http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,185499,00.html?
HE PAYS FINE, FRIEND GETS CWO
I thought we both could just pay fines
First-time littering offenders can get CWO if size of rubbish is large
By Amanda Yong
December 03, 2008
BIG MISTAKE: Mr Raju had walked barely two steps from the spot where he left a bottle when NEA officers issued him a notice to turn up in court. TNP PICTURE: KUA CHEE SIONG
IF you think you can escape with a fine as a first-time offender for littering, think again.
It depends on the size of what you dump.
If it's considered a large item, you can be taken to court and penalised with a Corrective Work Order (CWO).
This was what two friends found out after they said they left behind a drink bottle and were caught by National Environment Agency (NEA) officers for littering.
Since it was their first offence, they thought they would get away with a composition fine.
But Mr Raju (not his real name) and his friend ended up being charged in court because their rubbish was considered a large item.
An NEA spokesman said that large items include drink cans and bottles, food wrappers, even tissue paper.
Those who discard such items will be hauled to court, where a CWO may be imposed.
Said the spokesman: 'This is because unlike smaller items such as coupon tabs, sweet wrappers and cigarette butts, the larger items, if discarded improperly, could give rise to more serious public health problems such as fly, cockroach and rodent infestation or even mosquito breeding.'
Mr Raju, 41, and his friend are permanent residents from India working here as restaurant cooks.
Deep in conversation
He said they shared a 1.5 litre bottle of mineral water while sitting outside the Little India MRT station on 21 Sep.
His friend, also 41, had recently returned from a three-month visit to India and they were engrossed in conversation for half an hour, catching up with each other.
Around 11.30pm, they got up to leave.
'Before we could take more than two steps from our seat, four men approached us,' Mr Raju said.
'I didn't know who they were at first, then I saw the name tags on their shirts and they identified themselves as NEA officers.'
It was then that he realised he had forgotten the bottle which was still a fifth full.
'The officers asked for our ICs and when we asked why, they said, 'You left the bottle behind'.'
The two men apologised to the NEA officers and said it was their first time.
But they were each issued a notice to attend court by different officers for leaving behind an empty bottle in a public place.
Their offence falls under Section 17(1)(f) of the Environmental Public Health Act, which prohibits throwing or leaving behind 'any bottle, can, food container, food wrapper, glass particles of food or any other article or thing in any public place'.
Mr Raju was required to attend court on 11 Nov and his friend on 4 Nov.
Mr Raju said it was stated on the back of the notice that offences under that particular section may be compounded with a fine of $200, if the offender had not previously been convicted of or had accepted composition for any of those offences.
Rejected
When Mr Raju asked a friend to help him pay at an AXS station two days later, his attempts were rejected.
The NEA spokesman clarified that a composition fine was offered only for small items of litter, which was why Mr Raju and his friend were charged in court despite being first-time offenders.
On 4 Nov, the friend was sentenced to serve a CWO. He is due back in court on 2 Jan when his case would be mentioned again.
When Mr Raju went to court on 11 Nov, he was fined $300 for the offence.
'I didn't have enough cash with me because I thought it would be $200 at the most,' he said.
He was told to return to court on 9 Dec when his case would be mentioned again.
Why was there a discrepancy in the punishment meted out to Mr Raju and his friend?
The NEA spokesman said both men were supposed to have been sentenced to CWOs.
She also said investigations showed they had each left behind a bottle, though Mr Raju insisted that only one bottle was involved.
'Both offenders should have been given a CWO for the offence.
'However, one of the enforcement officers, who is new in service, had inadvertently sent one of the offenders to court without alerting the prosecutor to press for a CWO.
'This has resulted in the offender (Mr Raju) receiving a non-compounded fine of $300,' she said.
The spokesman added that this was the first time such a mistake had occurred.
As the officer was new, he was given a warning for the oversight.
She said NEA was reviewing its system to prevent a recurrence of such mistakes.
Said Mr Raju, who has been in Singapore for about 12 years: 'I regret what I did.
'It's been a great embarrassment for me.'
The number of people caught littering has quadrupled in the last two years. (See report, above.)
Caught
In one recent case, an 18-year-old girl was caught discarding a cigarette butt, reported Shin Min Daily News.
The teenager's mother said her daughter was with a friend outside Eastpoint Mall on 3Nov when she threw the butt into a 'dirty cup crawling with ants'.
It had been left behind by someone else earlier.
NEA officers caught the teenager and she was given a composition fine of $200.
The NEA spokesman said her case was considered littering.
'This is because the cup is not a proper receptacle for litter.
'It is similar to dropping a cigarette butt into a flowerbed, which is also considered an act of littering,' she said.
'The cigarette butt should have been dropped into a litter bin instead.'
