Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 46.
“Building on this experience, LTA launched a large-scale tender last year to deploy 12,000 more EV charging points at around 2,000 HDB carparks in the next three years. The five successful tenderers will simultaneously install chargers all across Singapore. Responding to Mr Gan Thiam Poh, these charging points will support the charging needs of both electric cars and electric motorcycles. 12.00 pm Regarding the usage of charging points, utilisation rates for EV charging points under the pilot tender are around 8%, on average, over the last month. This is within expectations, because the Government is frontloading charger deployment in the early years of EV adoption to give drivers the assurance to choose EVs. LTA works closely with EV charging operators to plan charger deployment, based on local demand, to deploy slightly ahead of expected demand, but not over-deploy. Ms Poh Li San asked about the costs of EV charger deployment. For the tenders at public car parks, EV charging operators bear the cost of the charging equipment. LTA, the Energgy Market Authority (EMA) and HDB are conducting an advanced engineering study to assess electrical upgrades required to support residential EV charging. The Government will bear the cost of these upgrades and, eventually, recover this cost through a tariff on EV charging operators and users. The deployment of EV charging points on the ground will be planned and managed by EVe, a fully-owned subsidiary of LTA. We have also convened the EV Steering Group, an interagency committee to coordinate the Government's charger deployment policy across key agencies, such as LTA, HDB, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and EMA.”
“On phasing out lorries that can ferry workers on the rear deck as the lorries' COE expire, this could be disruptive for many industries. I would also like to clarify that many lorries with COEs expiring within the next five years will not have reached the end of their statutory lifespan of 20 years. Owners may choose to renew the COE. Over 60% of lorries with COEs that expired in 2022 had their COEs renewed. Our "Walk Cycle Ride" vision remains at the heart of our future land transport system. Still, we understand that some need a car for various reasons. When private transport is required, we encourage drivers to choose cleaner energy vehicles, especially EVs. We have been making steady progress to make charging points more accessible and reduce range anxiety among potential EV drivers. To Prof Koh Lian Pin's question, there are over 3,800 charging points islandwide today, up from 1,500 in 2019. This includes around 1,600 publicly accessible and 1,200 private charging points, with the remainder for BlueSG users only. The EV Common Charger Grant was launched in July 2021 to co-fund charger installation costs in private condominiums. To date, LTA has co-funded 267 chargers in 107 condominiums. I am pleased to announce that we will extend the EV Common Charger Grant for another two years to December 2025. The extension complements recent amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act that make it easier to pass resolutions to install chargers and further boost charger deployment. LTA and URA awarded a pilot tender in 2021 to deploy more than 600 charging points in over 200 public carparks. I am happy to announce that all of them will be installed by the end of this month.”
“Thank you. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SG Parl app. As you enter a Friendly Streets zone, you will be greeted by specially designed signages and on-road markings. This encourages all to be more aware and to look out for others. The streetscapes will also be filled with more greenery and we will consider upgrading bus stops where possible. As you move down the street, you will see more people-friendly features, such as pedestrian crossings and cycling paths designed to be used by all. As you cross the road and enjoy your safer, smoother and greener journey to the Teck Ghee neighbourhood centre, you will likely meet a neighbour or a friend. We hope you will all greet one another with a friendly smile. Chairman and Members, this is but a simple example, because we are looking forward to co-designing the details with local stakeholders and bringing in their suggestions for their own neighbourhoods. Engagements for Friendly Streets in these five locations will start this year, with the pilots targeted to be realised by 2025. Together, we will not just build roads, but also memories. Moving to Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion on only allowing lorries fitted with seat belts on the rear deck to be sold in Singapore. As previously shared, original equipment manufacturers had concerns that seatbelts on rear seats will create new safety risks. As the chassis and rear deck of lorries are separately put together, they will not be strong enough to anchor seat belts. There are also liability issues. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) will not fit seat belts onto the rear deck of new lorries, nor vouch for the safety of such lorries.”
“This includes Silver and School Zones, Road Repurposing and added features to collectively support more inclusive people-friendly neighbourhoods and gracious communities. These will be in high-activity areas and near key amenities in our towns. Streets will be made people-friendly in two main ways. First, by creating a pleasant, inclusive and green environment – with widened footpaths, more greenery, barrier-free crossings and road markings – to inform road users that they are in a Friendly Streets zone. Second, by facilitating more direct and safer journeys to amenities and transport nodes by implementing more pedestrian crossings where there are natural pedestrian flows and reducing pedestrians' waiting time to cross the road. While there will be some common features for Friendly Streets, we hope to have designs unique to each area, co-created with the community. We will form a Friendly Streets Committee in each locality to spearhead this effort. For a start, we will pilot the Friendly Streets initiative around some streets in five locations – Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Batok West, Tampines, Toa Payoh and West Coast. With your permission, Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute handouts illustrating the Friendly Streets concept, with some preliminary ideas for the network of streets around Ang Mo Kio Street 31?”
“As part of the effort, LTA has worked with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and commercial stakeholders to identify and build new pedestrian crossings, cycling paths and widen some footpaths in the precinct. I visited the area recently, and met teachers and children from a childcare centre at Tanjong Pagar Plaza. The teachers told me that the children loved playing at a nearby eco-playground, but it was previously very challenging for them to bring the children there due to safety concerns. As part of the rejuvenation project, LTA built new crossings along Tanjong Pagar Road and Tras Street. The teachers shared that it is much safer now to walk with the children to the playground while allowing the children to expand their learning beyond the classroom. These changes go beyond making Tanjong Pagar safer for the young. They also bring the community together. As a colleague noted, "To LTA, it is a crossing. But to the kids, it is many memories." We will continue to work with stakeholders in Tanjong Pagar to identify and repurpose more stretches of roads to create more space for placemaking and complement the wider urban rejuvenation. It is clear that our roads and paths are not just conduits for vehicles and people. They make our towns safer and more vibrant. More importantly, over time, they impact the way Singaporeans interact with each other – taking care of more vulnerable users, being more gracious to one another. This is why we are launching the Friendly Streets initiative – to harness the potential of our streets to connect people, activate spaces and strengthen the sense of local identity. The Friendly Streets initiative builds on LTA's existing efforts to prioritise road space for active mobility, public transport and community uses.”
“Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms Poh Li San asked for an update. So far, we have been working on four projects done through extensive consultation with local stakeholders. We completed projects in Havelock Road and Civic District in 2021 and will complete permanent repurposing works at Kampung Admiralty and Tiong Bahru this year. At Kampung Admiralty, when we complete the pedestrianisation of a section of Woodlands Ring Road this month, residents can reach the neighbourhood centre more comfortably via covered linkways and widened footpaths. A new bus stop has also been added and from next year, more segments of cycling paths will be ready as part of the wider Woodlands network. At Tiong Bahru, we have worked on pedestrianising and widening footpaths along various streets. Throughout the process, we engaged local stakeholders and residents and will incorporate some of their ideas into the final design, such as creating open spaces for community activities. These enhancements will be completed by June. We will also start two new repurposing projects in the second half of this year at Yung Sheng Road and Choa Chu Kang Terrace. Pedestrianising Yung Sheng Road will enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility between the Taman Jurong Shopping Centre, Market and Food Centre whilst pedestrianising Choa Chu Kang Terrace will make walking to Sunshine Place neighbourhood centre and the upcoming Jurong Region Line more pleasant. We will continue community engagements to implement more such projects. Beyond LTA-led projects, LTA has been working alongside other agencies on larger-scale urban rejuvenation. One example is the public-private partnership to revitalise Tanjong Pagar, which Mr Cheng Hsing Yao has asked about.”
“Chairman, I will elaborate on how we will put the community at the centre of our efforts to improve our land transport system. A journey is not just about getting from one place to another. The experience, safety and convenience matter too. During our ForwardSG engagements, participants shared their aspirations for better connectivity, walkability and more inclusive transport infrastructure. We have made good progress in these areas and plan to do more. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin will be glad to know that we have implemented 27 Silver Zones so far, and are on track to complete 50 by 2025. Overall, the accident rate for senior pedestrians across all Silver Zones has reduced by 80%. Building on residents' feedback, future Silver Zones will have even more safety measures, including Y-junctions, which creates a gradual bend, so that motorists slow down when approaching the junction. Besides these zones, we are also improving infrastructure for pedestrians to safely cross our roads. As Ms Hany Soh highlighted, we have been retrofitting existing POBs with lifts since 2013. So far, we have completed retrofitting 77 POBs with lifts and will continue with 30 more. We prioritised POBs near major transport nodes and healthcare institutions, so that the lifts will benefit commuters with mobility challenges. As our population ages, the need for more POBs to be retrofitted with lifts will grow. We are, thus, looking to launch a new phase to retrofit over 110 more existing POBs with lifts. Beyond safer road crossing infrastructure, we saw the opportunity to convert some existing road space into footpaths, cycling paths or bus lanes, to make it even safer for the community and improve connectivity. We identified 60 potential road repurposing projects.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. There are two parts to this. Firstly, for construction noise, for all construction projects, if they are near residential projects or noise-sensitive facilities, NEA requires these projects to have noise meters installed throughout the projects' duration to monitor the noise levels. And all contractors are required to mitigate the impact of the noise and not exceed the levels stipulated. For LTA projects, we go beyond that, in the sense that we do everything that is possible, particularly in national, major projects, like the NSC project. We do as much as possible to mitigate noise from the construction. To do this, we erect noise barriers at source, at the construction site near to these residential developments, including those cited by the Member – Nuovo condominium, for instance. There are noise barriers that are as high as is practicable and all the other measures – noise enclosures, mufflers for the heavy machinery and equipment, and so on. But the reality would be that it is really not possible to mitigate all noise. We do as much as we can. When there is a need, for instance, for deep excavation or the pouring of concrete continuously for the diaphragm walls, we will have to do it through the night and then, we will have to inform the stakeholders. With regard to construction of noise barriers along MRT lines, the noise impact assessment studies, for instance, that we did in 2018, was to look at certain stretches along the MRT lines and identify where the noise exceeds the recommended level by NEA. For those stretches, noise barriers will be constructed – that is for rail noise. Then, for construction noise, it is barriers and mitigation at source.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted an islandwide noise measurement study in 2018, for the specific purpose of identifying locations near above-ground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations where the noise level exceeded the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) recommended threshold. NEA requires LTA's contractors to carry out localised noise impact assessments prior to the commencement of all major infrastructure projects. LTA conducted a noise impact assessment at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 in 2019 prior to the commencement of North-South Corridor (NSC) construction works. LTA and its contractors have taken various measures to mitigate the impact of construction noise. These include erecting noise barriers and noise enclosures, installing mufflers on machineries, using rubber mallets for hammering and carrying out noisier works in the day. However, safety critical works, such as the construction of diaphragm walls, have to be conducted continuously, which could include working through the night. In such instances, LTA and the contractors will notify affected stakeholders through circulars and social media platforms. LTA regularly engages residents to inform them of the progress of the project. We seek the understanding of all stakeholders for the NSC project which will enhance connectivity between the north to the city centre for all residents when completed.”
“I thank the Member for her suggestions. Indeed, we can work with the grassroots, the local advisors, as well as to via the Green Action for Communities programme, which Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey was talking about, in order to look at outreach and education efforts, as well as increasing awareness about recycle and nudging people to adopt such green habits. So, we can do so. We have got our NEA officers on the ground too, and we can work to this as well as through the Green Action for Communities programme. With regards to supermarket operators, we are already engaging the supermarket operators. I have just announced that all the supermarket operators have already agreed that they are going to use the proceeds from the bag charge for environmental and social causes. And one of them could be giving out reusable bags to the community, to encourage them to use that.”
“Mr Louis Ng was suggesting setting up a citizens workgroup to study this issue of second-hand smoke in homes. The key challenge in this matter is in enforcing against second-hand smoke in homes, if we want to do it. And the challenges are, as we have already said, but I will repeat it again: technological constraints and privacy concerns, to collect clear and Court-admissible evidence of smoking in homes, whether it is at the balconies or windows, and by identifiable individuals. And this makes enforcement difficult. So, I think we cannot resolve this issue simply by just setting up a citizens workgroup, in order to get the group to discuss about the issue of second-hand smoke. What is important is we need to be able to find or identify that technological means to enforce it. Therefore, we currently have no plans to set up such a workgroup. But as I have said before, and it is worth repeating again – we are monitoring technologies in this area to see whether we can utilise anything to strengthen enforcement possibilities. And as I have also noted, just two days ago, that we have also been working on upstream efforts, multi-Ministry. So, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) increased tax on tobacco, we hope that that will help to further reduce smoking prevalence, smoking initiation, and encourage smoking cessation. And many other legislative and policy measures that we put in. If we reduce smoking prevalence, the second-hand tobacco smoke issue will also be addressed.”
