The Big Read in short: Would publicising litterbugs' photos do the trick?

SINGAPORE — Redhill resident John Posko Amalaraj would sometimes return home to an eyesore — discarded leftover drink cartons in the lifts at his Housing Development Board (HDB) block.

Outside of the lifts, the 67-year-old also worries that stagnant water left to collect in strewn litter in the open could lead to mosquitos breeding, and contribute to a rise in dengue cases.

“Compared to last time, the littering is too much — particularly when you see inside the lift,” said the senior customer service captain at the Downtown Line, adding that he had raised his concerns with his Member of Parliament (MP).

Even though notices were quickly put up at lift lobbies to remind residents not to litter, the problem persists, said Mr Amalaraj.

Over at Jalan Besar, Ms Wendy Chan, a resident at a condominium along Somme Road, told TODAY that she often sees cigarette butts being littered at the property’s front gate and in its flower pots.

“(Some passers-by) love to think that plant pots are little dustbins for them.”

As her condominium is next to a public park, birds frequent the area and may sometimes leave droppings on cars that are parked along the main road in front of the property, said the swimming coach in her 50s.

Some car owners would clean these droppings on their vehicles with tissues, before dumping the used tissues on the road outside the condominium, she added.

Estate cleaner Abdul Rahim — who oversees three HDB blocks near Haig Road Market and Food Centre, including its nearby playground and garden — said: “Sometimes you finish (cleaning in the morning) already, after that you come around 12 something or 1 something (in the afternoon), and they throw the wrappers (on the ground) again.”

The 65-year-old said some commonly littered items include leftover food, wrappers, or paper.

WHY IT MATTERS

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) Baey Yam Keng said in Parliament on Monday (March 4) that the authorities had seen an increase of 15 per cent in the number of feedback on ground littering from 2022 to 2023, compared to the two years before the Covid-19 pandemic.

Last October, the National Environment Agency (NEA) said in its annual report that the number of people caught littering rose between 2021 and 2022. 

In 2022, the authorities issued more than 20,000 tickets for littering, a 42 per cent increase from the roughly 14,000 tickets issued in 2021.

Responding to TODAY’s queries, NEA disclosed that it issued 18,600 tickets for ground littering in 2023.

Currently, those who litter may face a composition fine of S$300 for a first offence, while offenders convicted in court may be issued a fine and sentenced to perform a Corrective Work Order (CWO).

Experts interviewed by TODAY cited the lack of a sense of ownership, and hence shared responsibility over caring for a public space, as one reason littering is on the rise in Singapore despite years of enhanced enforcement measures.

A 2020 survey by the Singapore Management University on public satisfaction with the country’s cleanliness also found that many Singaporeans think it is the cleaners’ job to keep the city litter-free.

Faced with the rise in littering cases, Mr Baey told Parliament that MSE would thus adopt a “more targeted approach” to tackling littering hot spots.

The ministry will conduct around five times as many enforcement blitzes in 2024 compared to 2023, from 21 last year to more than 100 this year.

NEA would also quadruple its deployment of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTVs) at littering hot spots, which include HDB estates, to around 1,000. The statutory board under MSE would work with community stakeholders to identify these offenders.

In the event that there are still no leads, NEA would explore putting up images of these offenders at the places where they had littered, to seek the wider community’s assistance in identifying them, said Mr Baey.

THE BIG PICTURE

Cleaners, experts and MPs whom TODAY interviewed said that turning to surveillance and closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras could be effective, to some extent, in deterring litterbugs.

Mr Rahim, the estate cleaner, said he noticed the littering situation improved after NEA officers started ramping up enforcement and issuing more “saman” (Malay for “fines”) to offenders.

Dr Everold Hosein, a senior communication advisor-consultant for the World Health Organization and Unicef, who previously contributed to a 2011 sociological study on littering in Singapore, said the study found that the mere “appearance of enforcement” decreased littering.

“By that we mean having public health inspectors in a bright uniform just walking around littering hot spots seem to deter littering. They don’t have to issue any tickets… they just have to walk around!”

