Elderly cleaner’s $3,000 ‘littering’ fine sparks outcry over FEHD’s abuse of power

A 71-year-old cleaning worker in Tsim Sha Tsui has accused a Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) officer of wrongful prosecution, after being issued a HK$3,000 fixed penalty ticket for “littering” while she was in the middle of her duties.

According to the advocacy group Waste Picker Platform, which supports scavengers and cleaners, the woman has been working in private buildings around the district for more than three decades.

The group said the woman was fined last week when handling refuse from both residential flats and nearby shops in the area.

As part of her routine, she tied up two bags of garbage from a shop and placed them briefly at the entrance of the building where she works, before returning inside to collect more rubbish and bring out a trolley to move everything to the refuse collection point.

At that moment, a plainclothes FEHD officer accused her of placing garbage on the street and immediately issued a littering ticket. No verbal warning was given, nor was any attempt made to verify her role as a cleaner.

According to the group, the officer also failed to show his staff identification when carrying out the prosecution.

The fixed penalty under the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance for littering is HK$3,000. But the group stressed that the cleaner’s actions were clearly part of her ongoing work process, not an intentional act of discarding waste.

They said shop employees and the building’s management staff can testify that she has long been responsible for daily refuse collection, and that temporarily placing bags on the pavement is a necessary step in the job.

The group sharply criticized the FEHD officer’s conduct, accusing him of “prosecuting for the sake of prosecuting, without distinguishing right from wrong.”

They argued that such heavy-handed enforcement, without discretion or consideration of context, risks punishing frontline workers who are essential to maintaining public hygiene. 

They further questioned whether the officer was unable—or unwilling—to distinguish between proper waste handling and genuine littering.

The group noted that when the cleaner tried to explain her responsibilities, the officer reportedly refused to accept her clarification.

“Such rigid application of the law could have far-reaching consequences for all cleaning staff in Hong Kong, creating fear and discouragement among those tasked with refuse disposal,” they added.

The group has pledged to work with lawyers to contest the ticket, seeking dialogue with the FEHD to resolve what they describe as a misunderstanding. If the department refuses to acknowledge the enforcement loopholes and clarify guidelines, they said they will consider further action.

The case has raised wider concerns about whether FEHD officers are exercising their powers fairly, or targeting easy prosecutions without regard for context or occupational realities.

(Marco Lam)