Rationale for Legislating and Making High-rise Littering an Offence Despite Inherent Difficulty in Enforcement

16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the rationale for legislating and making high-rise littering an offence despite the inherent difficulty in enforcement.

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, littering in public places is an offence under section 17 of the Environmental Public Health Act 1987. This covers littering in a range of scenarios, including high-rise littering. There is no separate legislative provision for high-rise littering.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the short reply. I do know there is no separate legislation. But the question is really why are we enforcing so much on high-rise littering and, of course, why so little on second-hand smoke when it is very similar? And second-hand smoke is actually easier to detect than high-rise littering?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Well, this is a stealth question on second-hand smoke. With regard to the comment about why so many enforcement actions on high-rise littering, if I recall correctly, there are also many questions in the House regarding why there is not enough action taken against high-rise littering. So, the verdict is out there.

But having said that, this question about second-hand smoke, I think the Member has asked similar questions a number of times in this House and I have given replies as to the reason why there are technological limitations in enforcement against second-hand smoke in homes. I think enforcement of second-hand smoke in homes is really distinctively more challenging than high-rise littering. As I have said, I have answered this before. So, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me just briefly highlight some key points that I have actually shared in my previous replies.

Firstly, of course, technological limitations and also, privacy issues and concerns for second-hand smoke. It is not a question of just catching an image of the physical object but also capturing the heat signature as proof of the smoking act. So, you need not just require optical cameras but also thermal surveillance cameras and there is a limited surveillance range of such surveillance cameras. And you need to put them off the ground, which means, it would be highly intrusive because it does not only train into the suspected unit, but also other units.

So, we will need to continue to monitor technological developments and innovations in this area to see if it is feasible in future, along with also what is being practised overseas.

But having said that, we are not resting on our laurels. Let me assure the Member that we are as concerned about this issue as he is. We are looking at various ways to address this. We fully empathise with the person who is actually experiencing this issue.

In addition to monitoring technological developments, we are also intensifying our education and outreach efforts, working with the community, with HPB, with various stakeholders to really look at community solutions, in line with our aspiration to build an inclusive, gracious society. So, we need to raise awareness and appeal to smokers to be more civic-minded and socially gracious and appeal to all stakeholders to come together to resolve this amicably.

In addition, as Members have heard from the Second Minister for Law that there is an inter-agency, inter-Ministry Committee that is looking at revising or enhancing the community mediation framework to increase accessibility for such disputes to be resolved amicably as far as possible.

And then, last year, MND, together with Municiple Social office (MSO) and HDB, has issued a joint call for proposals on tackling second-hand smoke from neighbouring homes. Essentially, looking for solutions like sensors as well as solutions to reduce the second-hand smoke at source or to prevent the second-hand smoke from entering the neighbouring units.

I think the practice is not static. We continue to look at how we can better address this issue and we will continue to monitor and review our smoking regulations from time to time.

So, it is an answer to the high-rise littering question.