by a third party who has witnessed litter being thrown down. NEA would often have installed cameras after receiving feedback and the cameras would have taken down video footages of littering acts.

Let me take this opportunity to also ask a few questions about NEA's use of cameras to carry out surveillance.

Mr Speaker, I understand that between 2019 and 2021, NEA investigated an average of about 29,700 high-rise littering feedback instances annually, which is an increase of about 77%, compared to the average of 16,800 high-rise littering feedback instances annually from 2016 to 2018.

Over the same time period, NEA has also deployed an average of 2,400 cameras annually and conducted about 1,500 enforcement actions annually against persons caught for high-rise littering. I note from the cases I have encountered that NEA may not always install cameras after each complaint. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there must be a minimum number of complaints or feedback received on a particular unit or culprit before a camera is installed, or are there also any other criteria before a camera is installed?

May I also ask whether cameras will be installed for multiple feedback received on persons who spit in public on a regular basis, for example, spitting along the common corridor or void decks of HDB blocks or from the windows of their unit?

May I also ask the Senior Minister of State whether she can share with the House what are some of the challenges encountered by NEA with the use of cameras, particularly, if such challenges restrict more ready usage of cameras following each complaint and whether there are any plans to increase deployment of cameras to deter high-rise littering, even with the proposed amendments in this Bill we are now looking at? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and concerns, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

2.39 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, I will focus my speech primarily on the new sections 17(A) of the Bill. Sir, notwithstanding this amendment, which I support, we need to step up further measures to tackle high-rise littering.

High-rise littering is usually committed by a small number of residents. But their anti‐social and irresponsible acts caused disamenities and unpleasantness to the majority. Cleaners would have to do additional rounds of cleaning just because of this inconsiderate behaviour. They could have done other work for the betterment of residents. The number of high-rise litterers that was cited by NEA of 30,000 complaints, in my view, a much smaller number than we know of, as the majority of the public are resigned to the fact that these are the problems and we have to live with the problems.

From my experience, education and anti‐littering messages have no bearing or impact on this minority group, who are the habitual litterers. They will continue to throw things out of the window because they think they can get away with it. And indeed, judging by the current means and capabilities that NEA has, there is a high probability that they could throw something out of the window without getting caught. So, the deterrent effect remains very lacking.

The passing of this Bill could help raise the deterrent effect but, in my view, it would not be significant enough to deter these habitual litterers that I referred to. In other words, this new measure is still not the game changer needed. So, I urge NEA to significantly increase capabilities to tackle this high-rise littering problem. In particular, to harness technologies, as well as to be equipped with forensic means to do the investigations.

To achieve effective deterrence, NEA would need to beef up its investigative capabilities, step up its zealousness to solve each of the high‐rise littering case. Often, it takes quite a while for NEA to mobilise its resources to deploy the surveillance equipments. I believe this is not for lack of trying by the ground NEA officers but, rather, these hardworking officers are just not armed with sufficient tools and ammunition to be effective.

NEA needs to invest in more and better high‐rise surveillance equipment and NEA also needs to build up stronger capabilities to investigate, including deploying forensic tools, such as DNA; the sort of capabilities that the Police possesses. A case in point is in the Spottiswoode condo killer litter case. As it involved a sad fatality, the Police took over the investigation and, within 10 days, the high-rise litterer was apprehended and prosecuted.

Why would NEA not have the similar capabilities, given the many near fatally high-risk littering posed to the public? Littered cigarette butts, for example, thrown out of the window, could have caused a fire in the units below them. In my constituency, I do have many of these long-standing high-rise littering cases which have gone on for years. NEA officers has attended to the cases but the littering continues.

Just to pick one case at Blk 203, Petir Road; where residents have raised this for years, but the litterer continues to throw things out of the window. Perhaps, I can throw this challenge to the NEA team to attend to this case at Blk 203; just one of the many cases that I have and demonstrate that with the means and capabilities that NEA has, the litterer can be taken to task in the next three months.

If that can be done, it will certainly strengthen the deterrent effect and greatly reduce the incidences of high-rise littering.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

2.43 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the beneficial impact of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the waste collection and materials recovery sub-sectors is very welcomed. These workers are providing essential services and their wages should reflect their valuable contributions. They should also be adequately compensated for the very challenging nature and conditions of their jobs. The PWM provides the structure to address these issues and uplift their professions.

The inclusion of these sub-sectors in PWM shows the growing recognition of their very important roles. It is also necessary to have a formal career progression framework to attract more local workers. There are very specific skillsets required to manage effectively and efficiently. Continuous improvement and retraining are needed to increase productivity in these sectors.

For the new licensing framework, the increase in paid-up capital will provide differentiation among classes of providers. The customers will be able to select suitable companies based on their capabilities and resources. The system will encourage providers to improve their workflows and innovate to boost productivity and raise service standards.

With greater innovation and increases in productivity, the working conditions of workers in this sector will also improve. I urge the Ministry to provide more support to these companies to help them and their workers to progress.

However, we must also remember that public education, effective usage of recycled materials as well as meaningful partnerships between the industry and Government are equally important components in our anti-littering campaigns and sustainability efforts. I also hope that Government support can be focused on collaborative partnerships to achieve a zero-waste future for Singapore.

For example, the Ministry can consider allocating Government grants for waste management companies to run public school education campaigns and anti-littering campaigns or channel funding to industry collaborations that encourage the use of recycled materials. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Public education, effective usage of recycled materials as well as partnerships between the industry and Government play equally important roles in our sustainability efforts. I hope that Government support can be focused on collaborative partnerships to achieve a zero-waste future for Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

2.46 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the amendments to the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill.

Waste management and cleaning are essential tasks for the functioning of our society. They are also often physically demanding and hazardous. We must do more to recognise and value the contributions of workers in these sectors. This will make the industry more appealing and safer to work in. I wish to seek clarifications on three key areas of the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is imperative that we continue to expand the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to more groups of workers. I fully endorse diversifying the types of sectors that will benefit from the PWM.

Are there plans to extend the PWM to other sub-sectors in the industry beyond waste management and materials recovery? If so, which sub-sectors are these? What is the median income of these workers? Furthermore, what is the timeline to onboard them onto the PWM?

Likewise, for workers who are not yet on PWM, how will skills upgrading be made more accessible to them?

Before we can even talk about PWM, the workers have to be paid. As we push for better wages and improved earning power for workers, these efforts come to naught if workers are not paid punctually by their employers.

It is disheartening to hear of reports where cleaners do not receive their wages on time. A 2021 report revealed that 57 licensed cleaning companies did not pay eligible cleaners bonuses or progressive wages. Another 52 firms were issued warnings for similar breaches. Are there more recent statistics that indicate whether this situation has improved?

As we seek to enhance the Cleaning Business Licensing Framework, I propose that the track records of companies on timely payment of wages and bonuses should be taken into consideration when they apply for licences.

Recalcitrant offenders must be held accountable. They should be required to demonstrate that they are proactively resolving this issue before their licences are approved or renewed.

In order for workers to fulfil Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ), I propose that companies should be mandated or incentivised to give workers paid time off from work for training.

Without this, it would firstly be difficult for workers to find the time and energy to attend these courses. Secondly, it is the companies that stand to benefit from qualified workers. As such, it is only fair that the companies pay for this benefit.

The proposed amendment of "Waste management licensees will be prohibited from deploying individuals in waste management work unless they are employees of waste management licensees" raises questions about who these individuals and workers are.

How many of such workers are there and what percentage of the sector does this represent? What are the motivations behind this amendment?

I agree that the proposed amendment is a step in the right direction. In particular, this will ensure that workers in waste management work are adequately trained and compensated under PWM. Otherwise, the existing manpower crunch in the sector will only worsen.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support efforts to strengthen the cleaning industry through the Cleaning Business Licensing Framework, it is critical to have specific and viable targets and plans to achieve this.

The framework's goals of developing a skilled and resilient workforce as well as creating better employment opportunities are commendable. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that the demanding nature of the work as well as constant exposure to unsanitary environments has discouraged some individuals from entering the field.

To attract Singaporeans to this sector, we must do more to value the contributions of cleaning and waste management professionals. This includes enhancing working conditions, incentives and career development opportunities. What are the specific plans and measurable outcomes that have been established to achieve these goals?

Furthermore, with regard to the revised framework, I understand that there is a significant difference in the requirements for Class 1 and Class 2 licences, specifically in terms of paid-up capital, which is 10 times more for Class 1.

What are the tangible incentives for businesses to upgrade from Class 2 to Class 1 licence? Are there specific targets for increasing the number of companies making the transition from Class 2 to Class 1 licences? If so, are the benefits sufficient to incentivise them to do so?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we work to strengthen our efforts to combat littering through the implementation of a new statutory presumption clause, it is imperative that we ensure both clarity and robust enforcement.

To that end, I would like to know what percentage of littering cases are currently being attributed to children, the elderly or individuals with certain disabilities.

I fully agree that care and compassion should be exercised in investigating cases involving these groups of people. However, we must also recognise that being elderly or having some form of disability should not be a free pass to commit high-rise littering or any other forms of littering offences.

Flats have rubbish chutes on every floor and some even within their homes. As such, inconvenience should not be an excuse.

