Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the GPC on Health and Environment, I would like to comment on the Bill before this House. As pointed out by the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to bring about a more effective control of the environment and to incorporate some of the new advances in the field of environmental public health so that all of us will continue to enjoy a safe and clean environment. The Bill itself, as the Minister has outlined, covers so many areas that it is not possible to summarize many of the points that the GPC have discussed. But here let me just go over one common area of concern, while other Members may want to talk about other aspects of the Bill. This common area of concern pertains to the stiff penalties imposed on illegal hawking, spitting, littering and illegal dumping. Illegal hawking. According to a recent profile done by the Ministry's officials on illegal hawkers, it was shown that about 82% of them are under 50 years of age. In fact about 50% are between 20 and 40 years. In other words, these are able-bodied men and women who could be working in factories, in the services or in the construction sector where for certain types of jobs there is still a labour shortage. So why do they go into illegal hawking? Is it because they are too choosy, preferring flexible hours and possibly sizeable earnings to manual work, shift work, or say work as beauty saloon assistants? Or is it because people want to strike out on their own and be their own bosses? Or is it because, as some officials believe, that the present fines for illegal hawking are too low and therefore the hawkers dare to flout the law? By this Bill, under clause 42(1), hawkers who infringe on public health requirements and hawkers who operate without a licence would now be liable upon conviction to a fine of $1,000 for a first offence and $4,000 or three months of imprisonment or both for subsequent offences. As such, these fines are very stiff, although they are meant to be maximum penalties and therefore are meant to be deterrents. Even the present fine of $500 to us is already quite stiff. It is stiff because up to 1981 to 1982 the median gross monthly income of employed persons in Singapore was around $500, according to the Annual Labour Force survey. Beginning in 1982, this median gross monthly income started to rise above $500 to $511 in 1983 to $667 in 1986. Is that the reason then for the Ministry to raise the fine to $1,000 in order to keep up with the rise in income? If it is a matter of inflation, it cannot be because we have had very low rates of inflation in the past few years. In fact, for a couple of years we have had negative inflation. If we take a look at the number of illegal hawkers prosecuted over the past five years (these figures were given to us by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on March 4 at the last sitting) we note that the number has gone up from 4,915 in 1982 to 6,441 in 1984, and then 8,032 in 1985 and 8,670 in 1986. There was a sharp rise in the number of cases prosecuted for 1985 and 1986. No doubt this could have been due to the fact that those two years were recession years and therefore there could be many more people who were engaged in illegal hawking because of unemployment or because of reduction in incomes. However, we also believe that the rise in the number of prosecutions had to do with the fact that the Ministry's officials actually stepped up enforcement action during those two years as was reported in the press. The point is the Ministry cannot rely simply on stiffer fines. It has to maintain vigorous enforcement if the problem of illegal hawking is to be contained effectively. Of course it is very difficult to catch the illegal hawkers. They literally run. And public sympathy always goes towards those illegal hawkers who are particularly in financial hardship. But the point I want to make is, again, that the problem cannot be contained based on stiffer fines alone. There could be other measures in addition to these. When it comes to offences in respect of uncleanliness in public places, clause 21 of the Bill would appear to lump together illegal dumping, spitting and littering, with the penalty for all three types of offences being uniformly set at $1,000 for the first conviction and $2,000 for subsequent convictions. But the seriousness of the three types of offences is actually quite different. Sir, spitting and littering are anti-social habits which must be curtailed if our efforts to keep Singapore clean are not to be obliterated. But let us recognize that social habits take a long time to correct and a lot of public education is called for. Again, if we look at the number of prosecution for spitting and littering in the past five years, we would see that public education and campaigns do indeed play an important part in containing such anti-social habits. For spitting, the number of cases prosecuted by the Ministry in 1982 was only two cases, 1983 one. Then in 1984 there was a public campaign against spitting and the number of cases prosecuted rose sharply to 128 that year followed by 139 in 1985, after which it dropped to 81 in 1986. Now, it is, of course, inconceivable that in 1982 to 1983 there were so few people who actually committed this offence. But it is highly probable that in 1986, two years after the campaign, the number of offenders effectively dropped. Thus with anti-social habits such as spitting, both public education and the level of enforcement will help to keep down the number of offences. The same with littering. In 1984 the number of cases of littering prosecuted saw a steep rise from 11,560 of the previous year to 28,026. The greatest majority of these cases were apprehended in HDB estates. There was a massive campaign against littering in general and against killer litter, in particular. After 1984 the number of cases declined again. Would this new law, would a doubling of the fines produce a doubling of the deterrent effect? Interestingly, the raising of the fine for spitting and littering, although it has already been publicized in the press, has not aroused much public uproar so far. Is it because Singaporeans are now well-off that they can afford to pay such stiff fines for indulging in careless anti-social acts? Or is it because Singaporeans have now grown accustomed to stiff fines and to shake them out of their complacency one needs to shock them? One standing joke among foreigners and locals alike about our clean city, Sir, is that Singapore is a "fine" city. Such comments are not complimentary to us at all. It is very difficult for me to produce statistics or hard evidence to show that a certain kind of psychological impact has been produced by stiff penalties such as this that can cost to the public. We do not know for sure whether as a result directly attributable to stiff laws, rules and regulations that Singaporeans may harbour a certain sense of resentment against the strong arm of the law that covers so many