Dr Serene Koh, director of consultancy firm Behavioural Insights Team Singapore, added that research on enforcement and compliance has shown that the certainty of getting caught is a more effective deterrent than the severity of the punishment.

“If I know I can get away with it, I will take my chances even if the fine is high,” she said of people's mindset.

However, there is also a limit to how effective surveillance cameras can be.

Ms Joan Pereira, an MP for Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency, said: “It is also not easy to identify offenders because they are aware of camera spots and it is not possible to cover every single spot with cameras.”

And even those who support the move recognise that the line between official surveillance and citizen vigilantism is a fine one to tread — making it necessary for safeguards to be put in place.

Ms Pereira said that as it stands, some residents are already submitting photos — of neighbours or people in the community whom they have seen littering — to the authorities.

Asked if she is concerned that publicising offenders’ images might eventually lead Singaporeans down the slippery slope of “endorsing” vigilante behaviour, Ms Pereira added: “That is certainly one of the potential issues, but that is also why a robust investigation is still required to establish the facts and culpability of any alleged culprits.”

Agreeing, 29-year-old consultant Darren Then said that while publicising a litterbugs' photos could be “quite useful”, ensuring that the facts are well-established before putting up such images would be crucial.

“We don’t want any instances of accidental littering that is not on purpose (to be published) — and then they (offenders) become public enemy number one,” said Mr Then.

THE BOTTOMLINE

Should the plan to publicise offenders’ images be implemented, experts called on the authorities to proceed with care and consideration.

Dr Koh said: “If it feels like the Government is identifying these offenders for minor littering offences, there will be pushback from the public that the Government is making a mountain out of a molehill, or people’s reputations are unnecessarily harmed for a seemingly ‘small’ offence.”

To avoid this, she suggested applying a set of transparent and strict criteria before resorting to publicly identifying the offenders, so that Singaporeans understand that it is not a decision that is taken lightly. 

“This might (also) go some way towards discouraging (vigilantism)… because people will know that they can’t just name-and-shame anyone. Just as the Government chooses carefully who to identify, this will role-model to them that they must also first establish facts before calling people out.”

She added that the criteria can be based on the severity of the action — such as in the case of high-rise littering, or the frequent disposal of trash in an inappropriate manner that thus attracts rats — or the persistence of the offence, such as litterbugs who remain recalcitrant despite multiple engagements by the authorities.

Unlike Dr Koh, Mr Damien Huang, a public policy consultant and associate faculty at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, suggested possibly keeping the criteria undisclosed to prevent the public from possibly trying to “game” it.

To prevent the “victimisation and scapegoating” of vulnerable groups, such as children and seniors who “may not even realise they are committing an offence”, Mr Huang said the Government should also consider aspects of equitability if and when enforcing the measure.

“For children and those who are underaged by law, they should treated more leniently,” he added.

NEA has said that “care will be exercised” in cases committed by young children, the elderly or vulnerable groups.

Ultimately, experts told TODAY that a punitive approach, while necessary and effective, must also be accompanied by preventive measures and persistent public education.

They also suggested that instead of relying on the wider community’s assistance to identify offenders, it could be worthwhile to urge a “different kind of community involvement” — where people actively remind others who may have unintentionally littered, instead of being preoccupied with snapping a picture the moment bad behaviour is detected.

Dr Hosein said: “I would urge an ongoing — not sporadic — campaign of each of us helping each other do the right thing... A gentle reminder from another might be nice, to get me to pick (accidental litter) up and properly dispose of it.

“I don’t think we have to go to the extent of public name-and shame. This would increase resentment rather than foster the community sense of citizens helping each other out to be better citizens.” 

Joo Chiat resident Rashid Khalifa said that publicising litterbugs' photos may be effective against repeated offenders, but he does not think it will make a society a kinder place in the long run. 

Wondering aloud whether punishment is the only way to deter people and get them to behave better, the 43-year-old business owner added: “I don’t want to live in a society where I think people are always trying to look out for others’ faults.”