A Harried Commentary

Article :

Littering on rise in Singapore despite stiff penalties
October 31, 2006

Article from: The Australian

SINGAPORE: Littering is on the rise in Singapore, particularly among young people, despite
stiff penalties including public shaming of repeat offenders, press reports said on Monday.

Singapore is famous for being one of Asia's cleanest and greenest cities, but in the first nine months of 2006, more than 4,000 citizens were caught littering, compared to 3,819 during all of last year.

Over half of the offenders caught this year were under 30, the mass-circulation newspaper Today reported, citing official figures.

Cases are rising despite Singapore's stringent deterrent measures including maximum fines of more than 3,000 US dollars and "corrective work orders" compelling repeat offenders to render up to 12 hours of cleanup work in full view of the public.

The National Environment Agency is conducting a behavioral survey to determine why litterbugs persist - most of the young culprits are men - and to fine-tune its response to the problem.

The agency and municipal councils spent about 70 million dollars a year cleaning up food hawker centers, government housing estates and public areas, the Straits Times reported.

AFP

Commentary:

Measures to curb littering in Singapore; are they just for show?

I personally feel that littering is very much prevalent in Singapore. In the area I live in, litters literally carpet the landscape all around. As such, drastic measures must definitely be implemented to curb littering, and to a certain extent measures had been taken; but are they truly effective?

I believe strongly that the implementations by the government to curb littering are not effective at all in the long run, and even its impact on the present state of affairs are limited. I shall justify my stand by questioning the impact of the measures taken; whether it changed the littering habits and the mindsets of Singaporeans. I shall also counter-argue the statistics shown by the government to prove the measures undertaken is actually effective.

First of all, what are some of the reasons why Singaporeans litter wherever and whenever without fear of retribution or scorn? I have arrived at these conclusions to date.

A survey had once statistically shown that Singaporeans do not really consider littering as a criminal act, and merely consider it to be a nuisance. As such, Singaporeans are mostly apathetic to acts of littering in general. Such trends are clearly exhibited when individuals litter and no one actually stops them from doing so, feigning ignorance.

Another factor contributing to the rising number of litterbugs is the lack of supervision. Fines for littering mostly do not concern the average Singaporean on a daily basis. Singaporeans, when asked about whether they are now afraid to litter and are more self-conscious about littering after the implementation of the fine, an overwhelming number responded that they do not worry about being penalized at all, as the chances of them getting caught is minimal. In fact, only a minuscule percentage of litterbugs would ever get caught and hence its impact is practically negligible. As for the unlucky ones who are caught red-handed in the action, well it certainly dented their wallets and taught them a lesson, but for the others, they are wholly unaffected.

The lack of disposal bins could also contribute to the problem. I did a quick check about my neighborhood, and voila, there are only ten disposal bins in the area, and some are actually located in obscure locations. Quoting from an elderly Singaporean, “… littering occurs not because we are antisocial, but we have no choice sometimes.” Indeed, one could bring their trash along with them until they could find a bin, but the truth of the matter is, how many people would actually do that? This is something that the fine could not rectify.

The government might argue that from statistics, the number of litterbugs actually immediately halved after the implementation of the schemes, and record shows that at its best 8652 litterbugs had been caught due to its contribution. It might be said that the scheme worked and had proven itself, but if you think it through, in truth it had only limited impact; if you calculate it through, only 0.1% of the estimated number of litterbugs by the government had been brought to justice. Also, it is possible that the drop in litterbugs was not due to public consciousness of the matter, but in fact due to the reduced rate of apprehension of the already inefficient supervision process. Enforcement by supervision is not viable for the island-state, as manpower is scarce and also achieving goals through fear; the fear of punishment and public humiliation, would not actually bring about real change. Given a chance, people would swiftly revert back to their original selves.

The use of such a brute-force method to counter littering is ineffective in the long-term, as could be seen from the reemergence of litterbugs despite the fines and measures, and also a lack of public awareness. While it is true that the government is fine-tuning its response to litterbugs over the due course of time and experience, but the process may take too long to perfect and implement; compared to just placing an adequate amount of disposal bins at appropriate and convenient areas for easy waste disposal. Although this might put strain on cleaners, I believe that this type of manpower could be more easily attained through the unemployed or foreign workers. More pervasive education campaigns about social etiquette and morals, targeting both the mainstream populace and the youths would also be more effective.

I therefore conclude that the current system to curb littering in Singapore would have a limited, if not negligible impact on the mindset and actions of the people, and even if it was otherwise, there would not be simply enough disposal bins to facilitate and convenience garbage disposals. In the long run, the inefficiency of the method would show, perhaps it already began, just as it was implied by the title of the article.