In cases involving children, parents or guardians should bear the responsibility of educating them, especially if it is a repeat offence. Stronger enforcement measures should be taken if the household continues to be found guilty of littering despite multiple warnings, education attempts or fines.

Unfortunately, there could also be a possibility that disingenuous individuals may push the blame for littering to individuals that are incapable of being found guilty of an offence, such as children under the age of 10. How will investigation officers determine whether these individuals are pushing the blame to children or other mentally incapacitated relatives and tenants in order to escape the penalties?

I understand that there may be operational difficulties in implementing this statutory presumption clause. I cite as an example a flat owner who leaves his flat for a walk at night when the offence occurred. How does the owner prove that he was not at home if there is no alibi? Will checks be made against the Police cameras at the lift lobbies?

If the presumption is difficult to rebut, it may be too onerous for residents who have limited abilities or resources to defend themselves. I am also concerned that some flat occupants may act in an inconsiderate manner, thinking that the responsibility is being placed on another tenant or on the owner of the flat.

Can the Ministry share what are the specific targets to determine the effectiveness of this new clause? How will progress be measured? What factors will be taken into consideration in measuring its success? What other plans and measures is the Government considering to bring down the number of high-rise littering cases?

Complaints about high-rise littering have in fact doubled between 2019 and 2021 as compared to between 2016 to 2018. The proposed amendment is timely as this would reduce cost in proceedings against individuals who commit high-rise littering and allow for more effective use of public resources.

As we work to strengthen our enforcement efforts against littering, we should not forget the full range of penalties available to us, including the use of Corrective Work Orders (CWOs). While fines may be an effective deterrent for some, they may not always have the desired impact for those who can afford to pay the fines without feeling the pinch.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the initiatives are positive steps towards transforming our cleaning and waste management sectors and addressing the issue of high-rise littering from residential flats.

Nevertheless, to truly tackle this problem, we cannot just rely on one or two tweaks. We need a systematic and comprehensive approach that addresses the underlying causes of littering and focus on how to tackle the issue effectively.

We need to move beyond industry development and enforcement.

One key lever is through education and changing norms and behaviour. We must embrace a culture that reduces waste, avoids buying unnecessary items and practises consumption in moderation. By doing so, we create less waste and have less of a need to manage it.

Besides, we must all strive to adopt and maintain good social habits to keep our environment and community clean. No number of cleaners or cleaning technology can keep up with the daily littering habits of hundreds and thousands of residents. Moreover, deploying more cleaners ultimately leads to higher service and conservancy (S&CC) fees. This may perpetuate the mentality that residents are paying for the service and should make the most use of it. It creates a vicious cycle.

I recognise that public education on these issues is challenging and takes time. But public education is still essential for creating a society that is civic-minded, considerate and cares for the environment. We must persist in our efforts and work towards fostering a culture of sustainability and environmental responsibility. This is critical to preserve our environment and ensure a sustainable future for generations to come. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

2.56 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. More and more new buildings will be equipped with pneumatic waste conveying systems. It is the responsibility of all owners, including strata owners, to ensure that the systems are functioning properly to move waste efficiently to keep the building and surrounding environment clean.

I support the new Bill's proposals that empower the Director-General to take enforcement actions against property owners who fail to maintain, repair and replace their systems.

May I ask the Minister, does the Ministry keep track of the cost of the system, including mechanical and maintenance costs, for comparison with the labour cost saved and what is the approximate difference? Undoubtedly, besides increased productivity, such systems also bring other benefits, such as environmental benefits and so on. Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the new regulations on high-rise littering from HDB flats.

It is reasonable to assume that the registered landlord or tenant is the offender. If the person who litters is a guest of an HDB unit, the owner is also responsible for taking care of this problem. I would like to ask the Minister whether the authorities can continue to explore how to curb the incidents of objects thrown from public corridors and stairways of HDB flats and punish the violators more severely.

For some, fines and Corrective Work Orders (CWOs) are not enough to curb this bad habit of high-rise littering. I would like to ask the Minister to consider authorising NEA to order home owners who have recalcitrant household members to install netting on their windows. This should greatly reduce the chances of random throwing, especially for those with mental or psychological problems, including those with dementia and those with special needs.

For now, camera footage can only occasionally capture those throwing litter from the windows. In order to avoid being accused of violating personal privacy, the cameras can only be aimed at the outer walls. A resident asked me if residents living below the offending units could be allowed to install cameras pointing upwards from their windows in an attempt to identify residents throwing rubbish from above, while not violating their privacy.

Will the new Bill penalise those who throw food to feed birds?

Could NEA also investigate and penalise those who have left rubbish along public corridors and in common areas, since there are often their address or other identifiable markings left on the rubbish?

Can NEA also punish those irresponsible contractors and home owners who dispose of their renovation debris and packing cardboards downstairs? These large quantities of waste can cause safety and environmental issues, especially in newly completed HDB blocks where they accumulate in large quantities. In this case, it should not be hard to figure out the identity of those culprits. I hope the Minister will consider the above suggestions. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

3.01 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Speaker, Sir, Singapore has very strict laws to maintain law and order and littering of any kind is an offence. However, even with such strict laws, we will still require an army of more than 40,000 resident cleaners and 3,000 waste collection crew to ensure Singapore remains a clean and green city.

This Bill proposing to implement the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for workers in the waste collection and materials recovery sub-sectors is one that I support wholeheartedly. Waste collection is tough, physically demanding work and gruelling. Rain or shine, these workers will be out there collecting our trash. This is difficult work and such jobs will not appeal to most Singaporeans.

At present, there are about 3,000 resident waste collectors. Many of them have young families with school-going children to support. Most are not well-educated. In order to assist them, we should provide opportunities for them to learn new job skills and be able to earn a higher salary.

The PWM for the waste management industry will increase baseline wages in a sustained manner over a six-year period from 2023 to 2028. Entry-level wage for waste collection crew will grow 8.1% annually from $2,210 in 2023 to $3,260 in 2028. They will also enjoy overtime payments and mandatory annual bonuses.

The pandemic has effectively raised the gross monthly salaries of waste collection workers in the major waste companies to above $3,000. Currently, there are three main public waste collectors, namely SembWaste, 800 Super and Alba W&H Smart City that are appointed by NEA to collect waste from domestic and trade premises across the entire country. During the period when there were border shutdowns, it was difficult to hire foreigners to assist us in this sector. Thus, the major waste collection companies had to increase wages in order to attract locals so that the companies can fulfil their contractual service level requirements. And the response was acceptable as the wage increases proved to be quite effective! Money is clearly a deciding factor.

Although the bigger players in the industry have largely moved ahead with wage increases, PWM will formalise the salary increase across the entire industry. Smaller waste collection companies will also need to keep up with the revised pay structure accordingly.

The PWM for the waste collection industry will ensure fair remuneration to these essential workers for their indispensable services. We hope this wage model will be able to attract certain younger workers to have an open mind and join the sector and assist us to maintain our public hygiene and health standards.

Needless to say, it will be extremely challenging to attract younger people to work in this sector and deploying more valuable manpower resources just to collect waste will be a daunting task. We will have to leverage on technology, better design and changes in work processes.

In recent years, the waste industry has undertaken commendable efforts to automate the waste collection process. For instance, the most commonly seen Rear-End-Loading (REL) waste trucks are operated by three staff – a driver and two attendants. With the push of a button, the loader will tip the waste containers over and dump the waste into the truck. This helps the attendants with the heavy lifting. However, this is only possible after some necessary adjustments are made. The REL trucks will need to be automated more.

Since April 2018, the new huge blue recycling bins have gradually replaced their older and smaller predecessors in many towns. The new blue recycling bin is a good example of how technology and design can help to save manpower. Firstly, the blue bins have three times the capacity of its predecessors, hence collection frequency can be reduced. Secondly, the side loader truck only requires one driver to operate the loading process, as the lifting and tipping of the recycling bins can now be fully automated. Hence, a typical three-men team can now be reduced to only the driver who doubles up as the operator.

However, there are still constraints on the ground which pose limitations to proliferating these large blue bins across all parts of Singapore. For instance, in private estates with narrow driveways, the side-loader trucks do not have sufficient clearance to position itself precisely for the automated loading of the recycling bins. Hence, an attendant may still be required to complete this last mile.

Switching to new equipment and technology requires heavy capital investments upfront by the waste collection companies. Although companies would save manpower costs in the long run, the upfront cost of buying a new fleet of side loading vehicles is a significant investment. They will also need to consider their contract duration with NEA. It is a big business risk for the waste companies. Hence, to drive change and adoption, Government grants and longer contract periods must be provided to allow these companies to sustain.

If the Government is able to assist them, these companies must move towards the right direction, to leverage better design, more efficient work processes and use technology to address challenges. They must continue to think creatively and work fast to implement innovative solutions.

Currently, with higher wages and heavier investments, waste management companies will be faced with higher operating overheads. To ease the cost increase, the companies can tap on transitional wage support that is provided under MOM’s Progressive Wage Credit Scheme. Consumers will also be expected to assist in the cost increase.

Cost increase will always be a contentious concern especially with the rising costs of living. Therefore, a fairer approach towards cost increase is inevitable and the waste collection fees will have to be better structured based on a fair user-pays costing principle.

