Effectiveness of High-rise Littering Prevention Measures

The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –

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

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Question No 13.

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

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

NEA has stepped up the deployment of these cameras over the years and has conducted close to 3,000 deployments since August 2012. Last year, NEA took more than 800 enforcement actions against high-rise litterbugs, an 80-fold increase compared to 2011, when the surveillance cameras had not been introduced yet. Offenders who were prosecuted in Court received fines ranging from $700 to $5,600.

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

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I would like to ask: for recalcitrant high-rise litterbugs, would the Ministry consider imposing a certain limit whereby if they have exceeded a number of times where they were caught for high-rise littering, that tougher measures beyond just fines will be imposed on them? For example, in very extreme cases, perhaps, confiscation of their flats. I believe there are some cases, where the litterbugs have been really recalcitrant despite many, many fines already imposed on the persons. Will the Ministry consider such a measure?

Also, one of the issues is that high-rise litterbugs continue to offend on a daily basis, thinking they can get away with it. Will the Ministry consider revealing the identity of litterbugs who may be caught on camera so that the grassroots or agencies can then follow up with these persons and to try and persuade the persons to not litter in the future?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I want to thank the Member for her suggestions as well as her questions. Firstly, for recalcitrant high-rise litterbugs, to consider if we should cap the limit for the fine imposed. First of all, for high-rise litterbugs, the fine is not compounded. They have to attend Court and the Court will decide on the fines to be imposed. But certainly, this is something that we can follow up on.

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

Having said that, for recalcitrant offenders, we also have to look at the facts of each case. In cases where it may be due to mental issues, we work closely with the grassroots, as well as with the family members, to see what assistance can be rendered, as well as to implement measures to prevent this littering from happening, for instance, even installing wire mesh across the grills of the windows to prevent the littering offence. We need to look at each case separately and be mindful that some of these may be due to specific issues.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how many surveillance cameras does NEA have and how long do they take to deploy surveillance cameras. The reason I ask is that there are many near-miss cases. Residents show me their clothes that were burnt by cigarette butts. But whenever I asked for action, NEA officers would merely set up ambush and then they would give me the update that they did not catch anyone. So, I have the impression that NEA does not have sufficient surveillance cameras and it takes a long time for them to deploy the cameras.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: In response to the rising number of high-rise littering feedback, we have done a number of things. Firstly, of course, we have stepped up our outreach and education efforts. Secondly, we have increased the number of camera deployments since the adoption of this method to catch persistent high-rise litterbugs in 2012.

We have increased the number of camera deployments by more than four times to close to 3,000 over the last three years. In fact, just last year alone, there were more than 1,000 camera deployments. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground to see if we need to deploy more cameras.

But let me assure the Member that we will deploy a surveillance camera when it is assessed that there is a need to do so when our outreach and education efforts do not resolve the problem, notwithstanding the fact that resources are ultimately finite and, like everybody else, we do experience resource constraints. But having said that, if there is a need and it is feasible to deploy the camera, we will do so.

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

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answers and I concur with my Parliamentary colleagues that this is a big concern. In Clementi, some of my residents have had cigarette butts going into the home where there are young children. Some have reported faeces being thrown from high-rise sources. I have three supplementary questions.

First, of the camera deployments, what proportion of deployments has led to identifiable perpetrators being successfully convicted or warned? Second, would the Ministry continue upgrading the camera technology so that there can be better night-vision image acquisition as well as higher resolution images? Third, I also second Ms Tin Pei Ling's suggestion that offenders could be named and shamed, similar to how litterbugs were dealt with some years ago.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We agree with Members that high-rise littering is an anti-social act and it is something that we must not condone and will not tolerate as it poses a threat to public health and safety. At the end of the day, I think all of us need to play our part to cultivate social graciousness, good habits, as well as a sense of shared responsibility. Deploying more and more cameras really is not sustainable and it is also not desirable. But having said that, we take every high-rise littering feedback seriously and, where there is a need to deploy the camera, we will do so.

Regarding the success rate of the cameras in identifying perpetrators, on the whole, based on the number of camera deployments, it is about one-third. The reason is that, very often, when we put up a camera, it may actually deter the litterbug from littering if he is aware that there is a camera focused on him or the unit. In some instances, it could also be because of intelligence or understanding of the ground, the camera could be focused at the wrong column of flat units, or on the wrong column and then we will have to redeploy it.

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