“Let me take the first question on disposable carrier bag charge. I have just announced that we are going to start charging on 3 July 2023, Monday. So, we have not even started. But having said that, the issue is not about charging for disposable carrier bags. The idea of doing this is to nudge a change in behaviour, to get people to think more before they take that bag, to reduce their use; and if possible, even not to use it. You are talking about small little bags, why do you need to use it? Put in the pocket, put in the bag, your handbag and so on, and you do not actually need. So, the idea is to nudge a change in behaviour. If indeed, once we start this, there is a significant change in behaviour, then there is no need to expand it because people will change their behaviour automatically, they will not take the bags if they do not need to. And also, other organisations may follow suit in charging for bags just to help nudge behaviour. So, I think we need to monitor and do not jump the gun. I also want to thank the Member for asking a clarification on second-hand smoke. Thank you, indeed, because frankly, I ran out of time. And it was not my pet subject, so I had to choose. [Laughter.] Yes, but thank you, now I can continue with the rest of my speech.”
“Actually, our survey showed even now, prices of hawker food in our hawker centres are generally lower than those in the other comparable food establishments within the vicinity, like coffee shops and so on. 12.30 pm And indeed, whilst you asked this, there are some people who perceive that SEHC hawker food is higher priced. But, basically, when you look at it, they are comparable. I think that competition would help, because hawkers will price according to what they think the market can take – the patron demographics, as well as their cost structure, the location and so on. So, I think hawkers do that. Our surveys have shown that they are reasonable. Mr Singh also asked whether we can build one in Marina Bay because he thinks that the hawker centres' hawker food is much more reasonable.”
“Let me thank the Member for a very useful clarification on the rentals at hawker centres. As I have said, based on our last survey in October 2022, rentals form about 9% of the hawkers' total operating cost. The main operating cost is the cost of food ingredients. It is about 57% and then the next is manpower cost. Rental comes third. Having said that, we are mindful that we must create a good environment for the hawkers, making sure that the rents are fair but not speculative. This is the reason why we have done away with reserved rent, so that people can bid for as low as $1. In fact, we do have we do have rentals at $2 a month. Individuals bid according to what they think they can pay and the competition, and so on. We have also done away with subletting and assignment so that you remove this real estate play from hawker stall rentals. For our new Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs), we have a staggered rental scheme. So, for the first two years, the stallholders do not pay the full rental. It is 80%, 90%; and then, in the third year 100%. During the pandemic, and even during repairs and redecoration works, if disruptions are over a prolonged period, we give rental waivers and so on. And we also give rebates for S&CC and so on, when centres are closed for upgrading. This is how we try and keep the rentals reasonable and not speculative, to help the hawkers. I hope that that helps to clarify that when I say rental is 9%, it does not mean the hawkers are profiteering because there are other costs involved, which are even higher. With regard to asking whether for existing hawker stalls which are tendered out, do we then want to ask them to provide budget meals?”
“I urge everyone to incorporate sustainable practices into your daily routines, starting with the three Rs and support our hawkers to sustain our hawker culture.”
“This included delicious halal braised duck kway teow from an ISP stall by Jonathan Tan and Habri Hammad Bin Mohammad at Amoy Street Food Centre. Johnathan adapted his grandfather's Hokkien braised duck recipe into a halal recipe so the Muslim community can enjoy his food, while continuing his grandfather's legacy. We are constantly reviewing our programmes. Through feedback, we realised that additional emphasis on culinary readiness alongside close mentorship from hawker mentors will raise participants' chances of success. Therefore, the HDP's classroom programme will spend more time honing culinary skills. At the apprenticeship stage, hawker mentors will also help to assess the participants' culinary readiness. Participants can have the option to extend their apprenticeship by four more weeks, on top of the current eight weeks. Finally, we have also received feedback that some local snacks are increasingly less commonly found. Those selling such snacks usually find it difficult to sustain an entire cooked food stall. We will work with SEHCs operators to pilot the use of kiosks, which would incur lower rental and operating cost to support the sale of snacks such as muah chee and putu piring. We hope this will help to preserve these snacks as part of our hawker culture. We will monitor the viability of such kiosks before deciding if we should scale up this pilot. Chairman, I am heartened that many Members have called on Singaporeans to embrace sustainability, reduce consumption and green business practices. I remember the slogan "Courtesy begins with you and me". Likewise, "Sustainability begins with you and me". The Government cannot build a green nation alone.”
“We will be expanding the HPG to include stall-level digital solutions such as e-ordering solutions which are becoming more widespread. We will maintain the co-funding quantum at 80% but will increase the total claimable amount from $5,000 to $7,000 per stallholder. The funding period will also be extended to March 2026. Additionally, we will broaden the ATRS component of the PHC programme to cover Cleaning Process Automation (CPA) solutions. This helps to address challenges such as ageing cleaners and rising manpower costs. Examples include autonomous systems that clean tables and transfer used trays and crockery from tray return points to centralised dishwashing areas. This will reduce cleaners' workload especially during peak hours. We will co-fund up to 80% of deployment costs incurred by the cleaning operator for CPA solutions. Coupled with the mandatory tray and crockery return, these would help to improve the cleanliness situation and bird nuisance issues raised by Ms Nadia. With everyone doing their part to return their used trays and crockery, we noticed that the situation has generally improved and bird nuisance feedback at hawker centres has been declining annually from 2019 to 2022. As we celebrate our veteran hawkers, I am also heartened by the new hawkers who have joined the trade. Miss Chan would be happy to hear that many of them have benefited from NEA's Incubation Stall Programme (ISP) and Hawkers' Development Programme (HDP). Together with other similar programmes by our SEHC operators, over 50 aspiring hawkers have joined the hawker trade through these programmes. As part of our tradition, you would have tried some hawker fare from our ISP and HDP hawkers at yesterday's tea break.”