Currently, the monthly waste collection fees are set at $9.72 for HDB flats and condominiums based on household units and $32.37 for landed housing. This is a flat fee structure and does not take into consideration the number of occupants and the amount of waste that is generated within each household.

The current flat fee structure is easy to administer but it does not incentivise occupants to reduce their waste generated. We could consider implementing a more sophisticated data management software, to vary waste collection fees according to the size of each household. This way, a higher fee could be applied appropriately.

If everyone consumes less, recycles more and generates less waste, we will all be able to fundamentally cope with our national waste management and reduce the waste generated. Social responsibility and civic-mindedness are key to any good solution.

At home and at the workplace, we should sort and pack waste according to wet or dry waste, so that they do not mess up the trash bins or create foul odours and attract pests. These considerations will help to keep our trash bins cleaner and less smelly, making the collection job easier for the crew.

Compared to most countries, dumping waste in Singapore is a relatively fuss-free activity because of the ubiquitous presence of trash bins. Truth be told, we may have become victims of our own success because these bins would require a lot of workers to clear on a regular basis, whether they are full or not.

To reduce the manpower required, we should rethink how we can effectively reduce waste collection requirements. For instance, for certain areas, NParks and Town Councils could consider using bigger bins, reducing the number of trash bins and place them further apart in public places. This will reduce the number of collection trips and the staff that is needed. But that also means people must be prepared to walk further to dispose of their trash and going to another trash bin if the nearest one is already full.

We should recycle more and be more environmentally friendly. In 2021, close to seven million tonnes of solid waste were generated and about 55% was recycled. In recent years, we have stepped up our recycling culture and have seen encouraging improvements. However, our recycling rate is still lagging behind countries such as Germany and South Korea. We should continue with more public education efforts and recycling drives to encourage ground-up recycling practices.

As mentioned, it will take strong civic-mindedness and social responsibility to encourage people to be more conscious about recycling and proper disposal of their litter. Such lifelong habits are best learnt in schools and at home from a young age. We should all try to be more considerate and care about the welfare of our fellow Singaporeans who are working hard to assist us to clear our waste on a daily basis. Let us do our part and not make their job harder than it already is.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to propose a multi-pronged approach to address our long-term challenges in the waste management sector. Other than growing the pool of waste management crew with the PWM, we will need to leverage better design and technology and improve work processes to automate the waste collection process. We also need to look at a fairer waste collection fee structure to support the cost increase. Finally, all of us should make a conscious effort to generate less waste and be more civic-minded in how we dispose of our trash. Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude with my full support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

3.12 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, in 2020, when the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) amended the Environmental Public Health Act, Minister Grace Fu spoke about the aim of the Government to keep Singapore clean and safe through collective action and co-ownership. I agree with this approach.

I am thus very heartened to read the further introduction of the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill, with a focus on issues close to the hearts and lives of most of our residents. Ensuring a cleaner living environment in our estates and uplifting the waste management and cleaning sector in Singapore are areas I believe to be important to attain high public health standards for a better quality of life for all Singaporeans, including my residents in Jalan Kayu.

My speech will focus on three considerations related to the Bill: one, suggestion for mandatory education or counselling for re-offenders of high-rise littering; two, cost considerations for the proposed revision in the cleaning business licensing framework; and three, creating a conducive environment to uplift workers of waste collection and waste disposal services.

Firstly, on MSE’s proposed insertion of a new section 17A which would presume that the act of high-rise littering from a residential flat is committed by its owners or tenants, I am supportive of it as a stronger deterrent against high-rise littering. I recall in October last year, Minister Grace Fu shared in this House that the number of complaints about high-rise littering had almost doubled from an average of 16,000 annually before 2016 to 32,000 cases in 2021.

A major concern I often hear from my residents is the high-rise littering of cigarette ashes and butts. Many residents are not only asking for their homes to be kept clean and safe from such unwanted litters, but they also raised a valid fire safety concern, especially when the clothes that they hang out for drying catch the cigarette ashes and butts. Our Town Council cleaners are often called upon to clean up these litters thrown down by irresponsible home owners or tenants, spreading the cleaners thin on their daily cleaning duties in the estate. Between 2019 and 2022, 54% of total high-rise littering offences enforced by NEA were for high-rise cigarette butt littering.

A stronger deterrent through adding clause 17A is a policy enhancement that I support to change behaviours and habits. In addition, I hope to recommend that stronger penalties be imposed on high-rise littering re-offenders. Currently, under the amendment Bill, individuals who commit a littering offence is liable on conviction to a Court fine of up to $2,000 for a first conviction and higher amounts of $4,000 to $10,000 on second and subsequent convictions. Furthermore, a Corrective Work Order (CWO) for up to 12 hours can also be imposed by the Court.

For first-time offenders, a fine of $2,000 may be able to deter them from committing the offence further. However, for repeat offenders, I wonder if there are deeper habitual behavioural issues causing them not to be able to restrain themselves from such irresponsible actions. Besides monetary fines to seek behavioural changes, I suggest that a CWO be complemented with a mandatory education or counselling session for re-offenders so that we can address root causes leading to these re-offences.

Secondly, the Bill seeks to amend section 80G to enable the Director-General of Public Health to issue different classes of cleaning business licences and to replace the eligibility criterion for an applicant of a cleaning business to meet certain paid-up capital, bizSAFE certification and clean record with no conviction.

Although I understand the intention for these higher standards is to drive up public health standards of cleaning businesses, I would like to seek clarifications from MSE whether considerations have been given to potential cost increases that cleaning companies may face to meet these higher licensing requirements. Cleaning companies are already facing manpower crunch and higher costs to implement the PWM. Has MSE considered what further costs may cleaning companies need to incur to meet the requirements and who these costs will be passed to?

Instead of merely imposing higher licensing requirements, like my fellow hon Parliamentary Member, Ms Poh Li San, I would like to suggest for MSE to work across relevant agencies and Ministries to provide concurrently an automation and capabilities enhancement grant with platforms that cleaning companies can learn what practical and scalable automation they can utilise in their cleaning processes, such as enabling them with knowledge and grants or partnership with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to experiment with technologies like cleaning robots in HDB flats to see how this technology needs to be iterated and enhanced for it to work in the estates at higher scalability. I hope this will enable the cleaning companies to increase productivity even as they need to invest in more essential costs to keep higher standards.

Lastly, the new proposed sections 23A(2) and 31AA(2) are introduced to enable regulations to be made to require waste collector and waste disposal licensees to implement the PWM for their workers. I am very supportive of this move by MSE to legislate and enable workers from the waste management sector to benefit also from the PWM.

Besides baseline wage growth through PWM, I hope that the Government can consider the intangible aspects of the cleaning and waste management sectors by enhancing respect, dignity and appreciation for our cleaners and workers in these sectors. I hope MSE can strengthen tripartite cooperation within the sector to create platforms through the Government, employers and union to give social support and recognition to these workers.

Similar to the Migrant Workers' Centre Recreation Club, I would like to suggest that the Government work with the union to set up a recreation club for our cleaners and workers from the waste management sectors to better support their social recreational needs, mental well-being and to show appreciation for the hard work and dedication that these unsung heroes give to keep our environment clean. Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak some words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill tabled by NEA. I have some comments and suggestions.

First, the Bill will add a new presumption clause to HDB high-rise littering cases to assume that the registered owner is the offender. I feel that the addition will enhance the deterrent effect and the awareness of flat owners and tenants on public health issues and make them take on greater responsibility to prevent littering from their units. I also hope that the Government will step up the education and disciplinary measures for repeat offenders and raise their awareness of environmental public health through compulsory education or Corrective Work Orders (CWO) programmes.

Second, I understand that the Government will amend the waste management licensing framework to encourage businesses to raise wages at all levels to help attract and retain workers, and to ensure that they have sufficient funds to train workers to raise their productivity. However, I am also worried that requiring businesses to comply with the salaries set by the authorities will cause them to raise prices. Therefore, I hope that the Government will set up the waste management innovation fund to encourage businesses to adopt innovative and fully automated technology tools, as well as strengthen the staff training to raise productivity.

Third, I also support the Government's move to amend the licensing framework for waste management operators to prepare them for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to be implemented from July 2023. The implementation of PWM will benefit about 3,000 local workers. While raising the basic salary of workers, I also hope that the Government and unions will pay more attention to the welfare of waste management workers and cleaners. I suggest providing better public social assistance and considering setting up a waste management worker recreation centre, similar to the Migrant Workers' Centre Recreation Club, to provide them with recreational activities to help them relax.

(In English): Mr Speaker, let me end my speech with a quote by renowned conservationist, Dr Jane Goodall. She said, "Each one of us matters, has a role to play, and makes a difference. Each one of us must take responsibility for our own lives, and above all, show respect and love for living things around us, especially each other."

This quote comes close to my heart as I speak on this Bill. I believe everyone is responsible for keeping our community clean and liveable. It is the ultimate mark of mutual respect for one another to help take care of our environment. I would like to end my speech with a deep thanks to all our cleaning, waste collection and waste disposal workers for your daily hard work in keeping Singapore clean. And let us all also do our part. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.23 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill proposes several key amendments. In my speech today, I will focus on two.

