MPs fear flat owners may be wrongly accused when high-rise littering rule puts burden of proof on them

SINGAPORE - Being wrongly accused of high-rise littering was one of the key concerns of MPs when they debated a new rule to combat the problem in Parliament on Monday.

The new rule, captured in the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill passed in Parliament on Monday, presumes that a suspected flat’s owner is guilty of high-rise littering unless he proves his innocence.

It will come into effect from July 1 to tackle the growing scourge of high-rise littering. Between 2020 and 2022, an average of 31,200 cases were reported, compared with an average of 19,000 cases between 2017 and 2019, said Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment Amy Khor on Monday.

Despite enforcement efforts by the National Environment Agency (NEA), offenders could not be identified in about 15 per cent of cases investigated from 2019 to 2021 despite having evidence linking a flat to the offence. This is because all the occupants deny knowledge of the offence, said Dr Khor.

All 16 MPs who spoke on the topic supported the presumption clause, which makes owners or tenants of public flats linked to a reported offence guilty unless proven otherwise within 14 days.

However, many MPs questioned the fairness and scope of putting the onus on the owners. Some MPs also asked how children and vulnerable groups – such as those with mental illness or dementia – could be judiciously assessed. A number of MPs had concerns about NEA’s use of cameras to carry out surveillance.

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) raised the potential issue of offenders pushing the blame on mentally incapacitated tenants, who may be incapable of speaking up, or children, as children will not be charged.

Workers’ Party MP Dennis Tan (Hougang) was concerned that putting the burden of proof on owners could cause conflicts within a household or with neighbours.

“If (an owner or tenant) had tried asking and no one wanted to own up, would it be fair for an owner to be made responsible and be punished in such circumstances? What if an owner, landlord or tenant has reasons to fear an occupier of the flat? The owner may have cause for concerns that such a person may become abusive or intimidating,” he added.

Dr Khor said for the presumption clause to take effect, initial evidence would need to clearly capture the act of littering and the unit the trash came from. Images and footage from NEA’s enforcement cameras would be the main source for this, as well as evidence from the public.

Owners or tenants can provide proof of absence such as shopping or transportation receipts when the offence was committed, or evidence that someone else had committed the offence, said Dr Khor.

“Merely pointing a finger at another person without reasonable basis will not be acceptable,” she said. “NEA will continue to investigate, including interviewing any relevant witnesses such as the other occupiers or the suspect named by the owner or tenant so as to verify the information provided.”

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang GRC) asked what NEA would do if repeat offenders have mental incapacity. Dr Khor said NEA would refer them to social welfare agencies such as the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), either with the consent of the offender or his next-of-kin.

“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,” she added.

Agreeing with Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio GRC), Dr Khor said NEA may get households to install wire mesh on their windows to prevent those with dementia or special needs from repeatedly throwing things out of the window.

Mr Ang Wei Neng ( West Coast GRC ) asked whether more surveillance cameras could be installed to nab high-rise litterbugs.

Dr Khor said surveillance cameras currently capture about 35 per cent of high-rise littering on average over a five-year period. NEA currently deploys about 200 cameras each month.

“The catch rate is constrained by factors such as the suitability of vantage points for camera deployment, lighting conditions and the quality of information received,” she said, noting that more cameras do not necessarily translate to a higher catch rate.

“Sometimes, it’s not a question of the number of cameras available, but whether we have (good) quality information (and whether) we are able to install the cameras in locations that give us a good chance of successful catch,” she said.

High-rise littering on private properties such as condominiums do not fall under the Environmental and Public Health Act unless the litter lands on public property. Dr Khor said: “MCSTs (condominiums’ management corporation strata title) can introduce and leverage their by-laws to take appropriate action.”

Also under the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill which was passed on Monday, about 3,000 Singaporeans and permanent residents working in the waste management sector will see pay rises over six years – under the Progressive Wage Model.

This will begin from July 1, benefiting waste collection truck personnel, sorters and machine operators in waste collection and recycling facilities, and supervisors.

The entry-level monthly salary for waste collection crew will grow 8.1 per cent annually from $2,210 in 2023 to $3,260 in 2028.