“Nonetheless, rental only accounts for about 9% of our hawkers' operating costs. Hawkers price their food based on multiple factors including operating costs, location, business level and patron demographics. They delicately balance these factors to attract patrons while trying to make a decent living. Today, patrons can continue to find affordable options in our hawker centres – as Mr Singh also acknowledges – including the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs), where operators have committed to provide at least one budget meal option per stall. To help Singaporeans cope with inflationary pressure, the Government is, among other measures, providing CDC and GST vouchers under the Assurance Package, and with more assistance provided to the lower income. CDC vouchers can be used at our hawker centres. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider if further support is needed. We are taking additional steps to futureproof our hawker centres. Under the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) Programme, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant (HPG) provides co-funding to purchase kitchen automation and queue management equipment. Ms Rahayu Mahzam would be happy to know close to $3 million has been provided to more than 900 hawkers under the HPG. Additionally, eight existing centres have tapped on PHC funding to implement centre-level Centralised Dish Washing (CDW) and Automated Tray Return System (ATRS). Today, more than 70% of cooked food stallholders in our hawker centres are already using e-payment. Support groups have been set up at 37 hawker centres to help hawkers embrace digital opportunities. Mr Gan asked what can be done to support hawkers to digitalise.”
“Besides these new centres, to enable our patrons to enjoy their meals in a pleasant and well-ventilated environment, we will also upgrade 25 existing hawker centres, including Holland Village Market and Food Centre and North Bridge Road Market and Food Centre. (In English): We are also futureproofing hawker centres through the Hawker Centres Transformation Programme (HTP). As Ms Nadia would be aware, we are piloting the HTP at Cheng San Market and Food Centre and Geylang Serai Market. NEA will be engaging stallholders before targeting to start works from 2024. Let me address Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheryl Chan's questions about inflationary pressures and the impact on rental and cooked food prices. We have provided hawkers with a conducive business environment including ensuring reasonable rentals at our hawker centres. For NEA's monthly tender exercises, we adopt a transparent and fair system with no minimum bid. Individuals can bid for a stall at a monthly rental as low as $1 per month, while others may submit higher bids to secure stalls at popular locations. After the first three years, rent is adjusted towards assessed market rent. In fact, only about 4% of cooked food stalls in hawker centres today are paying rent at above the assessed market rent. The remaining over 5,600 stallholders are paying rent no higher than the assessed market rate. Median rental across our non-subsidised cooked food stalls has remained constant at about $1,250 per month since 2018. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have also supported hawkers by providing 10 months of rental waiver and six months of subsidies for table cleaning and centralised dish-washing. In fact, stall rentals at hawker centres are generally lower than most other comparable food establishments in their vicinity.”
“This ensures the centres serves the demand of the residents, while avoiding over competition amongst comparable F&B establishments. Even as we build new centres, we need to ensure that there are hawkers and that they can make a decent livelihood. 11.30 am CBD hawker centres face additional challenges due to their heavy reliance on the working lunch crowd and the lack of residential catchment. Today, there are already existing food options in the CBD for workers. These include four hawker centres such as Market Street Hawker Centre that just reopened last year, as well as about 50 coffeeshops, food courts and canteens. Last year, four new hawker centres opened in Senja, Bukit Canberra, Fernvale and Punggol. Besides Market Street Hawker Centre, another redeveloped centre that commenced operations was Margaret Drive Hawker Centre. Repairs and Redecoration (R&R works) were also completed at 15 centres. Many Singaporeans have explored these centres as part of hawker centre hopping circuits, which is becoming a national pastime. Chairman, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year, we can look forward to the opening of two new hawker centres in Buangkok and Woodleigh Village. Both hawker centres will have around 40 stalls and 700 seats. Both hawker centres will be connected to neighbourhood amenities and transport nodes, making it convenient for residents. The seating areas are spacious, family friendly, and inclusive. Ceilings are high to ensure better ventilation and airflow. Additionally, the refreshed Jurong West Hawker Centre is slated to reopen in the third quarter of 2023 after the completion of reconfiguration works.”
“Mr Gan and Ms Hany Soh spoke on the contamination rate of recyclables, which is about 40%. In tandem with education campaigns, the E-waste EPR scheme, the upcoming beverage container return scheme and initiatives by other organisations to sort recyclables, such as paper and textiles, will reduce contamination in our blue bins. Members will be heartened to learn that all households can collect a Bloobox from vending machines deployed island-wide later this month, to set up a recycling corner. Designed by a team of students from the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), the Bloobox is foldable, reusable and light. It has labels to help households identify what can and cannot be recycled, with reminders that plastic bottles, metal cans and glass containers for recycling should be empty, and free of food and liquids. Members may pick up a Bloobox from the Parliament Library to start your own recycling corner. I will now speak about our hawker centres and hawker culture. Our hawker centres are an important institution, providing us with affordable and tasty hawker food. Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about planning considerations for new hawker centres and markets, and the progress of the new hawker centres. Mr Pritam Singh also asked about plans for hawker centres in the Marina Bay Financial area. The Government had previously announced plans to build 20 new hawker centres, prioritising new estates and existing estates in the heartlands that are relatively under-served, in terms of affordable dining options. These sites are selected after carefully considering factors, including residential catchment, availability of comparable dining options and complementary facilities in the vicinity.”
“The scheme will cultivate recycling habits and aggregate clean and high-quality recyclables, which can be made into new products. The scheme framework has been developed following extensive stakeholder consultations since 2020. Around 80% of 1,000 households surveyed in 2021 generally supported implementing the scheme. The scheme will cover plastic bottles and metal cans of volumes ranging from 150 to 3,000 millilitres, for all types of pre-packaged beverages. Plastic bottles and metal cans comprise about 70% of beverage containers put to market. They are easy to collect, compactible and have high material value. Similar schemes have been implemented in over 50 jurisdictions, such as Norway and Sweden. Many have seen return rates increase to over 80%. For Singapore's beverage container return scheme, NEA will set an 80% return rate target on the scheme operator at steady state. With this, we expect about 800 million plastic bottles and metal cans to be returned for recycling annually. Even as we strengthen legislation to drive behaviour change, we must continue with outreach and education. Prof Koh Lian Pin spoke on The Waste Café. As noted in my Parliamentary Question reply yesterday, we will take into consideration the views of those who felt that this experiment could have been done differently, to improve our future campaigns. I also thank Prof Koh for his queries on our initiatives to encourage household recycling. On transparent recycling bins, we will be releasing our findings soon. On recycling chutes, HDB introduced dual chutes for refuse and recyclables for all new public housing developments from 2014. Since 2018, NEA has also required them at all new non-landed, private residential developments higher than four storeys.”
