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 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.

Similarly, a housewife in the nearby Lengkok Bahru neighbourhood who wanted to be known only as Madam Ng, said that while she does not think that the litter situation is worsening, she has noticed an increase in the number of rodents in the area.

The 58-year-old said: “I’ve seen many rats around recently. Last time, it was not so bad. In fact, I didn’t really see (rats) until maybe the last year or so.”

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.

Such antisocial acts continue despite the Government’s perennial anti-littering campaign.

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 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).

CWO — introduced in 1992 — requires recalcitrant offenders to clean public areas for a minimum of three hours, up to a maximum of 12 hours. The regime serves to remind them of the impact of littering and the difficulties faced by cleaners, said NEA.

In 2019, NEA also revamped the design of its CWO vest to a luminous pink and yellow in a bid to “raise the visibility of the CWO” and increase its deterrence effect. 

It also introduced CWO sessions in city areas such as Chinatown and Tanjong Pagar in November 2022 to, as NEA put it, increase the public visibility of such sessions, and “further drive home the impact of littering”.

Still, complaints about littering have continued to rise despite these penalties and the authorities’ enhanced enforcement efforts over the years.

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.

Recalcitrant littering offenders would carry out CWO in areas with high footfall, such as transport nodes and town centres — like Causeway Point in Woodlands — as well as at city locations such as the Somerset area, he added.

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 agency 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.

WHY DO PEOPLE LITTER?

Although the need to keep the island clean has been drummed into generations of Singaporeans since their schooldays, the state of cleanliness and hygiene in several housing estates remains very much a work in progress, MPs told TODAY.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, MP for Bukit Panjang Single Member Constituency, said he receives feedback from residents on littering and sanitation concerns “quite often”.

He noted that the situation “has remained the same” over the years, and it is “not a state that we desire”.

Ms Joan Pereira, MP for Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency (GRC), said that the town council received about 340 cases of feedback on littering and refuse last year for the Henderson-Dawson ward she oversees.

It has received 65 such feedback so far this year, she said. The residents’ concerns are often about ground littering and littering within lift cars — and they typically either request for cleaners to clean the place or to provide information about alleged perpetrators.

While there has been a “slight improvement” over the past year, Ms Pereira said there are “definitely areas that can be improved on further”. 

“While we have targeted measures for places with higher incidence of littering offences, it is not possible just to rely on ramping up the cleaning frequencies.

“We really need every resident to play their part and not litter.”

Ms Gheetha Mahalangam, whose son and family live at the Skyville @ Dawson HDB cluster in Queenstown, often visits the sky gardens in the block of flats with her granddaughter when she pays them a visit.

While they enjoy playing and exercising together amid the greenery, the 64-year-old retiree noted that the littering problem at the sky gardens can be “horrible”. Visitors would often leave behind biscuit packets, chip packets, used masks, and even leftover food. 

“After eating, even though there is a bin, they just throw it here,” she said, adding that the litter problem is not for lack of waste disposal infrastructure as the bins at the sky garden are usually not full.

Ms Chan, the Jalan Besar resident, agreed: “It’s not so much that the bins are overflowing. Actually there are bins at the park… At the most, it’s a 30-second walk. It’s (almost) like people, when they want to throw litter, they want the dustbin right next to them.”

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.

“I think there’s a sense (among people) that any space outside of the home is not mine to care about and therefore not my responsibility to manage,” said Dr Serene Koh, director of consultancy firm Behavioural Insights Team Singapore.

Agreeing, Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser, a sociologist at the National University of Singapore (NUS), said that when it comes to anti-littering measures, the “best outcome is to have people who would feel a sense of ownership of public spaces and possess a strong motivation to keep them clean”.

This would help residents internalise the positive messaging to love their environment — which includes maintaining the cleanliness of public spaces — rather than focusing on “not messing up” the environment or refraining from littering simply due to fears of punitive measures, he added.

Assoc Prof Tan also suggested that the increase in littering offences could be a post-Covid-19 effect, corresponding to the general rise in human traffic.

Many Singaporeans also think it is the cleaners’ job to keep the city litter-free.

A 2020 survey by the Singapore Management University on public satisfaction with the country’s cleanliness found that over 90 per cent of respondents believed the authorities should demand higher standards of cleaning contractors to make sure bins were cleared promptly. 

