Authorities turn to public shaming of litterbugs, again

Siau Ming En Today Online 11 Aug 14;

SINGAPORE — Litterbugs beware, the authorities are turning to public shaming again to get you to stop tossing your trash indiscriminately.

In the first half of this year, 318 Corrective Work Orders (CWO) have been imposed by the courts, surpassing the 261 in the whole of last year, figures from the National Environment Agency (NEA) showed.

CWO, a penalty added to anti-littering laws here in 1992, involves making litterbugs pick up trash at places with high human traffic, such as neighbourhood centres. The punishment is meted out in lieu of or in addition to fines, which were doubled in April.

Littering has been thrown under the spotlight again in recent months, partly because of a spate of killer-litter incidents, including one that caused the death in June of an elderly woman, three weeks after she had been struck by a bicycle wheel allegedly flung from the 14th floor of a building by a teenage boy.

The authorities have tried various measures in the past year or so to tackle this anti-social behaviour, including installing surveillance cameras to catch litterbugs red-handed and enhancing fines. They have also considered giving volunteer littering police the power to book offenders.

The authorities are out in force to punish litterbugs: From January to June this year, the NEA issued 9,271 littering tickets, nearly as many as the 9,346 issued in the whole of last year. In 2012, 8,195 littering tickets were issued.

Various solutions to tackle littering have been thrown up in the media, ranging from punitive — such as splashing litterbugs’ faces on websites to shame them — to softer approaches, such as increasing education efforts. To the latter’s end, a Keep Singapore Clean Movement in Schools to get students to take ownership of community spaces was launched last month as an updated version of the Use Your Hands campaign, which started in 1976.

In response to TODAY’s queries, Mr Derek Ho, NEA director-general of the environmental public health division, said: “There is undoubtedly an element of public shame in being identified as litterbugs sentenced by the courts to perform supervised cleaning of public areas under CWOs.”

The NEA added that only 3.3 per cent of offenders who had performed CWO in the past two years have been caught littering again.

Asked if it would be a bigger deterrent if litterbugs were made to perform CWO at more public and crowded places, general-secretary of the Singapore Kindness Movement William Wan said that as a “shaming approach, the more public, the better”. However, he noted that CWOs alone will not be effective as they have other undesirable psychological consequences on offenders.

Instead, he noted that CWOs should be stepped up and sustained over a short period, so people get the message, after which other efforts such as education can be taken to tackle the problem.

Chief executive officer of the Singapore Environment Council Jose Raymond added: “Ultimately, it is still down to personal behaviour, community ownership and responsibility.”

Both Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Liang Eng Hwa, chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and Environment, respectively, also agreed that littering boils down to an attitude problem.

Dr Lee said: “When people are not socially disciplined (or) responsible, when people do not regard public areas as part of their own, they will be inclined to litter.”

Noting that there are numerous dustbins scattered in public places here, president of the Singapore Institute of Planners Evlyn Cheong said it is not as if people have no choice but to litter. She also cited the example of Japan, where it is difficult to find a dustbin, yet people do not litter because they take pride in keeping their surrounding environment clean.

Singaporeans can be less civic-conscious, thinking that someone will clean up their mess, she said, adding that Singaporeans need to be mindful of the need to dispose of litter into a dustbin even in places where they cannot be found.

Stepped-up blitz nets more litterbugs
Samantha Boh My Paper AsiaOne 11 Aug 14;

FACT: The number of litterbugs nabbed in the first six months of the year matches the total number nabbed throughout all of last year.

Fact: More people have been served with Corrective Work Orders (CWOs) in the first six months of this year than all of last year.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) said the sharp rise is a result of stepped-up enforcement efforts. Otherwise, we seem to be littering twice as frequently.

Slice the numbers any way you like, they don't make for pleasant reading.

The first six months of this year saw 9,271 people slapped with littering tickets. The total number for last year was 9,346.

The first six months of the year saw 318 CWOs served. All of last year saw just 261.

In fact, the spike began in the second half of last year, when 6,928 tickets for littering were issued. This was three times the number issued in the first half of last year.

This ties in with NEA's claim about ramping up enforcement.

Since May last year, NEA's officers have been putting in 35,000 enforcement hours each month, compared to 24,000 before that.

Wherever there are littering hot spots - NEA has identified 90 of them around hawker centres, MRT stations and shopping malls - there are more eyes waiting to nab litterbugs.

Derek Ho, NEA's Director-General, Environmental Public Health Division, said: "It is regrettable that some members of our society are not house-proud, even though Singapore is their home."

Jose Raymond, chief executive of the Singapore Environment Council, said it was a minority who were spoiling it for the majority that want a clean environment.

Lee Bee Wah, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and Environment, said that the spike in the numbers could also signal that there is a "high percentage of people who are littering indiscriminately".

This, despite harsher penalties.

Since April this year, penalties for littering are twice as harsh.

Offenders face a maximum fine of $2,000 for the first conviction, $4,000 for the second conviction and $10,000 for the third and subsequent convictions.

Of those who performed corrective work in the past two years, only 3.3 per cent were subsequently caught for littering again, said the NEA.

But stiffer penalties can go only so far.

Said Mr Raymond: "Ultimately, it is still down to personal behaviour."

Ms Lee said some might litter because they feel they are "entitled to as they pay for cleaners to clean up after them".

She added: "At the end of the day, there will be no quick fix. It will take some more years before the message sinks in, just as we got rid of spitting in public."