“We will monitor the effectiveness of the charge and assess the need to expand the mandatory coverage in the future. The charge will apply to all disposable carrier bags, not just plastic bags, as all bags require resources and generate carbon emissions during their production and disposal. Other similar schemes in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the UK, have led to a reduction of plastic bags used by 60% to 90%. We have heard concerns about supermarket operators profiting from the charge. I am happy to share that all covered supermarket operators have indicated that they intend to apply the charge proceeds towards environmental and social causes. For transparency and accountability, supermarket operators will be required to publish information on the number of bags issued, amount of proceeds collected and how the proceeds are used. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we can balance the charge and the need for bags for waste disposal. The charge will not remove the public's access to disposable bags. Bags will still be available at supermarkets and other retail outlets. By reducing waste and recycling right, we will require fewer bags for waste disposal. Additionally, we can repurpose product packaging to bag waste, including toilet roll bags or packaging from online purchases. Second, a beverage container return scheme, which Mr Gan mentioned. The scheme is part of an EPR approach to manage packaging waste. Beverage producers will be responsible for collecting and recycling the products they put to market. Consumers will pay a small deposit when buying a pre-packaged beverage and receive a full refund when the empty beverage container is returned for recycling at a conveniently located return point.”
“Today, I will share more details on two key initiatives under the Bill: a disposable carrier bag charge and a beverage container return scheme. They are decisive steps to reduce packaging waste and increase recycling, including single-use plastics. First, on the disposable carrier bag charge. By making the cost of disposable bags visible to consumers, the charge will nudge consumers to be mindful of and reduce their usage of disposable bags. Based on NEA's 2021 survey of around 1,000 residents, close to 90% agreed that they had a part to play in reducing the usage of disposable carrier bags. More than 70% also agreed that a mandatory charge will help to reduce the usage of these bags. From Monday, 3 July 2023, supermarket operators with a company-level annual turnover of more than $100 million will be required to charge at least five cents per disposable carrier bag at their Singapore Food Agency (SFA)-licensed supermarket outlets. Following consultations with supermarket operators, we understand that the majority will be charging five cents per bag, and this would moderate potential cost impact on consumers. We can avoid the charge by bringing our own reusable bags. The mandatory charge will cover around 400, or about two-thirds, of all supermarket outlets. These include large supermarket chains, such as FairPrice, Cold Storage, Giant and Sheng Siong. These supermarkets will be easily identifiable through collaterals displayed at their premises. The mandatory charge would not apply at other retail outlets, such as convenience stores, as suggested by Mr Ng. Nevertheless, I note that many retailers already charge for bags voluntarily, including large convenience store chains, such as 7-Eleven and Cheers.”
“Chairman, let me now elaborate on our vision for a zero-waste nation and my pet topic – no, not smoking, but hawkers and hawker centres. Since the launch of the Zero Waste Masterplan in 2019, my Ministry and NEA have taken concrete steps to move from a throwaway culture towards a more sustainable paradigm. We are making good progress, addressing our priorities waste streams of electronic waste, or e-waste, packaging waste and food waste. Mr Louis Ng asked for an update on the e-waste Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, scheme that was implemented in July 2021. Since then, we have more than doubled the number of nationwide e-waste collection points, from 300 to over 700 today. These collection points are situated at accessible locations, like community centres and shopping malls. To date, ALBA, the appointed Producer Responsibility Scheme operator, has collected more than 9,000 tonnes of e-waste. It is a start, but is only a fraction of our collection targets. Since 1 July 2021, for Information Communication Technology (ICT) equipment, batteries and lamps, the collection rate is under 4%. We have done better for large household appliances, with a collection rate of 18%. There is still much room for improvement. Together with ALBA, we will roll out extensive publicity and outreach efforts throughout the year, across various marketing and online platforms, focusing on events such as International E-waste Day in October. ALBA has also worked with all 17 Town Councils to organise quarterly collection drives at housing estates to collect bulky e-waste. On 6 February 2023, I moved the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill for first reading. There will be a full debate on the Bill during the Second Reading.”
“I thank the Member for his views as well as suggestions. As I noted, the collected used cups were actually repurposed and used as part of the roving exhibition. In fact, some of it is used as a facade of now what we call The Waste Less Cafe, where the members of the public can get free coffee if they bring their reusable mug. Some are also repurposed as craft for children. But as I have also noted, we hear and note the differing views of some and the suggestions that have been given, and we certainly will take their feedback including the Member's views and suggestions into consideration in our future campaigns.”
“As the Member has rightly pointed out, vehicle noise, particularly in the middle of the night, may even seem louder than what it would be, because of the low ambient surrounding noise. Vehicle noise may not just be because of illegal modifications or speeding. It could be the vehicle design, the way the driver drives a car and maintenance and so on. Having said that, we note the concerns of residents and we do work with TP as well as the National Environment Agency (NEA) to carry out enforcement operations when there is a need. With regard to that use of technology, acoustic cameras, currently we have no plans. This is actually under NEA. So, currently, my understanding is that we have no plans to install such noise measuring instruments to detect violations, simply because it is actually quite challenging. Unlike a speeding offence, you can capture it with a speed camera visually. It is challenging to attribute the source of noise to a specific vehicle due to interference from surrounding traffic as well as other sources. The acoustic cameras, as they are called, I think, still have limited ability in detecting noise violations from individual vehicles accurately and reliably. So, we are monitoring developments in technology in this area and if possible, if useful, we will utilise it, with a view to strengthen enforcement. But at the moment, there are currently no plans. We are monitoring the technology.”
“Enforcement against speeding and the illegal modification of engines is done by the Traffic Police (TP) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) respectively. In 2022, TP received about 420 complaints about speeding; LTA received about 3,600 reports on illegal modifications. LTA conducts onsite checks on the reported vehicles, either at the reported location or at the registered address. Vehicles assessed to be illegally modified will have to be inspected at authorised inspection centres. The registered owner of an illegally modified vehicle will be charged under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act and liable for a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to three months, or both. Investigations typically take approximately eight weeks and can be longer for more complex cases. TP uses cameras for enforcement against speeding. When TP officers on patrol detect a speeding vehicle with suspected illegal modifications, the case will be referred to LTA for further investigation.”
“Indeed, as I have said to the Member, we take every case seriously. So, when we take the case seriously, it means that we are also very serious. We are also concerned about the outcome of second-hand smoke. 10.59 am”
“We will do whatever we can to address this, but we also need to put this in perspective and be pragmatic about it. It cannot be that we spent an inordinate amount of expenses and effort when enforcement may not be effective. So, we continue to look at what else we can do, including legislation for smoking at homes.”