More than eight in 10 (86 per cent) also said they expected cleaners to clear the trash throughout the day to prevent the bins from overflowing, the same study found.

Acknowledging this, Mr Baey said in his presentation of his ministry’s budget: “Based on our cleanliness surveys, many still believe that the responsibility to keep Singapore clean lies with the Government and our ‘army of cleaners’.

“Our cleaners are already busy cleaning up natural litter such as fallen leaves and accidental litter such as the spillages. Let us not add to their heavy workload with intentional litter by leaving or throwing our litter for them to clean up after us.” 

Estate cleaners told TODAY that they sweep the litter in their estates throughout their shifts, which run from 7am to 4pm or 5pm, and also clear the bins twice a day.

An estate cleaner, who declined to be named, said he understands if residents throw their trash outside of the bins if they were full. However, there are also instances where residents litter beside or near the bins, even when the trash cans are not full.

Another cleaner, Mr 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 items commonly littered include leftover food, wrappers, or paper.

FINE LINE BETWEEN SURVEILLANCE AND VIGILANTISM

As litterbugs continue to be a social menace, many MPs, such as Bukit Panjang’s Mr Liang, have called for stronger measures to deal with the offenders.

On what are the biggest challenge he faces in overcoming littering offences in his constituency, Mr Liang told TODAY: “The deterrence effect remains low, and the current surveillance and enforcement regime has still not yielded enough results.

“The key to reducing littering is effective enforcement and strong investigative capabilities, as litterbugs must feel that they have a high chance of being caught and punished,” he added.

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

MP for West Coast GRC Ang Wei Neng recounted to TODAY that when he moved to oversee the Nanyang division of his constituency in 2021, he received a lot of feedback from residents about people drinking alcohol, smoking, and littering at the void decks and roof gardens of HDB flats in the area.

To tackle the issue, Mr Ang worked with the town council to install mobile CCTV cameras at these hot spots.

“The CCTV images helped us to better coordinate with police and NEA to take enforcement actions,” said Mr Ang, adding that the number of similar feedback received has since “reduced significantly”.

“Once in a while, we still receive similar feedback at other HDB void decks without mobile CCTV (cameras). We then install the mobile CCTVs at these new locations to deter littering.”

Mr Rahim, the estate cleaner, also said he noticed that 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, noted that 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 seems to deter littering. They don’t have to issue any tickets… they just have to walk around!”

Dr Koh of Behavioural Insights Team 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 Pereira, the Tanjong Pagar GRC MP, 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.”

Mr Ang of West Coast GRC also said that challenges arise when his team is unable to identify the culprits, even with the CCTV images on hand. 

Hence, the MSE’s suggestion that it may explore publicising offenders’ images — only when the authorities are unable to identify the culprits — is a good one, said Mr Ang.

“By sharing such images, we could deter other people from littering, and get the community to identify the culprit to facilitate enforcement.”

Still, 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.

Mr Ang stressed that the town council will only share the images of CCTV recordings with government agencies, and never with the public.

In his ward, the team also removed the mobile CCTV cameras from locations where the occurrence of littering had dropped. 

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

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 such a measure 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.

Still, some residents expressed confidence that the relevant authorities will conduct due diligence before making public the images of alleged offenders.

Ms Chan, the Jalan Besar resident, said: “The authorities are the ones that are going to put the images up, so I think the authorities would view the CCTV first… and identify whether it is really a case of littering or just an accident.”

DOES SHAMING WORK? 

The element of shame inherent in some punitive measures — such as the CWO with its prominent vests and high visibility in locations with high footfall, and MSE’s possible publicising of offenders’ images — can be a strong disincentive for prospective offenders, said those interviewed. 

Ms Pereira said: “I think such a measure should be effective in targeting certain groups of offenders as a deterrent, given the potential embarrassment from being ‘publicly shamed’ for doing something so unsavoury and inconsiderate, as well as a higher chance of being prosecuted.”

Assoc Prof Tan from NUS added that for “people who care about their public image, (a shame-based punitive measure) can be an effective deterrence”.