First, I welcome the introduction of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for waste collection and disposal workers. This is an essential step for our essential workers. It includes paying workers a baseline wage, overtime and an annual bonus per the Tripartite Cluster for Waste Management's recommended wage schedule. I understand that the wage schedule is expected to stretch to 30 June 2029. However, I hope that this schedule can be shortened by increasing the opportunities to upskill workers and introduce technology.

Sir, this Bill also aims to address the growing concern of high-rise littering. Just last week, a resident approached me and shared his long-time frustration at a neighbour throwing a cigarette butt out of the window and onto his air-condition ledge and sometimes, into his room. He shared the difficulty the agencies had in catching the culprit despite the deployment of cameras and enhanced surveillance.

Sir, he is not alone. Many others have shared similar experiences. Sometimes, litter in the form of food, face masks, tissue papers land in their rooms and it is certainly distressing especially if they have children or elderly family members at home.

Complaints about this similar issue have nearly doubled over the past few years, and it is imperative that we take swift and effective action to address it.

Despite the increased deployment of cameras, the success in curbing high-rise littering has been incremental. The proposed clause would make it easier for NEA to take enforcement action against littering from residential flats by automatically presuming the registered owner or tenant is the offender. The proposed fines, starting at $2,000 for the first offence and increasing with subsequent convictions, will serve as a strong deterrent against littering.

Recently, I conducted house visits together with the Public Hygiene Council. We sought residents' views on the proposed presumption law and were glad that every resident was supportive of this move. Nevertheless, I understand that there may be some concerns regarding the implementation of this Bill.

The Bill's proposal of the presumption of guilt for flat owners and tenants may raise questions about due process and fairness. Could the Ministry share and elaborate further on its plans to ensure that members of the public understand the processes and their cases would be dealt with fairly?

Additionally, could the Ministry provide assurances and examples on how the enforcement process would consider the well-being of the elderly, young children and vulnerable groups, including those who are facing mental health issues?

Sir, I ask this because I have come across cases where the offender is facing mental health issues. Often, they are considered serial offenders and despite continuous intervention and support from their own family members, the Residents’ Committee (RC), the Town Council, NEA as well as the Police, they continue to litter. Would the Ministry then consider working closely with the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), for example, to provide mandatory counselling support? Similarly, this may be extended to the elderly.

Sir, the burden of proof to rebut the presumption could be onerous for the registered owner or tenant. They would need to provide evidence within 14 days of being notified by NEA that an offence has been committed. This could be difficult especially if they were not present in the flat at the time of the offence or if the elderly, mentally or physically disabled are the ones who are involved. Could the Ministry consider extending the period of 14 days to 30 days?

Sir, in conclusion, the Bill is important in improving the already high environmental and public health standards in our country. While I have raised some concerns and suggestions, I am confident that the Ministry will address these issues fairly to all parties concerned.

It is fundamental that Singaporeans play an active role to maintain high environmental and public health standards. We all play a part. We cannot take things for granted and we must stand for a cleaner, greener Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

3.28 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. In particular, I support clause 5, the new section 17A where the registered flat owner or registered flat tenant will be found guilty of high-rise littering if he cannot prove within a given time that he is not responsible for the offence.

Complaints in Singapore about high-rise littering have almost doubled to an average of 29,700 between 2019 and 2021, as compared to an average of 16,800 between 2016 and 2018. This reflects what I see and feel on the ground, as the complaints I received about high-rise littering increased significantly at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when most people were working from home.

Given that the offender typically could not be identified in about 15% of cases investigated from 2019 to 2021, I am hopeful that the amendment would lead to residents taking stronger ownership in preventing such acts from their homes.

Taking a step back from the proposed amendments, the success of whether we can even track the origin of high-rise litter stems from the effective installation of the surveillance cameras. Let me continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Grace Fu has pointed out in the Parliament Sitting last October that cameras monitoring high-rise littering often failed to capture it in action. Even if the high-rise littering could be recorded, NEA still has to take about three to six months to decide whether to issue a fine. Such a process appears to be time-consuming and laborious. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if NEA has invested sufficient funds in procuring better cameras with wide-angle capabilities that are able to obtain clear videos even in low-light environment. At the same time, I also hope that NEA has deployed artificial intelligence (AI) to detect high-rise litter, rather than using human eyes to watch videos for hours to see if there is any litter falling from height. It is less effective if you use human eyes.

Even if we finally manage to capture the unit where the litter is falling from, NEA is often unable to take enforcement actions because it is not able to identify the offender. This is regrettable. With the new presumption clause, which presumes that the registered owner or the tenant of the flat is the offender, it will greatly increase the enforcement efficiency. More importantly, this presumption clause can serve as a deterrent, allowing family members and tenants living under the same roof to monitor one another. The presumption will not affect 99% of the law-abiding HDB residents. In fact, it will be helpful in reducing the inconvenience brought by high-rise littering.

Good laws must come with effective enforcement. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how many surveillance cameras can NEA deploy currently to monitor high-rise littering? In the market, we know that there are many affordable and effective cameras. With this new rule in place, can NEA consider doubling the number of cameras to better monitor high-rise littering?

NEA also said earlier that elderly offenders and children will be treated more leniently when enforcing the law. This is understandable. But, in my constituency of Nanyang, there are cases of repeated high-rise littering offences committed by children. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, how many high-rise littering offenders were committed by the elderly and underaged residents in the past five years? How many of them are repeat offenders?

We know that high-rise littering does not occur only in HDB estates, but also in private condominiums, with some even involving fatal casualties. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if this presumption clause can be adapted and applied to private condominiums?

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me move on to the other topic of Progressive Wage Model (PWM) which also constitute an important part of the amendment Bill. With about 3,000 Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) working in the waste management sector, the increase in their wages over the next six years under the PWM is timely and welcome.

The question is always the cost. Who will pay for this wage increase? This is an important question as Singaporeans have already experienced high inflation in the past year and the inflation rate is likely to remain high in the next one year. How much of the pay increase is likely to be subsidised by the Government or absorbed by the employers or would the industry players be likely to transfer the bulk of the wage increase to the end consumers? Meanwhile, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, are there plans to justify the increase in wages by increasing the productivity of the sector with better-trained workers and technology? Notwithstanding the above queries, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

3.34 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to speak on the statutory presumption clause for high-rise littering and the cleaning business licensing framework.

High-rise littering has been on the rise with no signs of abating. Our cleaners bear the brunt of such inconsiderate and wanton behavior. They are often blamed for not maintaining the neighborhood. But ultimately, cleaners do not dirty the estate. Inconsiderate residents do.

High-rise litterbugs cause real dangers to innocent passers-by too. The number of complaints has doubled in recent years, but enforcement actions has stagnated at around 1,500 instances annually. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon Mr Liang that the number of complaints is probably on the more conservative side. We clearly need tougher actions. Help the cleaners, take the fight to the litterbugs.

I support the proposed statutory presumption clause. There are too many dwelling units for effective comprehensive enforcement. Owners and tenants must be made responsible for the action of their dwellers.

I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Ministry. Firstly, on the letter of intended prosecution. To rebut the statutory presumption, the presumed offender must respond within 14 days of being notified by NEA. Could the Ministry clarify if this letter will only be sent via post? If so, can NEA tap on the Government's digital capabilities to have the letter of intended prosecution to be sent electronically via email and SMS based on the registered owner or tenant's contact details in their Singpass? This would reduce vexatious cases and appeals where presumed offenders request for a longer timeline to rebut the statutory presumption by claiming that they had not seen the letter from NEA due to various reasons.

Next, on the penalties for high-rise littering. Currently, a person is liable to a fine ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 for littering. Corrective Work Orders (CWOs) may also be discretionally imposed by Courts where they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so. Under what circumstances would it be considered expedient? I join the hon Mr Lim Biow Chuan in urging the Ministry to consider imposing mandatory CWOs, alongside the current fine structure for high-rise littering.

In addition, where the high-rise litterbug disposes of an item which has the propensity to cause grave bodily harm, perhaps the Courts should also have the discretion to impose a jail term. I believe that this distinction is important to hold high-rise litterbugs to a higher responsibility for their actions compared to general littering in public places.

Lastly, on surveillance camera deployments to aid NEA's efforts in taking enforcement action against high-rise litterbugs, could the Ministry share the challenges in deploying cameras for surveillance? Would the Ministry also accept user-submitted video recordings as evidence for enforcement?

With the proper safeguards in place, can NEA consider working with the Singapore Police Force to tap on its network of cameras? This widens the surveillance capabilities without adding to the cost of deployment. There are natural privacy concerns. However, a framework can be put in place to balance the needs adroitly.

Next, on the revised cleaning business licensing framework. The tiered licensing framework is a clear signal that we want companies to ready themselves with the right resources and practices to develop the workforce. This is a positive move. Critical to the success of this framework must be the rewards or premium in having a higher class licence. There must be economic rewards for companies that obtain the Class 1 license. For example, only holders of a higher class licence can bid for certain projects. This creates the financial incentives for companies to upgrade themselves. There might not be such a market for these higher class licences now. But we can start to create one by having the public sector to commit to buying services from higher class license holders for projects of a set monetary threshold.