“I do not have the number of repeat complaints and first-time complaints, but of the 900 instances of feedback, 622 are actually unique feedback. So, that is the information I have. As regards to threshold, let me first again reiterate, as I have done many times, that we take a serious view about second-hand smoke and we sympathise with every case that is affected by second-hand smoke. So, we take a multi-prong approach, both at the local level as well as at the national level. At the local level, every time there is an instance of such a case, we go down, send advisory, encourage or verbally advise the smoker, as well as look at whether enforcement can be done, if the second-hand smoke is actually emitting from the common corridor. And this is what we have done. On the national level, we have done many things, just at this Budget, we have announced that there will be an increase in tobacco tax, and we hope that that would deter smoking and reduce the prevalence of second-hand smoke too; amongst others, legal age limit and so on. So, it is not the threshold. We continue to look at how we can improve the situation and mitigate the cases, and every case does matter to us. I think we also need to, not to trivialise the issue because it is serious, but we need to put this in context and have a proper perspective. And that is, 900 is out of 21,300 smoking feedback for 2022. In addition, we all know that we live in a very high-rise, highly dense, highly urbanised society. If you look at it, first, the number of residential developments, for instance, is ever increasing. So, it is not static. And we are talking about, just for HDB flats, more than a million HDB flats. We need to take that in perspective, every case we take it seriously and we do sympathise with the resident.”
“I would say that, as the Member has pointed out, we have stopped the contribution of the number of the COEs from the motorcycle category, Cat D, into Cat E; whilst the others would have continued to contribute a certain percentage. I stand to be corrected but I do not think that there has been instances where we have actually done the reverse.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Let me say that we share the same concerns. I think many other Members of Parliament, including the Government Parliamentary Committee Chairman Mr Saktiandi Supaat has also raised these concerns. As I have said, we understand the concerns of the potential buyers of, for instance, motorcycles, particularly if it is for their livelihood. So, we closely monitor the situation. As I have also noted in my earlier reply, we have made some moves in March with regard to the validity period – we shortened it and raised the bid deposit. To reduce the quarter-to-quarter volatility for the COE premiums, we have changed the method of computation for COE quota, which would also help in terms of the motorcycle COE premiums. But some of these changes, the impact may take some time to flow through. We are monitoring the situation and we are prepared and will consider further actions if necessary.”
“To help buyers obtain their motorcycles sooner, motorcycle dealers bid for and hold onto some Category D Temporary COEs or TCOEs, which can be used to first register a motorcycle before subsequent transfer to a buyer upon purchase. With rising Cat D COE quota premiums, there were some concerns that dealers were speculatively bidding and holding on to TCOEs. Thus, in March 2022, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) adjusted the Cat D COE bid deposit from $200 to $800, and shortened the Cat D TCOE validity period from six months to three months, to encourage prudent bidding behaviour. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and consider further actions, if necessary.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Firstly, as I have mentioned earlier, to ensure commuter safety, we have limited the matching of carpooling services with strangers to only be done via licensed carpooling operators or the smaller operators – that means business entities that are carpooling operators, because these operators maintain records of the drivers as well as the trips booked, in case of a dispute or an incident. In the past, we have had reports of disputes as well as assault cases arising from unregulated carpooling services. But social carpooling arrangements – generally made between friends or colleagues, typically with no payment made – are permitted. LTA will only take enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have completed these carpooling trips with strangers for a fee that are matched through other channels besides the carpooling operators. And usually, this is taken either through public feedback or if LTA conducts enforcement operations that are targeted at these illegal carpooling activities. When we conduct operations, we need to get evidence that these completed trips are actually between strangers and are for a fee through a channel that is not through the carpooling operators, before we take action. LTA will exercise reasonableness and will not intervene if they are purely social carpooling arrangements. Basically, if the driver provides trips through these chatgroups, has a valid vocational licence and drives a public service vehicle, then, that is not illegal and it is allowed. It is only not allowed if the driver does not have a valid vocational licence and does not drive a private hire car; then, that would be illegal.”
“A shared journey involving friends or colleagues, where typically no payment is required, is considered a social carpooling trip. However, if the carpooling is among strangers, that is, the passenger does not know the driver, then, in the interest of both drivers and passengers, this must be done via licensed carpooling operators, for example, by booking GrabHitch or RydePool services; or through other smaller operators. In such cases, operators are required to verify drivers' licences and enforce a maximum of two carpool journeys a day at cost recovery. Details of booked trips are also recorded by operators, which can be used to aid investigations in the event of an incident or a dispute. Illegal carpooling trips matched through other platforms, such as Telegram chatgroups, do not have such safeguards. We would urge members of the public to book their journeys only with carpooling operators. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been taking enforcement action against drivers providing illegal carpooling services under section 101(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and will continue to monitor and conduct enforcement checks. Commuters who encounter such drivers can also file a report with LTA.”
“I thank the Member for the supplementary questions, as well as for the feedback. As I have noted, NEA publishes the guidelines on the setting up of DSAs. In fact, for certain critical requirements, it is actually legislated in the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations 2018. Three of the criteria which are legislated are: firstly, it is about the boundary – that the DSA must be clearly demarcated with suitable measures; secondly, it is about the sign – there must be a signage provided either near or within the DSA to say that this is a Designated Smoking Area; and thirdly, you would need to provide at least one disposal receptacle – cigarette butt canister or litter bin with ash tray – within the DSA. In the Orchard Road No Smoking Zone, there are currently 54 demarcated DSAs, 100 to 200 metres between DSAs, three DSAs are temporarily closed, and six are demarcated with planter boxes. What NEA does is to conduct checks to make sure that the demarcations are clearly done. If it is not, for instance, if there is feedback, then we will work with the premises owners to rectify this, to make sure that they are clearly demarcated. As regard to enforcement action, if we observe the smoker holding a lit cigarette or smoking in a non-smoking area or smoking prohibited area, enforcement action will be taken. But the offender can appeal, write into NEA with supporting reasons and we will carefully consider the appeal, taking into account the facts of the case to see it there are mitigating factors for leniency to be accorded.”
