A neighbor of mine once spoke up to someone who had just dropped a bag of trash on the sidewalk, only to be met with a curse: “It’s not your house, mind your own business,” along with a threatening glare.
That small story is not an isolated case. It highlights a paradox that has existed for far too long.
The fines for littering are not low. According to Article 25 of Decree 45/2022/ND-CP, littering in public places is fined from 500,000 to 1,000,000 VND, and dumping trash on sidewalks or roads is fined from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 VND, with double the penalty for organizations.
Perhaps the issue is not how much the fine is, but why people still litter and why witnesses choose to remain silent.
Proposing rewards for whistleblowers and heavier penalties for offenders is not a new idea. New York has done it, offering up to 50% of the collected fine to those who report illegal dumping.
Hong Kong raised its fixed penalty to 3,000 HKD in 2023 and recorded a 24% drop in violations in 2024. Right in Ho Chi Minh City, in December 2025, the People’s Committee of Binh Hung Commune gave an extraordinary reward to two hamlet leaders for reporting someone who threw trash into the Ben Canal.
Of course, catching someone red-handed dumping a bag of trash at midnight is much harder than measuring blood alcohol levels or checking speed. Not every locality has enough cameras, enough personnel to receive reports, or enough budget for rewards.
As for the public, those who give reminders get scolded for “minding others’ business,” and those who take photos fear retaliation. Therefore, silence often becomes the safe choice.
But if that’s the case, the trash remains. The problem is not to amend the law but to make the existing law work. First is the detection stage. Each ward and commune should make public a hotline to receive images and videos, with a commitment to absolute confidentiality for the informant.
The key is to establish a consistent practice across all localities, with someone on duty, a clear processing timeline, and a feedback mechanism to inform the reporter about the status of their case.
Next is the reward mechanism. Current laws lack specific regulations on the percentage of fines to be allocated as rewards for environmental whistleblowers. What Binh Hung Commune did was an “extraordinary reward” from a very limited local budget. To scale up and sustain this, a guiding document from the Government or the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment is needed, clearly stipulating the proportion of fines to be returned, similar to the New York model.
When people see that reporting comes with a worthy reward and guaranteed confidentiality, apathy will gradually fade.
According to the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations, the remedial measure of restoring the original state has long been codified. If trash is dumped into a canal, the canal must be cleaned; if dumped into an alley, the alley must be cleaned, regardless of how much fine has been paid.
This supplementary punishment carries a deterrent effect many times greater than a few hundred thousand VND fine, as it touches upon honor, time, and the shame of facing one’s neighbors.
In Japan, students clean their own classrooms and sort trash themselves, without hiring janitors—not to save costs, but to instill the awareness that public space is also their own responsibility. That is a process of behavioral training, not teaching ethics through slogans.
A clean city is not one with many “no littering” signs, but one where such signs are unnecessary.
To achieve that, every witness must dare to speak up, every call must be answered, and every violation must have consequences. Cleanliness or filth, ultimately, is a matter of will in enforcement.
On May 24, the Ho Chi Minh City