Larger firms with progressive practices can also adopt such practices, especially those which supply services to the public sector. The challenges for businesses to transform and transition are also not trivial. To support the changes to the revised framework, businesses should capitalise on the initiatives under the Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map and Jobs Transformation Map. For example, businesses could ride on the push towards Outcome Based Contracting (OBCs), where service buyers specify contract requirements in terms of deliverable outcomes instead of headcount. OBCs are now adopted by all Government service buyers and 40% of large service buyers in the industry.

The tripartite partners can encourage the take-up of the Environmental Services Job Redesign Consultancy Package. Substantial funding support is provided through the Productivity Solutions Grant to help businesses transform by streamlining operations alongside the adoption of technological solutions.

The Cleaning and Waste Management industries face an urgent need to transform. These are difficult industries that are shunned by most locals. Without the better use of technology, a rapidly ageing Singapore will face even more dire manpower challenges.

The PWM in the waste management industry will take effect later this year. It is a critical success in the ongoing work to improve the lives and livelihoods of locals working in this difficult but very essential industry. Our workers in the cleaning and waste management industries are clearly an indispensable part of our workforce. They are more than deserving of better wages and brighter prospects in the long term.

The tripartite partners have shown their commitment to ensure this with various programmes and initiatives available to these businesses. We will need to keep the momentum going to help our workers with better jobs and better pay to face the evolving challenges of the future. Notwithstanding the suggestions, Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

4.01 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, despite many years of campaigning on the importance of public hygiene and cleanliness, the number of tickets issued by NEA for littering offences hit an all-time high of 39,200 tickets in 2018 before dropping significantly to 19,400 and 15,500 tickets issued in 2020 and 2021 respectively. The fall in number of tickets issued would highly be due to the curtailment of social activities during COVID-19 as the number of tickets issued are only for those who have been caught littering. The real problem of littering is likely to remain and it would be interesting to see what this number would be in 2022 and 2023 as more of society opens up.

As one of the most densely populated countries in the world, with the majority of our population living in high-rise apartments or flats, the issue of high-rise littering is also of concern. It is interesting – compared to the fall in the number of tickets issued by NEA for littering in public spaces for 2020 and 2021, the same period saw a drastic increase in numbers of complaints for high-rise littering.

From 22,000 complaints received by NEA in 2019, 2020 and 2021 saw NEA receiving 35,000 and 32,000 complaints respectively. This is likely because of more people working from home, thereby exacerbating the issue of litter being thrown out of the windows of their apartments. It is almost as if they shifted their mindset from littering in public to littering from their apartments.

The problem of high-rise littering needs to be addressed urgently because the actions of a few inconsiderate individuals can lead to the reduction in the quality of life for the rest of the residents in that entire block of flats. In more severe cases, high-rise killer litter might lead to a loss of life when pedestrians are struck by them.

At present, the burden of proof for high-rise littering lies in NEA having to identify and prove that an individual has committed the offence. The evidence is obtained from surveillance cameras that NEA deploys and flat owners only have to furnish NEA with the identity of every occupier of the flat at the time of the offence. The onus is on NEA to establish the identity of the culprits and taking punitive actions against the offenders. Clearly, this is an onerous process that is not only resource intensive but is inefficient as well.

Based on reported averages, approximately 1,500 enforcement actions were taken annually between 2017 and 2021 for high-rise littering, while NEA received an average of about 25,000 such complaints during the same period. The stark differences between the number of enforcement actions taken against high-rise littering versus the number of complaints received further drive home the point that it is never easy to take actions against those who engage in such behaviour.

I believe the amendment to shift the burden of proof from NEA having to prove that a particular individual in the flat has littered, to the flat owners and occupiers proving that they did not litter is a step in the right direction in ensuring greater efficiency in tackling the scourge of high-rise littering.

That said, Mr Speaker, the prerequisite for enforcement actions remain – there is a need for NEA to deploy surveillance cameras to collect evidence that high-rise litter originated from a particular household. With surveillance cameras being a scarce resource, I understand from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's speech earlier that members of the public are allowed to submit footage of high-rise littering that the NEA could use to follow up on such cases.

The question I have for the Senior Minister of State and for the Government regarding this is, first of all, is there a convenient platform or a convenient app, a convenient website where the public can submit this evidence fairly easily and is fuss-free, and is it made known to the public?

Secondly, should this case have to be prosecuted in Court, will the evidence submitted by the public suffice or is the member of the public who submitted that evidence be required to go to Court to provide testimony? I think if the latter is the case, then it might actually deter some individuals from providing evidence. So, in this regard, would the Government consider the evidence submitted to be sufficient without having to require the person submitting the evidence to go to Court to provide testimony?

Next, I would like to move on to the extent of the Bill. At present, the Environmental and Public Health Bill applies only to publicly accessible areas. Private properties such as executive condominiums and private strata condominiums are regarded as places with restricted access, hence, they are not subjected to the Bill unless the high-rise litter lands on public property.

It was further suggested that cases of high-rise littering in such properties should be dealt with by the management committee with the properties’ by-law or the management committee can turn to the Courts to deal with recalcitrant individuals who persist in high-rise littering.

I would like to ask if there are instances where the residents and management committees of private properties can ask for assistance from the Government to deal with egregious cases of high-rise littering and would the Government consider invoking the Environmental and Public Health Bill to prosecute recalcitrant individuals if the management committees of such properties are unable to take effective actions against them? I believe the hon Member Mr Ang Wei Neng had also alluded to this in his speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen several high-profile high-rise killer litter cases that have happened in private condominiums. In 2019, a television was thrown out of a 10th floor condominium unit. In the same year, a wine bottle was thrown out of a condominium unit, striking a 73-year-old man, resulting in his death. In 2020, a television, sound bar and speakers were thrown out of a 50th floor condominium unit. Maybe he was unhappy with his sound system – I do not know. But as incredible, as it sounds, these things do happen. While these incidents may seem isolated and extreme instances of high-rise littering, they demonstrate that high-rise littering and potentially killer litter can also be a problem in private properties as well.

Can the Government consider providing residents and management committees of private properties a more direct route to resolve such cases instead of them having to rely on the route of by-laws and taking the matter to Court, or Court orders?

Finally, I would like to talk about the punishment for littering. I think this was touched on by hon Members Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Lim Biow Chuan regarding the matter of Corrective Work Orders (CWOs). They were first introduced in 1992 for offenders of littering to increase offenders’ awareness of the impact of littering, as well as for them to experience the difficulties faced by cleaners. At present, I understand that CWOs are not mandatory and they are only one possible form of punishment for those found guilty of littering. From 2017 to 2021, a total of approximately 10,200 CWOs were issued, making up a small percentage of the total number of tickets issued during that period for littering.

I would like to ask the Government for more clarity with regard to when CWOs are actually issued and would like to suggest that the Government consider issuing more CWOs as a form of deterrence against littering, especially in egregious cases. As painful as a fine can be, there are those who might be financially comfortable enough to pay off the fine and the fine has no material or any sort of impact on them. However, performing CWOs would allow them to empathise with the cleaners and realise how their inconsiderate behaviour has impacted others. I think this is likely to be more impactful in bringing about a behavioural change instead of the issuance of a fine.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my clarifications and suggestions notwithstanding, I end my speech in firm support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

4.10 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I am especially heartened to note the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for waste management and materials recovery workers starting 1 July 2023, which aims to boost the salaries of about 3,000 resident workers. These essential workers are often unseen and unheard and the PWM will help create a roadmap for upward progression.

I have a few clarifications on the Bill. Firstly, the revisions to the cleaning business licensing framework. Licensing sets entry-level baseline standards for cleaning businesses as the industry plays an important role in ensuring a clean and hygienic environment. Three classes of licences are being introduced, replacing the current framework which only has one type of licence, renewable on an annual basis. This tiered framework means that cleaning companies have to be committed to the industry and their employees, otherwise the licence will not be renewed.

In the long run, cleaning businesses are expected to hold the renewable Class 2 licences which require licensees to hold a paid-up capital of at least $25,000. However, in January 2023, it was observed that only one-third of the 1,550 licensed cleaning businesses currently qualify for this licence. While NEA has provided that the start date of this new framework will only take place in 2024, does NEA foresee any shocks to the industry, should a large number of companies be unable to keep their licences and provide cleaning services? Between office and commercial, food and beverage (F&B), or the conservancy sub-sectors, which does NEA foresee being most affected in terms of the provision of services and also potential loss of jobs? And does NEA have any plans to help cleaning companies and their employees make this transition?

Further, I understand that this paid-up capital requirement is being introduced to support better wages and greater technological adoption in the industry, but given that technological development and adoption requires more than just capital – for example, R&D and expertise which smaller companies may not have existing capacity for – does NEA have any schemes in mind to help these companies embrace technology?

In a similar vein, it is of utmost importance to make upskilling resources accessible to all resident workers, especially for those who may be older and not as tech-savvy or may not be fluent in English. How many WSQ courses are available in a non-English language and are these courses easily accessible and packaged as bite-sized to workers who need them? Such provisions would go a long way in helping workers upskill and grow regardless of background.