“As I have mentioned in my reply earlier, the average TCRR for our hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts have remained at around 90%. Indeed, we are heartened by the support given by Singaporeans to clear and clean up after themselves. But, nonetheless, this also means that there is a minority, a small proportion who still do not return their used crockery and tray after their meals. And some might not do it unless the enforcement officer advises them to do so, because if they heed the advice of the enforcement officers, no action will be taken. A written warning will only be issued if they do not heed the advice and, subsequently, if they offend again, it will be a composition fine. We do want to encourage more Singaporeans to clean up after themselves at our public dining places. What we have done is, NEA and SFA have continued to conduct checks and enforcements, particularly in premises with a lower TCRR. We do that and work closely with the Town Councils, as well as with the hawker associations and stallholders to get them, for instance, to remind these diners to return their used crockery and tray, as well as to ensure that there is sufficient tray return infrastructure and signages to remind and raise awareness about the requirement. In addition to that, we will continue to monitor the situation and we will, as the Member has pointed out, look at a review of the deployment of our enforcement officers if need be, as well as consider the option of firmer actions should the situation warrant it.”
“I thank the Member for his passionate plea. NEA is not against CWOs. In fact, it is at the discretion of the Courts to issue a CWO, where they think it is fit to do so. But having said that, we are saying that fines are actually effective as a deterrent because based on our statistics, of those who have been caught and had been enforced against, the number of repeat offenders is very low. It is 4%. Hence, we think that it is not necessary, even for first-time offenders, to be issued a CWO by the Court. We have answered this question before. The Member had submitted a similar Parliamentary Question and we had also said that because the number of repeat offenders is so low, we do want to give the first-time offenders a second chance. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I do not have the numbers here, but it is a minority.”
“As I have shared, installing surveillance cameras depends on the design of the block, which stack the suspect is in, whether it is possible to find a suitable location. So, sometimes, it is not a question of the number of cameras available but whether we have got good quality information and whether we are able to deploy and install the camera in a location that gives us a good chance of a successful catch. You will see that, as I have shared, the catch rate is 35%. And that is because there are all these constraints, whether it is weather, design of the block, quality of information and so on. As far as we are concerned, if there is good reason to install a surveillance camera, we will do so. So, it is not a question of increasing the numbers. We have done so. But as I have also said, putting surveillance camera everywhere and all the time is really not sustainable; it is not something we can do. Enforcing against high-rise littering, as we have also said, is very laborious; it is resource-intensive and also requires lots of time. We need to see how we can do this effectively. But, actually, the best way to address this problem is by cultivating positive social norms, civic-mindedness and social responsibility. Can the Member repeat the second question? I am not quite sure what he was asking – repeat offenders and so on?”
“Not only has this benefited our health and well-being, being a clean and green city has become part of our national identity. We must cherish what we have and continue to be guided by the values of care and consideration to keep our environment clean. The proposed changes, as set out in this Bill, will enable us to support our cleaning and waste management sectors, as well as strengthen our shared responsibility to cultivate right behaviours that safeguard public health and a clean environment. Hence, I call on all Members of this House to support the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Based on our consultations, the additional capital cost of PWCS is a small proportion of the total cost of a development and the maintenance cost is also a small proportion of the building's operational costs. With the increasing manpower challenges and the rising cost of labour, we can expect more cost savings due to the reduced manpower requirement of PWCS, not to mention the environmental benefits from the reduction in pest infestation, odours and exposed waste. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the disposal of waste in the common areas of HDB blocks. To clarify, the prohibition in section 20 applies to the use of a vehicle to dump waste in a public place or the dumping of waste from a vehicle in a public place. Disposing of waste in HDB common areas, except in areas designated for refuse, contravenes the respective Town Council's by-laws. Residents wishing to dispose of bulky items may also contact their respective Town Councils for assistance. With regard to the extension of the limitation period in section 95 of the Act, I would like to clarify that this would apply to any offence committed under the EPHA, other than an offence that involves an injury or danger to health that subsists at the date of the complaint of the offence, and not only illegal dumping cases. Complex cases include those involving multiple interviewees, some of whom may be uncooperative, thereby prolonging investigations. Notwithstanding the amendment, NEA will ensure that our investigation processes remain efficient. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. We have come a long way since Independence, working hard to keep Singapore clean. This was made possible by the tireless efforts of generations of Singaporeans, including our cleaners and waste management workers.”
“Besides the limitations of current heat detection camera technology, this proposal gives rise to privacy issues as the entire footage recorded may have to be reviewed manually, even if it is by authorised persons. These challenges need to be overcomed before we can consider prohibiting smoking at windows and balconies. I have explained this at length in this House on many occasions. But in order to not disappoint the Member, I am explaining this again. And since then, we have yet to see practicable solutions, from our scanning of available technology as well as international developments, to address second-hand smoke coming from homes. Nonetheless, I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that we will continue to monitor developments in this area with regard to smoking in homes because we are also as concerned about second-hand smoke and the harm it causes. I shall move on to the rest of the amendments in this Bill. To Mr Don Wee’s question on what can be done to address errant acts that result in blockages of the PWCS, Town Councils are required under the Town Councils Act to maintain, repair and replace the PWCS. The Town Councils can introduce a by-law to make causing blockages of PWCS an offence and develop ways of enforcing against this. The PWCS chute hopper is designed such that bulky items, for example large or long items, would not be able to fit into the opening. Sensors and monitoring equipment also help to prevent an excessive piling up of refuse within the chute. Residents and contractors are reminded that bulky waste can be conveniently disposed of by contacting their respective Town Councils for assistance. Mr Gan Thiam Poh sought clarification on the cost of installing PWCS and how it compares with the potential savings in labour cost.”
“Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if residents are allowed to install cameras pointing upwards and not directly into their neighbours' units to identify high-rise littering offenders. While residents may undertake measures to support NEA, we encourage residents to be mindful of community relations and respect the privacy of their neighbours, as installing cameras within one's unit may intrude into his or her neighbours' privacy or interfere with his or her neighbours' enjoyment or use of their homes. Residents should seek Town Councils' approval prior to installing any camera in HDB common spaces given that this is regulated under Town Council by-laws. Lastly, Mr Louis Ng asked if a similar statutory presumption could be used to address the problem of second-hand smoke in flats. As explained earlier, the statutory presumption proposed in this Bill first requires clear evidence that an act of littering has been committed from a specific residential flat. Unlike high-rise littering acts which involve undisputed evidence of littering from a flat, obtaining proof of the acts of smoking at windows and balconies is technologically inordinately more challenging. In addition to finding suitable locations for the deployment of surveillance cameras to detect smoking at windows and balconies, such cameras would need to detect the heat signature of a smoker's lit cigarette and visually identify that the lit object is a cigarette. The cameras that need to be used have a much shorter range and their line of sight can be easily blocked when smokers stand further from the windows or stand behind a glass pane, curtains or any physical barriers.”