aspects of their lives. We are prepared, as members of the GPC, to accept the new fines for spitting and littering, accept them as they are meant as strong deterrents only. Still, I think it will do us good to reflect upon the possible impact on popular sentiments and psychology associated with the raising of these stiff fines. Let me come to the question of illegal dumping. At first, it does not seem right to treat a person who has unloaded a whole truck-load of refuse in a public place equally with a person who spits or drops a piece of paper on a pavement. The only similarity between the two types of offences is that they are both difficult to catch. But the cost to the Government and therefore cost to the tax-paying public in clearing up one truck-load of refuse is many more times than in cleaning up litter or spittle in the streets and for all you know, as the Minister also mentioned, some loads that may have been dumped on vacant lands and deserted areas may contain materials harmful to human health. Therefore, as compared to spitting and littering, stiffer penalties should be considered for illegal dumping. We see that this is actually provided for in the Bill in clause 20(3) of the Bill which allows for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles involved in illegal dumping. This is one way. Another way is to fine the driver of the vehicle as well, as in clause 20(10). Also, those people who have hitherto allowed their vacant lands to be used as illegal dumping grounds would now be brought under the law, as per clauses 20 and 23. Sir, illegal dumping grounds exist. Some are pieces of private land left vacant. Others are lands acquired already by public authorities but are awaiting clearance and development. As such, these illegal dumps shift from one clearance site to another. But private contractors engaged in the removal of refuse know where to go. I was brought by some friends recently to some of these places. It was a Sunday. What I saw did not amuse me. Not only was there a steady stream of trucks carrying refuse into such grounds and coming out empty but there were also suspicious characters hanging around the dump sites watching and, I was told, profiting from the activities. In some cases, these individuals are watchmen of the vacant lands and their activities are not known to the employers or the owners of the land. In other cases, these individuals are shifty hooligans who just pounce on every chance to make illegal money. I am not suggesting that the above forms are the predominant forms of illegal dumping. I would suspect that in the majority of cases it is the isolated individuals who dump in all sorts of places, even along expressways, when nobody is watching, especially in the dark of night. This brings me to wonder why people choose to run the risk and dump illegally in spite of the risks and in spite of the fact that there are two Government dumping grounds, and in spite of the fact that for small loads of rubbish under one ton the Government does not charge any dumping fees at all. Sir, it is necessary to make the penalties stiff for illegal dumping. On the other hand, we believe that the Ministry needs to re-examine its own schedule of charges for the dumping grounds or incineration plants. It is not just a matter of convenience that people dump illegally. In fact, in a couple of the places I visited, they were no more than 3-4 km away from the Government dumping ground. While distance and time are money, the direct costs of having to pay dumping fees are very important in the consideration of private contractors engaged in refuse disposal. If the dumping fees are seen to be too high, it is so much more tempting to just unload when no one is watching. Just imagine the savings to the contractors or to the individual operator when with one big lorry-load of 10-12 tons of refuse, he pays between $150 and $180 to the Ministry at $15 per ton, whereas if he succeeds in dumping illegally he pays very little or none at all. And trucks make several trips a day. So the temptation is that much bigger for him to dump illegally. But what is savings to these private contractors is cost to the Government. In fact, the Minister himself also pointed this out, because the Government later has to clear up the refuse from such places. My friends told me an even more serious story. I believe it is somewhat exaggerated. They said that actually when the Government clears up one illegal dump for development of the land, it engages private contractors to remove the refuse. But what some of these private contractors do is to remove the refuse to other illegal dumps which later have to be cleared by the Government again when development comes along. So the costs of illegal dump- ing are hidden and because of these hidden costs we may not be totally aware of the seriousness of the problem. Suffice it to say, as far as the Ministry is concerned, we think that the problem of illegal dumping calls for a three-prong approach - enforcement, stiffer fines or penalties, and lower dumping fees. It is timely to examine the schedule of fees again. Of course, the Government has to recover the cost of the land, at least its opportunity cost, but at the same time its fees actually include the element of scarcity rent as well as monopoly rent. But how to arrive at the schedule of fees which make it possible for the Government to maintain its operations, recover some of its development and operational costs but at the same time be affordable to the operators? My GPC proposes to discuss this point further with the Ministry. It may take some time. We may need the help of economists. But we would like really to look into this matter together with the Ministry further and we would assure the public that whatever changes that may be required or may be recommended will be fair to both the big and the small operators engaged in refuse removal. The GPC, in general, also supports the provision of clause 31 which requires the licensing of the refuse removal businesses. We feel that this will help the Ministry to exercise better control, ensuring proper environmental health standards in a situation where up to one-third of the total amount annually of refuse collected is done by the private contractors. To be exact, in 1985, it was 34.3%. In 1986, it was 34.9%. Since licences are a means of livelihood, they can act as effective methods of making sure that refuse disposal is done properly by private contractors. At the same time, perhaps the Ministry could look at helping the private contractors to upgrade both the equipment, vehicles, raise productivity and to ensure the adherence to environmental public health standards. However, we feel that the upgrading process should be given some time to complete so that the private contractors, especially the smaller ones, could find reasonable ways to comply and to adjust. Sir, with this, I would leave the debate to other members of the GPC and my other colleagues to continue on other aspects of the Bill.