Review of Security Officers' Working Conditions and of Penalties for Abuse of Security Officers

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the enhanced penalties in the Private Security Industry Act have been effective in curbing the number of cases of abuse against security officers; and (b) whether there will be further reviews to these penalties in due course.

MHA takes a very serious view of abuse and harassment of security officers. In October 2021, MHA amended the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) to enhance protections for them. New offences addressing the common types of abuse and harassment were introduced, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against general members of the public. The amendments have been in force since May 2022. Given that it has only been six months since, it is too early to conclude on their impact. Nevertheless, anecdotally, the new legal provisions have enhanced awareness among security officers of the protections afforded to them, and have encouraged them and their employers to come forward to report incidents of abuse or harassment.

Preventing and deterring abuse and harassment of security officers requires the whole of society. The nature of their work, which could involve restricting access to premises, crowd control and conflict mediation, invariably exposes them to greater risk of confrontation with people. Unfortunately, there are individuals who may respond irrationally and unreasonably to requests and directions given by security officers, with some even causing physical hurt.

Security agencies and service buyers play key roles in protecting their security officers. We are heartened to see that many are leveraging technology to create more productive and safer working environments. For example, there are now more security officers equipped with body-worn cameras while on duty. From 2019 to October 2022, the Police approved 46 requests by 16 licensed security agencies for the use of body-worn cameras. The use of such cameras will allow for better onsite management and the additional evidence from the footages will facilitate investigations into allegations of abuse.

But even with more pervasive use of technology, abuse can still happen. This is why we need to enhance training for security officers so that they can better protect themselves. MHA and the Police have been working with the tripartite partners to enhance the competency of security officers in public engagement and conflict management, such as customer orientation, problem solving and de-escalation skills. We will make these subjects more pertinent in the training that all security officers undergo before deployment and assess how it can also be incorporated into refreshers for in-service officers.

Finally, we work with the tripartite partners on public education to reinforce the message that abuse of security officers will not be condoned. This will include sharing available avenues for officers to seek help, such as through the Union of Security Employees (USE)’s free mobile application launched in December 2021 and the USE’s Mediation Service.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions.

First, given that the working conditions for our security officers do result in them being susceptible to abuse, can MHA revisit my suggestion to have body-worn cameras mandated for certain higher-risk frontline security officers while they are on duty? As the Minister of State has alluded to in her reply, body-worn cameras have proven to reduce incidences of abuse against the wearer and we should extend this protection to more security officers to enhance their safety.

Second, on reviewing the penalties under PSIA, I would like to ask when would the next review be conducted, although I know it has just been implemented earlier this year. The union would, certainly, like to participate in the next review.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, we fully agree with the Member that the wearing of body-worn cameras greatly improves the safety of our security officers. As I mentioned in my main reply, it also aids when it comes to investigations, potential liabilities. And that liability not only extends to the security officer himself but also the agency that he is working for. We do see that, as part of the security ITM, buyers and security agencies are encouraged to implement security solutions that help to integrate manpower, technology as well as process improvements. And it is worth noting that security agencies have been investing more in technology since the start of the ITM. For instance, today, 97% of security agencies use at least one technology solution, such as mobile-enabled patrol and incident management systems as well as the use of wearable technology, like what the Member mentioned, body-worn cameras. That said, on whether or not to make body-worn cameras compulsory, these are issues to be discussed between the service buyer and the service provider. We have to take into account various factors, such as the needs of the buyer, the deployment location, as well as the costs that may be required.

On the Member's Parliamentary Question as to when we would be reviewing once again, definitely, we will involve our industry partners and union friends as well in those discussions. As I have mentioned in my main reply, it has only been about six months since the amendments came into effect in May 2022. So, we will continue to monitor. But rest assured that when we next review this, we will definitely work with all our industry partners.