“To Mr Don Wee's query, for recalcitrant offenders who appeal to NEA due to financial hardship, NEA will assess the facts of the case and the offender's past offences before taking the appropriate actions. This may include offering a composition sum or not acceding to the appeal. To deter such offenders from littering again, NEA ensures that the enforcement actions are commensurate with the severity of the offence. Mr Desmond Choo asked if a new clause could be included to provide a jail term in addition to fines if the items littered have the propensity to cause harm. I would like to clarify that currently, where a person throws litter from residential buildings and endangers the personal safety of others or causes bodily harm, he or she can be liable under the Penal Code for an offence which is punishable with both imprisonment and fines. The suggestion to terminate the lease of flat owners who are recalcitrant offenders is a harsh measure that ought not to be undertaken lightly. HDB exercises the right of compulsory acquisition sparingly and as a last resort. Nevertheless, this measure may also not address the root of the issue if the offender is just forced to move out and commits high-rise littering at a new address. There are suggestions for NEA to accept evidence of littering from residential flats submitted by members of the public. As I shared earlier, clear evidence that an act of littering had been committed from an identified flat must be provided. Members of the public can provide such evidence through channels such as myENV or the OneService mobile applications. NEA will follow up and investigate the littering offence as long as the quality of the evidence is able to support NEA's enforcement action.”
“High-rise littering incidences are captured in about 35% of such camera deployments, on average, over a five-year period. In 2020 and 2021, about 7% of high-rise littering cases were attributed to persons below the age of 19 and 24% to those above the age of 64. NEA does not track the data for individuals with mental or physical disabilities, which only forms a minority of offenders. The catch-rate is constrained by factors such as the suitability of the vantage points for camera deployment, lighting conditions and quality of information received through feedback. Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Liang Eng Hwa may be pleased to know that NEA's surveillance cameras already leverage video analytics to detect falling litter, allowing for flagging and notification of high-rise littering acts without the need to manually review hours of video footages. NEA will continue to enhance its enforcement capabilities by keeping pace with developments in surveillance camera technology. Several Members, including Mr Lim Biow Chuan, asked if current penalties were effective, particularly against recalcitrant offenders. We have stiff penalties for high-rise littering and only about 4% of offenders who litter from residential flats are repeat offenders. Littering offenders can be fined up to $2,000, $4,000 and $10,000 for their first, second and subsequent offences respectively. If the Court is satisfied that it would be appropriate for the protection of the environment and rehabilitation of the offender, the offender may also be issued with a Corrective Work Order (CWO). To Members' suggestion to make the CWO mandatory for all littering offenders, the current fines remain an effective deterrent. NEA will continue to monitor the situation and review the penalty regime where necessary.”
“Individuals found to knowingly provide false information to implicate another person can be charged for providing false information. NEA will be judicious and exercise care in investigating and resolving cases involving vulnerable groups such as young children and the elderly, as is already practised today. For littering acts committed by children below the age of 12, NEA will not take enforcement action against them as they may not have sufficient maturity to understand what they had done. Currently, NEA will issue an advisory letter to the parents to underscore their responsibility to educate their child on binning litter properly. As for offenders with mental incapacity, NEA refers such cases to social welfare agencies, such as the Agency for Integrated Care, to provide more holistic help with the consent of the offender, or if the offender is not capable of giving such consent, then his or her next-of-kin. The social welfare agencies may then work with relevant stakeholders such as IMH for medical assessments. For persistent cases involving the vulnerable groups, NEA may engage the parents or households to implement measures to prevent high-rise littering such as installing wire mesh on their windows. While we empathise with the families of offenders with mental incapacity, NEA may still proceed with prosecution of persistent cases with the Attorney-General's Chambers' concurrence, especially if the offender is aware of the nature and consequences of his or her actions and no effort is made to prevent recurrence. Some Members asked about the effectiveness of NEA's surveillance cameras. NEA had increased the number of surveillance camera deployments by over 50% in 2020 and currently deploys about 200 surveillance cameras each month.”
“However, NEA will consider the facts of each appeal for more time to respond on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether or not to proceed with the enforcement action. In response to Mr Leon Perera's query on the burden of proof for rebutting the presumption, there is no requirement for proving beyond reasonable doubt. For example, to prove that the owner or tenant was not at home, evidence such as purchase receipts or transportation trip transactions can be produced. Alternatively, in response to Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin's question, the owner or tenant can provide the identity of the person whom he or she reasonably believes to be the offender to rebut the presumption. In response to Mr Leon Perera, merely pointing the finger at another person without a reasonable basis will not be acceptable. Let me now highlight our approach to ensuring careful and judicious enforcement, which several Members have spoken about. Concerns were raised on how the statutory presumption may negatively affect the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and fairness in investigations, such as possible instances where owners or tenants pin the responsibility on children or on the elderly and disabled individuals to avoid the penalties. Let me assure Members that NEA will conduct investigations and assess the facts of each case carefully, including interviewing the named persons or relevant witnesses before proceeding with any enforcement actions to ensure that no individuals are wrongly accused. In cases involving multiple owners or tenants, given that NEA will send the letter of intended prosecution to all registered owners and tenants individually, each owner or tenant can respond directly to NEA.”
“We believe this will enhance deterrence and contribute to reducing the number of high-rise littering acts in the long run. Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Darryl David and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the scope of the statutory presumptions. The presumptions will not cover littering from common corridors and staircases. For high-rise littering committed from the common corridors and staircases of residential flats, NEA will continue to investigate such cases based on the current approach. The statutory presumptions also apply if litter is thrown from a private apartment that is used for residential purpose and the litter lands in a public place. For high-rise littering within condominium or private apartment estates, Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) can introduce and leverage their by-laws to take appropriate actions. Mr Desmond Choo asked about the method of issuance of the letter of intended prosecution to owners or tenants. At the earlier stage of investigation, NEA will send a letter via post to notify the owner or tenant of the offence and explain how the statutory presumption will apply during the legal proceedings for the offence and how it may be rebutted. Contact via email or phone would only be possible after email addresses or phone numbers are furnished by the owners or tenants when they respond to the initial letter and request for subsequent correspondence via such methods. Dr Wan Rizal also asked whether owners or tenants could have more time – 30 days instead of 14 days – to rebut the presumption. The time period of 14 days is necessary to ensure that owners or tenants provide timely information to NEA to investigate the case effectively and efficiently.”