Those who were previously issued CWOs told TODAY that the shame one may feel while serving their penalty could deter them from re-offending, though its effectiveness differs from individual to individual.

Mr Ryan Tan still remembers his CWO stint though it happened almost five years ago.

The 36-year-old founder of content studio Overkill said that he was caught littering his cigarette butt outside a hotel while on location for a shoot.

Mr Tan served about three hours for his CWO session outside Jurong Regional Library.

“It was an effective punishment for sure,” said Mr Tan, adding that he also quit smoking altogether.

“I’m very much cautious (now). I (would) rather just throw the rubbish in my pockets if I can’t find a dustbin.”

The additional exposure — given that he is a semi-public figure — made the penalty “doubly more effective”, said the YouTube personality who had co-founded the now-defunct local production company Night Owl Cinematics, which produced video series such as the popular Food King vlogs.

Another person who was issued a CWO about a decade ago for throwing her cigarette butts near a bush said age could be a factor in whether one feels embarrassed by it.

“If you ask me, a 30-year-old working professional to do that, I’d be very ashamed. But a lot of offenders are youths in their early 20s or even in their late teens and… I don’t think they're so deterred by the shame of having to serve CWO. Most of them probably think it’s funny — at least that’s what I thought,” said the 31-year-old, who works in commodities.

Still, loss of face aside, experts noted that the CWO may also be effective for other reasons, such as the time, effort, and trouble the session involved. 

Dr Koh said: “Offenders might be wearing the coloured vests but unless people recognise them personally and know who they are, or there are legions of bystanders staring at them and judging them, I don’t actually think the shame dimension is very high. 

“Honestly, I think it’s the effort and trouble it represents. Offenders have to take time out of their day to serve CWO and it’s troublesome. I suspect people who are deterred by CWO want to avoid the effort, rather than avoid the shame.”

Agreeing, the 31-year-old who had previously served a CWO said the order did deter her from further littering as she did not want to go through the hassle of serving it again.

Regardless, experts cautioned against using shame-based punitive measures indiscriminately, given their potential pitfalls.

For one thing, shame — when harnessed to its extreme — can lead to a loss of self-esteem and reputation, cause undue distress in some, and may even lead individuals to withdraw from the community. 

“If the misbehaviour warrants these consequences, then shame-based punishments may have a role to play in our justice system. But it needs to be wielded thoughtfully and delicately,” said Dr Koh. 

“If it’s persistent and deliberate high-rise littering, then I think there is room for some element of shame-based punishment. But if someone is caught unconsciously dropping a plastic bag at the park, shaming them feels disproportionate to the (mis)behaviour.

“Using shame is a delicate thing and the authorities should not be indiscriminate about it. Not all littering behaviours are the same.”

Mr Damien Huang, a public policy consultant and associate faculty at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), said that always taking the “stick” approach can also be a cause of why scams impersonating officials could be more prevalent in Singapore than in other countries. 

Should the new measure be implemented, he added, “could we see a new scam of ‘Dear XX, you were caught on CCTV dropping a piece of tissue in your neighbourhood. Please pay a fine of S$500 to prevent your photo from being pasted at your lift lobby.’?”

PREVENTIVE MEASURES, PUBLIC EDUCATION ARE KEY

On Monday, Mr Baey said that NEA would work closely with the community to identify littering offenders, and would “explore” putting up their images only if there are still no leads.

Should the plan to publicise offenders’ images be implemented, experts called on the authorities to proceed with great 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 Huang of SUSS 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. We may underestimate the psychological and psycho-social effects this may have on their mental-wellbeing as non-matured individuals,” 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.

To achieve behavioural results, Dr Hosein said that there must be a mix of preventive and punitive measures, with a “heavy dose of continued, persistent public education and persuasive communication”.

“If what has been done so far only focused primarily on punitive measures, then that is probably not productive. Ongoing public persuasion is needed,” he added.

“If we wish to inculcate an anti-littering sensibility in the culture, we need to begin in preschool, from age two onwards.”

Experts and residents 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.

Mr Terrence He, a 39-year-old human resource professional who lives in Marine Parade, said: “Everybody should be a vigilante in the sense of ‘eh, you didn’t pick this up’ rather than you take (a photo) from 10m away… and send in to the authorities.”

Agreeing, 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.”