HE PAYS FINE, FRIEND GETS CWO
I thought we both could just pay fines
First-time littering offenders can get CWO if size of rubbish is large
By Amanda Yong
December 03, 2008
BIG MISTAKE: Mr Raju had walked barely two steps from the spot where he left a bottle when NEA officers issued him a notice to turn up in court. TNP PICTURE: KUA CHEE SIONG
IF you think you can escape with a fine as a first-time offender for littering, think again.
It depends on the size of what you dump.
If it's considered a large item, you can be taken to court and penalised with a Corrective Work Order (CWO).
This was what two friends found out after they said they left behind a drink bottle and were caught by National Environment Agency (NEA) officers for littering.
Since it was their first offence, they thought they would get away with a composition fine.
But Mr Raju (not his real name) and his friend ended up being charged in court because their rubbish was considered a large item.
An NEA spokesman said that large items include drink cans and bottles, food wrappers, even tissue paper.
Those who discard such items will be hauled to court, where a CWO may be imposed.
Said the spokesman: 'This is because unlike smaller items such as coupon tabs, sweet wrappers and cigarette butts, the larger items, if discarded improperly, could give rise to more serious public health problems such as fly, cockroach and rodent infestation or even mosquito breeding.'
Mr Raju, 41, and his friend are permanent residents from India working here as restaurant cooks.
Deep in conversation
He said they shared a 1.5 litre bottle of mineral water while sitting outside the Little India MRT station on 21 Sep.
His friend, also 41, had recently returned from a three-month visit to India and they were engrossed in conversation for half an hour, catching up with each other.
Around 11.30pm, they got up to leave.
'Before we could take more than two steps from our seat, four men approached us,' Mr Raju said.
'I didn't know who they were at first, then I saw the name tags on their shirts and they identified themselves as NEA officers.'
It was then that he realised he had forgotten the bottle which was still a fifth full.
'The officers asked for our ICs and when we asked why, they said, 'You left the bottle behind'.'
The two men apologised to the NEA officers and said it was their first time.
But they were each issued a notice to attend court by different officers for leaving behind an empty bottle in a public place.
Their offence falls under Section 17(1)(f) of the Environmental Public Health Act, which prohibits throwing or leaving behind 'any bottle, can, food container, food wrapper, glass particles of food or any other article or thing in any public place'.
Mr Raju was required to attend court on 11 Nov and his friend on 4 Nov.
Mr Raju said it was stated on the back of the notice that offences under that particular section may be compounded with a fine of $200, if the offender had not previously been convicted of or had accepted composition for any of those offences.
Rejected
When Mr Raju asked a friend to help him pay at an AXS station two days later, his attempts were rejected.
The NEA spokesman clarified that a composition fine was offered only for small items of litter, which was why Mr Raju and his friend were charged in court despite being first-time offenders.
On 4 Nov, the friend was sentenced to serve a CWO. He is due back in court on 2 Jan when his case would be mentioned again.
When Mr Raju went to court on 11 Nov, he was fined $300 for the offence.
'I didn't have enough cash with me because I thought it would be $200 at the most,' he said.
He was told to return to court on 9 Dec when his case would be mentioned again.
Why was there a discrepancy in the punishment meted out to Mr Raju and his friend?
The NEA spokesman said both men were supposed to have been sentenced to CWOs.
She also said investigations showed they had each left behind a bottle, though Mr Raju insisted that only one bottle was involved.
'Both offenders should have been given a CWO for the offence.
'However, one of the enforcement officers, who is new in service, had inadvertently sent one of the offenders to court without alerting the prosecutor to press for a CWO.
'This has resulted in the offender (Mr Raju) receiving a non-compounded fine of $300,' she said.
The spokesman added that this was the first time such a mistake had occurred.
As the officer was new, he was given a warning for the oversight.
She said NEA was reviewing its system to prevent a recurrence of such mistakes.
Said Mr Raju, who has been in Singapore for about 12 years: 'I regret what I did.
'It's been a great embarrassment for me.'
The number of people caught littering has quadrupled in the last two years. (See report, above.)
Caught
In one recent case, an 18-year-old girl was caught discarding a cigarette butt, reported Shin Min Daily News.
The teenager's mother said her daughter was with a friend outside Eastpoint Mall on 3Nov when she threw the butt into a 'dirty cup crawling with ants'.
It had been left behind by someone else earlier.
NEA officers caught the teenager and she was given a composition fine of $200.
The NEA spokesman said her case was considered littering.
'This is because the cup is not a proper receptacle for litter.
'It is similar to dropping a cigarette butt into a flowerbed, which is also considered an act of littering,' she said.
'The cigarette butt should have been dropped into a litter bin instead.'
