Singapore's worst litterbugs

Five people have each been caught four times and served three CWOs
Amresh Gunasingham Straits Times 10 Jun 10;

FOUR male smokers in their 20s and a woman in her 50s - who thrice threw urine out of her window - are Singapore's worst litterbugs, according to National Environment Agency (NEA) statistics provided to The Straits Times.

Each was caught on four separate occasions and did the most corrective work orders (CWOs) for littering, based on data collated over the past four years.

All five - including the urine thrower, whose offence is an anomaly, says NEA - served three CWO sentences each. This means each of them served between eight and 17 hours in total for their offences.

In addition to cleaning up public spaces, the five were slapped with fines totalling $4,000.

Under the law, for minor littering, first-time offences are punishable with a $300 fine, while repeat offenders will be served with CWOs and can be fined up to $5,000.

But rather than the norm, re-offenders like the five are an exception. Only about 5 per cent, or 1,954, of the 41,392 offenders caught last year were repeat offenders. In 2008, 3 per cent of the 33,164 caught were recalcitrants. Most of the re-offenders were young male smokers.

Along with the increase in the number of litterbugs caught, NEA figures also showed a surge in the number of CWOs served - from 1,163 in 2008 to 2,537 last year.

NEA said the increase in numbers is partly due to more enforcement officers prowling the streets.

Foreign residents, bringing with them different social norms, also contributed to the high numbers - about a third of those caught were foreigners.

The perennial littering issue is back in focus this week following the first tweak made to the CWO system since it was first initiated in 1992, to make enforcement more effective.

A government-commissioned survey of 4,500 people found that the shame of having to pick up trash - under the public eye while wearing a bright orange vest - was a strong deterrent.

Therefore, CWOs will now be carried out in shopping malls, Little India and the barbecue pits at East Coast Park, areas with a high density of human traffic and rubbish, to raise the embarrassment factor.

Previously, many CWOs, which are done for a maximum of three hours in a day, were in quieter housing estates or parks.

Sociologist Paulin Straughan, who led the year-long study that surveyed families, secondary school students and other young people, feels that punitive measures such as fines and CWOs have been effective as a short-term measure.

But the problem continues to arise because of the limited reach of enforcement officers at any one time.

So the NEA has contracted out the work to some 100 uniformed officers to complement its team of around 420 environmental health officers who work the streets.

Often, they are dressed in plain clothes to add an element of surprise to their operations.

From this week, these uniformed officers will also make the rounds twice weekly, not just once.

Some $9 million is spent each year on such manpower costs and Associate Professor Straughan suggested that changes in attitude are the only realistic way to bring about a long-term change - apart from spending even more money on stepping up enforcement.

She said: 'In the long run, our society needs to attain a higher level of maturity that looks beyond the gains to one's self and embraces more intrinsic values such as pride in a country and the importance of the aesthetics of the environment.'

Teaching not to litter (again)
Straits Times Editorial 10 Jun 10;

CORRECTING a bad habit is harder than learning not to pick it up in the first place. On this understanding, the renewed anti-littering drive started this week will have a better chance of success if the young are taught the correct habits early, besides reforming the ways of offending adults. Much of the new emphasis is based on the findings of a year-long behavioural study for which the National Environment Agency (NEA) interviewed 4,500 people. Despite 50 years of state-sponsored campaigns and public education, the lesson has essentially not been taught well where it matters most - within the family. Two generations of people have grown up being taught in school not to litter, but they have been spotty about passing on the right values to their offspring.

So, of the three groups of people the NEA is targeting, parents - especially mothers - are the most important. The survey found a person was 2.4 times more likely to follow the bad example of family members. While most mothers recognise their responsibility, the campaign has far to go. At foodcourts, parents are known to stop their children from clearing up after a meal or picking up tissue paper and scraps blown off the table. They tell the young it is the cleaner's job. This is a disgrace, a social disease. Lessons conceivably would be learnt the hard way by these youngsters in adulthood, through fines and community work orders (CWOs).

Even in trying to get the message through to young people, another of its target groups, the NEA may find the task daunting. More than two-thirds of 1,500 students surveyed said they littered. Nearly a quarter of these said nothing would stop them from doing so. It is the same with smokers: Nine out of 10 litterbugs apprehended in the past five years were caught throwing cigarette butts on the ground. More than a third of smokers admitted they littered. Smokers seem past the stage where preventive education could do some good. Enforcement and punitive measures are the only option.

Yet, the value of shaming - especially through CWOs which will be made more onerous and visible - is questionable. Instead of changing behaviour, being shamed publicly can build resentment in some adults and harden bad attitudes. The NEA is right to step up enforcement and align penalties with other environment-related agencies, but it should realise the limitations. As a practical step, more bins in busy public spaces will certainly reinforce the message. Usually, these are too few and too hard to find. When the contents spill over, overflowing bins are not emptied promptly. NEA, take note.

Start them young on no-littering habit
Straits Times 10 Jun 10;

I REFER to Monday's report, 'Tougher now for litterbugs to escape'. While I agree stiffer penalties and stepped-up enforcement action will help curb the mess caused by litterbugs in the short term, it will not eliminate the problem.

As enforcement officers cannot be everywhere all the time, Singapore can be clean and litter-free only if the people are educated to be responsible owners and users of common space. If they do not treat public places as such, no amount of enforcement and penalties can bring about the desired results.

In Japan, I noticed teenagers did not throw litter into drains or onto flower beds. They kept their litter in their pockets or bags. They would then empty them into litter bins they chanced upon as they moved on with their activities. It was only then that I realised having a litter bin at every corner in Singapore was a luxury. Yet, we often hear and read about the dearth of litter bins.

Since the authorities are going to spend millions in the coming years to solve the litter problem, it is not too late to send some of our teachers to Japan to learn how their education system imparts the value of caring for public places to their students.

Good habits have to start from young.

Soh Ah Yuen