Malaysia introduced tougher anti-littering measures, with stricter penalties and mandatory community service aimed at deterring public littering and instilling greater civic responsibility at the stroke of midnight on 1 January.
To continue reading, subscribe to Eco‑Business.
There's something for everyone. We offer a range of subscription plans.
- Access our stories and receive our Insights Weekly newsletter with the free EB Member plan.
- Unlock unlimited access to our content and archive with EB Circle.
- Publish your content with EB Premium.
The enhanced enforcement came into effect in states that have adopted the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672), including Johor, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perlis and Kedah, as well as the federal territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.
Under a special operation known as Ops Cegah, officers from the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation (SWCorp) and local councils reported having issued 42 offence notices between midnight and 3am during New Year’s celebrations.
Offenders were found discarding waste such as cigarette butts, plastic packaging, food wrappers, tissues and drink containers in public spaces.
Despite the early enforcement push, experts and civil society groups caution that punitive measures alone are unlikely to deliver long-term behavioural change and highlight that Malaysia lacks the broader ecosystem needed to sustain a cleaner public environment.
Sri Umeswara, secretary-general of Koperasi Pengusaha Kitar Semula Selangor Berhad and a subject matter expert in circular economy and waste management, said Malaysia’s attempt to mirror Singapore’s strict enforcement and deterrence model risks falling short if deeper systemic issues remain unaddressed.
“Tougher penalties create a ‘shock effect’, raising public awareness and deterring the blatantly irresponsible. But research in behavioural science shows that fear of fines alone rarely sustains change,” he said.
Sri pointed out several structural weaknesses that continue to undermine anti-littering efforts in the country, such as inconsistent waste collection and inadequate public bin infrastructure, which unintentionally encourage littering when bins are scarce, overflowing or poorly maintained.
He also said that the “someone else will clean it” mentality, shaped by decades of reliance on low-wage manual cleaning labour has weakened personal accountability for shared public spaces among Malaysians.
“Civic habits are formed early. Without consistent education in schools and sustained public campaigns, it’s difficult to build a culture of care. Fear of punishment alone is not enough,” he added.
Another major challenge, Sri said, is Malaysia’s heavy dependence on single-use materials, particularly plastic packaging which has become an essential part of everyday life for many.
Malaysia generates around 39,000 tonnes of solid waste every day due population growth, rising incomes and rapid urbanisation. Of this total, plastics make up at least 13 per cent of the waste generated. Under the current trajectory, the country risks exhausting its landfill capacity by 2050.
Impact on everyday Malaysians
While the law applies to all members of the public, Sri said small businesses and hawkers are likely to feel the greatest immediate impact, as they are directly responsible for waste generated on their premises and surrounding areas.
“Managing customer litter will be a major challenge for hawkers in open-air settings. They will need to invest in more bins, signage or even additional cleaning staff, which increases operational costs,” he said.
“There is also concern that enforcement could disproportionately target visible, easy-to-find businesses, rather than elusive individual litterers.”
Frequent users of public spaces, including parents, drivers, eventgoers and commuters, will also need to adjust their behaviour, particularly in areas where bins are limited.
“The law is a clear signal that littering is no longer tolerated. Citizens will need to be more conscious, potentially carrying waste until they find a bin. The success of this hinges on the availability of bins. If bins are overflowing, the law feels unfair,” he added.
Under the enhanced enforcement, people convicted in court for littering or spitting in public can face fines of up to RM2,000 (US$500), alongside community service orders of up to 12 hours, including cleaning public areas or collecting rubbish.
More serious offences carry fines of up to RM10,000 (US$2,500), with failure to comply constituting a separate offence.
Khor Sue Yee, co-founder of anti-waste non-profit Zero Waste Malaysia, echoed similar concerns. She said the government’s reliance on punishment risks addressing only surface-level behaviour without fixing underlying system flaws.
“Fines might stop casual littering, but they won’t create lasting change if the system itself is broken,” she said, highlighting that many Malaysians still believe that trash disappears once it’s out of sight and there is no ‘away’ when people throw something away.
Khor also called out a systemic design flaw, particularly in the food and beverage sector since single-use plastic is the most readily available and accessible option in the market.
“We can’t punish people for producing waste when the system only offers disposable options. We need reuse and refill models,” she said.
She further raised concerns about uneven enforcement, noting that current operations appear concentrated in tourist and urban centres such as Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru and Melaka.
“We’re worried rural areas and large-scale illegal dumping sites are being ignored,” she said, adding that Malaysia’s history of “seasonal enforcement” is another risk to create lasting behavioural change.
The need for complementary policies
For Malaysia’s tougher enforcement to be transformative, both Sri and Khor argue that it must serve as the foundation of a broader policy framework rather than a standalone deterrent.
Sri said Malaysia’s current approach reflects only part of what has made other Asian countries successful in tackling litter and waste.
“Malaysia is adopting Singapore’s stick but [it] hasn’t fully built the supporting infrastructure such as ubiquitous bins and reliable collection or nurtured the social contract and community ownership seen in Japan and Taiwan,” he said.
He added that key provisions under Act 672 such as mandatory segregation at source have yet to be properly implemented, with waste collection practices remaining inconsistent across localities.
Drawing from industry experience, Sri said public cooperation improves significantly when systems are well designed. “We collect recyclables weekly from households and commercial premises, and we see strong public cooperation when we provide consistency, convenience, and commitment,” he said.
From a civil society perspective, Khor echoed the need to shift responsibility upstream. She stressed that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) must be accelerated in the country to ensure companies are financially accountable for the packaging they put into the market.
She also called for policies that actively support reuse and refill business models, noting that litter cannot be meaningfully reduced while single-use packaging remains the default option, and cautioned that uneven adoption of Act 672 across states has created a “legal patchwork” that undermines consistency and public understanding of the rules.
Meanwhile, Sri pointed out that complementary measures such as deposit-return schemes for bottles and cans, investment in reliable, separated waste collection, better-designed public bin infrastructure and sustained education campaigns alongside incentives for alternatives are crucial to make compliance intuitive rather than burdensome.
“The new law is a necessary and welcome declaration of intent. However, to move from a ‘clean country because of fear’ to a ‘clean country because of pride and a well-designed system’, Malaysia must look beyond the penalty system,” he said.