Next, on to our day-to-day living environments and the enforcement of high-rise littering. According to NEA, there has been a significant increase in such reports islandwide. In my constituency too, unfortunately, despite repeated advisories, public education and more intensive clean-ups, we do see such behaviour. And given that about 15% of killer litter culprits are never identified, the new law could place greater onus on flat owners and tenants serving as a possible deterrent.

That said, practical problems may arise when trying to enforce this new law. For instance, home owners may be overseas or otherwise uncontactable in the 14-day window by which they have to show that they are not responsible for littering. They may not be able to satisfactorily prove their innocence if they are out of the house but leave no digital or paper footprint. What steps will NEA take to reasonably clear home owners of this suspicion?

Furthermore, some cases of high-rise littering cannot be stopped by enforcement alone if they are caused by other underlying issues. For instance, repeat offenders may have mental health conditions or disabilities and some seniors have very deep-seated beliefs that are challenging for family members to correct. For example, a case of a resident who has dementia and throws items out of the window despite the best reminders from officers and family members, or seniors who continue to feed pigeons because they think it results in good karma.

In such cases, I urge NEA to understand the difficult position of home owners and exercise compassion in the enforcement process. Enforcement should be solutions-driven to also soothe the frayed nerves of the complaining neighbour, such as installing mesh over the window for example, rather than focusing on a penal effect in such cases. Is there a tiered process which NEA could employ, for example, a warning letter and advisory notice before the actual enforcement in Court?

Lastly, I understand that the high-rise littering act is proven to be committed from a residential flat when there is photo or video evidence that the littering has originated from that unit. I understand from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's speech earlier that genuine photos and videos supplied by neighbours and members of the public could be considered for evidence. But what is the standard of evidence required so that the public can help and chip in as eyes and ears on the ground, and who can the public submit these photos to? Enforcement relies heavily on the deployment of cameras, which may be expensive, and already lean manpower. So, I wonder if NEA plans to direct more resources to tackle this and if other individuals can be trained to support the enforcement too.

Finally, I understand that the time bar to pursue illegal dumping cases is proposed to be tripled from one year to three years of the offence, so as to deal with complex cases of illegal dumping. Three years can be a long time for investigations to be ongoing, both from the perspective of Government resources and also for the companies to have this outstanding. Could NEA please share what are some examples of such complex cases and based on complaints in the last three years, could NEA provide an indication of the proportion of cases that would benefit from being extended from beyond a year?

In closing, this Bill underscores the Government's commitment to boosting public cleanliness and hygiene. The proposed measures increase the authorities' ability to act swiftly and effectively while guiding companies towards greater professionalism. Employers, workers and everyday citizens alike must continue to play our part towards a clean Singapore. Notwithstanding the clarifications, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

4.16 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker Sir, I support the proposal to hold the owners or tenants of HDB flats responsible for high-rise littering from their units. With the new law, I am hopeful that households or co-tenants would be more motivated to prevent littering. I appreciate that NEA will exercise care when investigating cases committed by young children, the elderly and vulnerable groups who may claim to have mental conditions. May I check what age is defined as an "elderly" for the purpose of this Bill?

I am concerned that if NEA just issues warnings to cases with mental conditions, the fundamental problem of littering and its associated safety risks remains. Can NEA refer these alleged culprits to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) immediately, so that the medical assessments can be made swiftly? I support that these offenders be required to attend assessments within a stipulated timeframe. If no valid reason is provided to explain their absence, they should be deemed guilty of having committed high-rise littering.

I have a case in my constituency where a gentleman does high-rise littering on a daily basis for the past few years. The tissue papers and plastic bags are stuck on trees and may pose health hazards to the residents staying on the second and third levels. When NEA, Town Councils, workers, community volunteers and myself approached the family members on various occasions, they often claim that the house owner is mentally unsound and they cannot control his behaviour. We enlisted the help of a Government agency in the hope that it can perform the assessment and refer this culprit to IMH. This Government agency involves the Family Service Centre (FSC) which spoke to his wife as the uncle is always hiding inside the room or the toilet. The wife also has concerns about the treatment partly because of the medications' side effects he had experienced previously.

This FSC informed that such littering behaviour does not warrant a need for enforced treatment. On the other hand, high-rise littering is not a sufficient reason to get the Police to compel the owner to open the door. Meanwhile, the neighbours continue to experience such disamenities. Therefore, I would like to know how this amendment will abate such littering cases. Is it possible to empower NEA to refer them to IMH for assessments directly? I suspect that in some cases, the offenders may not necessarily have any mental conditions, just the bad personal habit of littering. Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to seek a clarification. For recalcitrant offenders, is there a minimum time period when they will be issued the second and third fines after they have committed the first and second offences respectively?

I would also like to ask the Ministry if such fines have been effective against recalcitrant offenders? What happens when they plead financial hardship as the reason for being unable to pay and yet continue littering?

(In English): The Bill makes it an offence to cause or permit the dumping or disposal of waste in a public place from 1 July onwards. I have had cases in my estate where the contractors and residents threw bulky items into the pneumatic waste conveyance systems and caused blockages for the entire precinct for days. Will this Bill penalise such errant acts? Can this Bill allow Town Councils to install CCTVs to catch the suspects?

Next, the paid-up capital requirement was introduced to ensure that operators can keep up with wage climbs under the cleaning sector's existing Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the long haul and adopt more technological solutions which can be costly. I hope that the Government agencies which engage cleaning services from Class 1 licensees do not pass on the costs to Singaporeans indirectly as many are struggling with inflation. I also appeal to the Ministry to provide grants so as to assist these deserving companies in their purchases of expensive equipments to improve productivity.

Finally, I would like to ask how NEA will track and check that deserving resident workers in the waste collection and materials recovery sectors receive their wage increments. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

4.21 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill. The thoughtful, and I would like to add, passionate comments and suggestions reflect the high regard we place on public health and in maintaining high standards of public cleanliness and sanitation. Let me address these comments.

First, on the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the waste management sector. Several Members have spoken in support of the need to uplift our lower-wage workers. We are introducing the PWM to support our resident waste management workers by improving their skills, uplifting their wages and offering better job prospects and career progression. To achieve this, we also require companies to invest in training and technology adoption. A more competent waste management workforce will benefit our waste management companies. This upgrading of the waste management industry will, ultimately, benefit all Singaporeans and Singapore.

We acknowledge that there will be some increase in operational cost initially, as Mr Ang Wei Neng has spoken about. To moderate the increase, the Government has provided the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) which waste management companies can tap on. In the medium to longer term, investment in our workers will pay off for our companies by enhancing their capabilities, productivity and efficiency. Even as the Government provides some transitional support, we will need to do our part as service buyers and consumers to bear some of the cost increase in order to support our lower-wage waste management workers on their upskilling journey.

To Dr Wan Rizal's suggestion to compress the wage schedule, the multi-year wage schedule from 2023 to 2028 has been set out to provide greater certainty to the industry so that they can plan for the changes in determining the wage recommendations. The Tripartite Cluster for Waste Management had made a conscious effort to offer better wages to attract new entrants and retain the existing experienced workforce, and to couple this with higher skills requirements to drive greater productivity. To ensure the wage schedule remains relevant, a mid-term review would be undertaken in 2025.

On Mr Yip Hon Weng's questions, it is not a common practice for waste management companies to deploy outsourced workers from manpower supplying companies. The proposed amendments to prevent such a practice will ensure that all waste management workers benefit from the PWM wages. As for extending the PWM to other sub-sectors, we do have plans to cover the waste treatment and disposal sub-sector at a later stage.

I thank Members for their broader suggestions on waste management. I agree with Ms Joan Pereira that partnerships are key in achieving our zero-waste vision. Individuals and organisations may tap on initiatives such as the SG Eco Fund for projects that support environmental sustainability and involve the community, and NEA's 3R Fund for projects that reduce waste generation and disposal.

As for Ms Poh Li San's suggestion to move towards a user-pays principle for waste collection, a similar model has already been adopted for trade premises where the monthly fee is based on the waste output by volume. We will continue to study different models for waste collection fees but there are currently no plans to adopt such a model for households. Instead, we encourage households to reduce waste and recycle more through education and other policies.

Members have also raised clarifications and suggestions on PWM that apply to both the waste management and cleaning sectors. On waste management, Mr Don Wee asked how we will ensure that resident workers will receive the PWM wage increments. The PWM requirements are implemented through the licensing regime for waste management licensees. Applicants for a waste management licence must show a progressive wage plan that they will be or are paying their workers PWM wages and produce relevant documents as required. NEA will conduct regular checks and impose financial penalties in the event of non-compliance. In serious cases, the licence may be suspended or revoked.

A similar approach has been taken for the cleaning sector's PWM, which is also implemented through the licensing regime for cleaning businesses.

On Mr Yip Hon Weng's question on the enforcement of PWM requirements for the cleaning sector, the number of penalties imposed in 2021 and 2022 has remained stable, where an average of about five financial penalties have been imposed on and 30 warning letters have been issued to cleaning business licensees each year.

Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about making skills upgrading more accessible to workers. Employers can tap on the Workfare Skills Support Scheme, which provides funding support such as absentee payroll to employers who send eligible workers for approved courses. For the cleaning sector, NEA works with the NTUC U-Care Centre to encourage service buyers to support their service providers who wish to send their cleaners for training during working hours and call on service buyers to refrain from requesting for replacement headcounts if cleaning standards are not compromised.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the PWM would be extended to migrant workers. The purpose of implementing the PWM requirements for resident workers in the waste management sector, as stated in the proposed amendments, is to ensure a more engaged waste collection and waste disposal workforce and the retention of a core of resident waste management workers.

In developing the broader PWM for other sectors and not just those in environmental services, it is recognised that employers are already responsible for the additional costs of the migrant workers, including their healthcare, accommodation and other related costs during their stay in Singapore. As such, employers are not required to adhere to the PWM for their migrant workers. Nonetheless, employers are encouraged to adopt the principles of the PWM for their migrant workers.

Members have spoken extensively about the revised cleaning business licensing framework. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the goals and benefits of the revised framework and our plans to achieve them, while Mr Don Wee, Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Ng Ling Ling raised concerns about increased business costs and possible folding of businesses. The revised framework is a strategic initiative under the Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map (ES ITM) to build more capable businesses in environmental services and spur them to create quality jobs and careers. At a steady state, all cleaning businesses will have to attain Class 1 or 2 licences after two years of joining the industry and will have to ensure skills training and workplace safety for their workforce and attain corresponding levels of financial ability.

With the Class 3 licence retaining the same requirements as the current licensing scheme, the revised cleaning business licensing framework will not impose higher barriers to entry compared to today. Existing cleaning business licensees, including new entrants that do not meet the requirements for the Class 1 or Class 2 licence can apply for the Class 3 licence and have an additional two years to grow their capabilities and transit to the Class 1 or Class 2 licences.

These changes are key to raising the capabilities of the cleaning industry, which will benefit both the businesses as well as service buyers. Given their ability to meet the higher minimum paid-up capital requirement and the additional training requirements relating to Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ), Class 1 licensees provide greater assurance to service buyers that they are equipped with more resources, experience and capabilities to undertake larger cleaning contracts and are committed to uplifting the wages and competencies of our cleaners. Additionally, NEA is working with the Ministry of Finance (MOF) towards requiring Government Procuring Entities to engage only cleaning businesses with a Class 1 licence.

To cope with the mandatory PWM wage increases for low-wage cleaners, cleaning businesses may tap on the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme for transitional wage support. We expect all cleaning businesses hiring resident workers to benefit from this scheme.

Prior to revising the framework, NEA had consulted the cleaning industry extensively and considered specific feedback on the new requirements for the Class 1 and 2 licences. We also factored in the request for more time to transit and therefore planned for the revised framework to only come into effect on 1 January 2024. This gives existing cleaning business licensees more time, in fact, effectively up to three years from today until 2026, to eventually transit to a Class 2 or 1 licence.

Nevertheless, we recognise that there may be some degree of industry consolidation that favours companies with stronger capabilities and are better able to meet their employment obligations. In this transition, NEA will ensure that there are sufficient safeguards to protect cleaners who may be displaced.

In addition to giving existing cleaning businesses sufficient runway to transit, NEA will work closely with Workforce Singapore and NTUC U-Care Centre to facilitate job transfers within the Environmental Services industry, if needed.

To Mr Louis Ng's question on compliance history, the proposed requirement is that in order to attain a Class 1 licence, cleaning businesses must not have any non-compliance with relevant written laws in the last 24 months. Only Court conviction history, including those related to payment of wages to employees, will be taken into account.

Overall, the new requirements have been calibrated to provide service buyers and workers with the assurance that the businesses have the financial stability as well as capabilities and practices to deliver reliable and quality cleaning services without being overly onerous on business owners.

NEA will continue to review the licensing framework as necessary and will take Mr Louis Ng's suggestions into consideration.

Several Members, including Ms Joan Pereira, asked about the support for cleaning businesses to adopt technology and raise productivity, including working with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to build competencies in the cleaning industry.

Beyond the ES ITM, there are various Government initiatives supporting innovation and technology adoption.

The Chief Technology Officer-as-a-Service is a platform that helps cleaning businesses boost digitalisation efforts. Cleaning businesses can also benefit from the National Robotics Programme to develop new cleaning technology. In fact, the Autonomous Environmental Services Vehicle, which facilitates cleaning through robotic road-sweeping, was developed this way.

To build competencies, NEA has been working with IHLs to equip cleaners with digital skills such as using robotics systems to improve operations and processes. To better address learning needs, Ms Nadia Samdin would be pleased to know that some training courses are offered in languages such as Mandarin and Malay, while some training providers deploy multilingual trainers for their courses.

NEA will continue to partner IHLs and SkillsFuture Singapore to enhance training offerings for the cleaning workforce.

I thank Members for supporting the introduction of the statutory presumptions for littering from residential flats. Some have asked how this would be applied.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the effectiveness of the new law and other plans to address high-rise littering.

As highlighted in my opening speech, the statutory presumptions will place greater onus on owners and tenants of residential flats to prevent littering acts from being committed from their units in the first place. We believe this will enhance deterrence and contribute to reducing the number of high-rise littering acts in the long run.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Darryl David and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the scope of the statutory presumptions.

The presumptions will not cover littering from common corridors and staircases. For high-rise littering committed from the common corridors and staircases of residential flats, NEA will continue to investigate such cases based on the current approach.

The statutory presumptions also apply if litter is thrown from a private apartment that is used for residential purpose and the litter lands in a public place.

For high-rise littering within condominium or private apartment estates, Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) can introduce and leverage their by-laws to take appropriate actions.

Mr Desmond Choo asked about the method of issuance of the letter of intended prosecution to owners or tenants.

At the earlier stage of investigation, NEA will send a letter via post to notify the owner or tenant of the offence and explain how the statutory presumption will apply during the legal proceedings for the offence and how it may be rebutted. Contact via email or phone would only be possible after email addresses or phone numbers are furnished by the owners or tenants when they respond to the initial letter and request for subsequent correspondence via such methods.

Dr Wan Rizal also asked whether owners or tenants could have more time – 30 days instead of 14 days – to rebut the presumption.

The time period of 14 days is necessary to ensure that owners or tenants provide timely information to NEA to investigate the case effectively and efficiently. However, NEA will consider the facts of each appeal for more time to respond on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether or not to proceed with the enforcement action.

In response to Mr Leon Perera's query on the burden of proof for rebutting the presumption, there is no requirement for proving beyond reasonable doubt. For example, to prove that the owner or tenant was not at home, evidence such as purchase receipts or transportation trip transactions can be produced.

Alternatively, in response to Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin's question, the owner or tenant can provide the identity of the person whom he or she reasonably believes to be the offender to rebut the presumption. In response to Mr Leon Perera, merely pointing the finger at another person without a reasonable basis will not be acceptable.

Let me now highlight our approach to ensuring careful and judicious enforcement, which several Members have spoken about.

Concerns were raised on how the statutory presumption may negatively affect the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and fairness in investigations, such as possible instances where owners or tenants pin the responsibility on children or on the elderly and disabled individuals to avoid the penalties.

Let me assure Members that NEA will conduct investigations and assess the facts of each case carefully, including interviewing the named persons or relevant witnesses before proceeding with any enforcement actions to ensure that no individuals are wrongly accused.

In cases involving multiple owners or tenants, given that NEA will send the letter of intended prosecution to all registered owners and tenants individually, each owner or tenant can respond directly to NEA. Individuals found to knowingly provide false information to implicate another person can be charged for providing false information. NEA will be judicious and exercise care in investigating and resolving cases involving vulnerable groups such as young children and the elderly, as is already practised today.

For littering acts committed by children below the age of 12, NEA will not take enforcement action against them as they may not have sufficient maturity to understand what they had done. Currently, NEA will issue an advisory letter to the parents to underscore their responsibility to educate their child on binning litter properly.

As for offenders with mental incapacity, NEA refers such cases to social welfare agencies, such as the Agency for Integrated Care, to provide more holistic help with the consent of the offender, or if the offender is not capable of giving such consent, then his or her next-of-kin. The social welfare agencies may then work with relevant stakeholders such as IMH for medical assessments.

For persistent cases involving the vulnerable groups, NEA may engage the parents or households to implement measures to prevent high-rise littering such as installing wire mesh on their windows.

While we empathise with the families of offenders with mental incapacity, NEA may still proceed with prosecution of persistent cases with the Attorney-General's Chambers' concurrence, especially if the offender is aware of the nature and consequences of his or her actions and no effort is made to prevent recurrence.

Some Members asked about the effectiveness of NEA's surveillance cameras.

NEA had increased the number of surveillance camera deployments by over 50% in 2020 and currently deploys about 200 surveillance cameras each month. High-rise littering incidences are captured in about 35% of such camera deployments, on average, over a five-year period.

In 2020 and 2021, about 7% of high-rise littering cases were attributed to persons below the age of 19 and 24% to those above the age of 64. NEA does not track the data for individuals with mental or physical disabilities, which only forms a minority of offenders.

The catch-rate is constrained by factors such as the suitability of the vantage points for camera deployment, lighting conditions and quality of information received through feedback.

Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Liang Eng Hwa may be pleased to know that NEA's surveillance cameras already leverage video analytics to detect falling litter, allowing for flagging and notification of high-rise littering acts without the need to manually review hours of video footages.

NEA will continue to enhance its enforcement capabilities by keeping pace with developments in surveillance camera technology.

Several Members, including Mr Lim Biow Chuan, asked if current penalties were effective, particularly against recalcitrant offenders.

We have stiff penalties for high-rise littering and only about 4% of offenders who litter from residential flats are repeat offenders. Littering offenders can be fined up to $2,000, $4,000 and $10,000 for their first, second and subsequent offences respectively. If the Court is satisfied that it would be appropriate for the protection of the environment and rehabilitation of the offender, the offender may also be issued with a Corrective Work Order (CWO).

To Members' suggestion to make the CWO mandatory for all littering offenders, the current fines remain an effective deterrent. NEA will continue to monitor the situation and review the penalty regime where necessary.

To Mr Don Wee's query, for recalcitrant offenders who appeal to NEA due to financial hardship, NEA will assess the facts of the case and the offender's past offences before taking the appropriate actions. This may include offering a composition sum or not acceding to the appeal.

To deter such offenders from littering again, NEA ensures that the enforcement actions are commensurate with the severity of the offence. Mr Desmond Choo asked if a new clause could be included to provide a jail term in addition to fines if the items littered have the propensity to cause harm. I would like to clarify that currently, where a person throws litter from residential buildings and endangers the personal safety of others or causes bodily harm, he or she can be liable under the Penal Code for an offence which is punishable with both imprisonment and fines.

The suggestion to terminate the lease of flat owners who are recalcitrant offenders is a harsh measure that ought not to be undertaken lightly. HDB exercises the right of compulsory acquisition sparingly and as a last resort. Nevertheless, this measure may also not address the root of the issue if the offender is just forced to move out and commits high-rise littering at a new address.

There are suggestions for NEA to accept evidence of littering from residential flats submitted by members of the public. As I shared earlier, clear evidence that an act of littering had been committed from an identified flat must be provided. Members of the public can provide such evidence through channels such as myENV or the OneService mobile applications. NEA will follow up and investigate the littering offence as long as the quality of the evidence is able to support NEA's enforcement action.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if residents are allowed to install cameras pointing upwards and not directly into their neighbours' units to identify high-rise littering offenders. While residents may undertake measures to support NEA, we encourage residents to be mindful of community relations and respect the privacy of their neighbours, as installing cameras within one's unit may intrude into his or her neighbours' privacy or interfere with his or her neighbours' enjoyment or use of their homes.

Residents should seek Town Councils' approval prior to installing any camera in HDB common spaces given that this is regulated under Town Council by-laws.

Lastly, Mr Louis Ng asked if a similar statutory presumption could be used to address the problem of second-hand smoke in flats. As explained earlier, the statutory presumption proposed in this Bill first requires clear evidence that an act of littering has been committed from a specific residential flat.

Unlike high-rise littering acts which involve undisputed evidence of littering from a flat, obtaining proof of the acts of smoking at windows and balconies is technologically inordinately more challenging. In addition to finding suitable locations for the deployment of surveillance cameras to detect smoking at windows and balconies, such cameras would need to detect the heat signature of a smoker's lit cigarette and visually identify that the lit object is a cigarette. The cameras that need to be used have a much shorter range and their line of sight can be easily blocked when smokers stand further from the windows or stand behind a glass pane, curtains or any physical barriers. Besides the limitations of current heat detection camera technology, this proposal gives rise to privacy issues as the entire footage recorded may have to be reviewed manually, even if it is by authorised persons.

These challenges need to be overcomed before we can consider prohibiting smoking at windows and balconies. I have explained this at length in this House on many occasions. But in order to not disappoint the Member, I am explaining this again. And since then, we have yet to see practicable solutions, from our scanning of available technology as well as international developments, to address second-hand smoke coming from homes. Nonetheless, I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that we will continue to monitor developments in this area with regard to smoking in homes because we are also as concerned about second-hand smoke and the harm it causes.

I shall move on to the rest of the amendments in this Bill.

To Mr Don Wee’s question on what can be done to address errant acts that result in blockages of the PWCS, Town Councils are required under the Town Councils Act to maintain, repair and replace the PWCS. The Town Councils can introduce a by-law to make causing blockages of PWCS an offence and develop ways of enforcing against this. The PWCS chute hopper is designed such that bulky items, for example large or long items, would not be able to fit into the opening. Sensors and monitoring equipment also help to prevent an excessive piling up of refuse within the chute. Residents and contractors are reminded that bulky waste can be conveniently disposed of by contacting their respective Town Councils for assistance.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh sought clarification on the cost of installing PWCS and how it compares with the potential savings in labour cost. Based on our consultations, the additional capital cost of PWCS is a small proportion of the total cost of a development and the maintenance cost is also a small proportion of the building's operational costs. With the increasing manpower challenges and the rising cost of labour, we can expect more cost savings due to the reduced manpower requirement of PWCS, not to mention the environmental benefits from the reduction in pest infestation, odours and exposed waste.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the disposal of waste in the common areas of HDB blocks. To clarify, the prohibition in section 20 applies to the use of a vehicle to dump waste in a public place or the dumping of waste from a vehicle in a public place. Disposing of waste in HDB common areas, except in areas designated for refuse, contravenes the respective Town Council's by-laws. Residents wishing to dispose of bulky items may also contact their respective Town Councils for assistance.

With regard to the extension of the limitation period in section 95 of the Act, I would like to clarify that this would apply to any offence committed under the EPHA, other than an offence that involves an injury or danger to health that subsists at the date of the complaint of the offence, and not only illegal dumping cases.

Complex cases include those involving multiple interviewees, some of whom may be uncooperative, thereby prolonging investigations. Notwithstanding the amendment, NEA will ensure that our investigation processes remain efficient.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. We have come a long way since Independence, working hard to keep Singapore clean. This was made possible by the tireless efforts of generations of Singaporeans, including our cleaners and waste management workers. Not only has this benefited our health and well-being, being a clean and green city has become part of our national identity. We must cherish what we have and continue to be guided by the values of care and consideration to keep our environment clean.

The proposed changes, as set out in this Bill, will enable us to support our cleaning and waste management sectors, as well as strengthen our shared responsibility to cultivate right behaviours that safeguard public health and a clean environment. Hence, I call on all Members of this House to support the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Mr Ang Wei Neng.

4.51 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Thank you, Speaker. Also, thank you to Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor for the very comprehensive round-up.

I have two clarifications. I am heartened that NEA is using artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse the video images and not human beings. So, there is opportunity to scale. And I also note that NEA deployed 200 cameras onsite. And I understand that each camera typically covered about 14 days of operation, which means NEA probably has more than 100 sets of cameras. I have alluded in my speech on whether NEA can consider doubling or tripling the number of cameras it has, so as to make sure that every repeated complaint about the locations of high-rise littering, would have a chance of detecting the culprits.

Secondly, Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor also revealed the number of repeat offenders who are caught for high-rise littering, for those below 19 years old and those who are elderly. But will Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor share how many are repeat offenders and how do we deal with them, even though they are elderly or young?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have shared, installing surveillance cameras depends on the design of the block, which stack the suspect is in, whether it is possible to find a suitable location. So, sometimes, it is not a question of the number of cameras available but whether we have got good quality information and whether we are able to deploy and install the camera in a location that gives us a good chance of a successful catch.

You will see that, as I have shared, the catch rate is 35%. And that is because there are all these constraints, whether it is weather, design of the block, quality of information and so on. As far as we are concerned, if there is good reason to install a surveillance camera, we will do so. So, it is not a question of increasing the numbers. We have done so. But as I have also said, putting surveillance camera everywhere and all the time is really not sustainable; it is not something we can do. Enforcing against high-rise littering, as we have also said, is very laborious; it is resource-intensive and also requires lots of time. We need to see how we can do this effectively. But, actually, the best way to address this problem is by cultivating positive social norms, civic-mindedness and social responsibility.

Can the Member repeat the second question? I am not quite sure what he was asking – repeat offenders and so on?

Mr Speaker: Please keep it short.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Yes, I am talking about the repeat offenders, those who are below 19 and those who are elderly. So, the number of repeat offenders – what is the percentage?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I do not have the numbers here, but it is a minority.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State, with the cases of littering are going up, why does the Senior Minister of State think that imposing fines will act as an effective deterrent against littering? Why is NEA so against issuing CWOs? We are not asking them to go to jail. We are asking them to experience what it is like to have to pick up litter and watch for themselves the effect of littering on the common areas. So, why is NEA so against issuing CWOs, even for the first offence?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his passionate plea. NEA is not against CWOs. In fact, it is at the discretion of the Courts to issue a CWO, where they think it is fit to do so.

But having said that, we are saying that fines are actually effective as a deterrent because based on our statistics, of those who have been caught and had been enforced against, the number of repeat offenders is very low. It is 4%. Hence, we think that it is not necessary, even for first-time offenders, to be issued a CWO by the Court. We have answered this question before. The Member had submitted a similar Parliamentary Question and we had also said that because the number of repeat offenders is so low, we do want to give the first-time offenders a second chance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.