Progress of Efforts to Uplift Private Security Industry

The private security industry is an important partner in our efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure. To uplift the industry, the Security Industry Transformation Map (ITM) was launched in February 2018. The ITM aims to shift the industry away from its current manpower-intensive service model, to one that integrates skilled manpower and technology to deliver higher quality security services. We want to achieve outcomes of high performing security agencies, more meaningful and better-paying jobs for security officers, and also better security for Singapore.

We are making good progress. On the demand side, to encourage buyers to adopt outcome-based contracts which integrate manpower and technology, we have launched a tailored guide for the industry, as well as a training course for procurement officers. The Government will take the lead, with all Government agencies adopting outcome-based security contracts progressively from the middle of this year. This is significant, as Government contracts amount to over $350 million per year, which is about one-fifth of industry demand.

On the technology front, the Infocomm Media and Development Authority and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) launched the Security Industry Digital Plan in July 2018 to provide security agencies a step-by-step guide on adopting digital technology. Funding is available for security small and medium enterprises to adopt pre-approved digital solutions under the Productivity Solutions Grant.

To uplift security officers and improve the attractiveness of the industry, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the industry was enhanced in November 2018, to place stronger emphasis on skills and competencies. The exemption given to the security industry, which allows them to exceed the Ministry of Manpower's statutory limit on overtime, will be removed from January 2021, so that officers will no longer work excessive hours. PWM wages will increase by at least 3% per year till 2024. To open new opportunities to experienced officers, a new Specialist Diploma in Security Consultancy by Temasek Polytechnic will commence in April this year.

MHA has also reviewed our regulations to support the security ITM. For security agencies, the annual Security Agencies Grading Exercise was reviewed in 2018 to give greater weight to technology adoption and training.

Security officers, too, have an important part to play in the industry’s transformation. As part of efforts to enhance the professionalism of the industry, MHA has made certain Code of Conduct breaches that pose a risk to public safety and security compoundable offences under the Private Security Industry Regulations. Our aim is not a punitive regime, but to deter and take targeted action to address unprofessional behaviour, such as sleeping or consuming alcohol on the job, as this may lead to security lapses.

First time offenders will generally be given warnings, as has been the practice previously. However, the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department now has the flexibility to impose a composition fine if a security officer repeatedly or egregiously breaches the Code of Conduct, whereas previously it only had the more severe options of suspending or revoking his licence. Only in the most severe or recalcitrant cases would penalties, such as licence suspension or revocation, and prosecution be considered.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

The first is, in her answer, she mentioned – and I think it is welcomed – that the exemption given to private security companies are not to pay overtime or, rather, to require the officers to work overtime is going to be removed progressively in the coming years. But my question is whether there is also a move towards better working conditions in terms of shorter shifts, for example, instead of the 12-hour shift, to move to an eight-hour shift, because that would be important for the quality of the service provided.

The second question is comparison of the regime now for the private security versus the Police. We do know that for the Police, for similar conduct breaches, such as sleeping or being absent without official leave, there is the option of departmental action, meaning that there could be a reprimand or a reduction in rank, and the person would still continue in service. So, I would like to ask for the private security industry, maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on the middle-road approaches before we actually go to prosecuting or citing the person for an offence under the regulations, which are effective this month.

My final question is that, under the new conduct regulations, there is one sub-paragraph which says that it would be an offence for a private security officer not to respond promptly to any request for assistance by a person who has been injured or suffered loss on the premises. Now, given that, in that sense, the baseline for entry and the training level for private security officers on the whole is not very rigorous, what is expected of the officer to comply with this section of responding promptly to a request for assistance? Are they required to intervene, prevent injury and so on? Some elaboration on that would be useful.

I thank the Member for her three supplementary questions. On the first question, the removal of the overtime exemption, currently there are security officers who could be potentially working 90 hours a week. So, with the removal of the overtime exemption, we hope to remove this exemption that was given to security agencies and bring it down to 72 hours or less.

Actually, employees as well as the security agencies do not have to wait till January 2021. They are encouraged to move on to these new working hours as soon as practically possible, and also to ensure that their wages are protected with the PWM that I had talked about earlier. Many of the security officers will see their minimum base wage increase by approximately a minimum of 3% per year all the way to 2024. So, that is the first point.

On the second point, already currently in the private security landscape where the security officer was seen to be sleeping on the job or consuming alcohol on the job, which is unprofessional conduct, some of the security agencies are already taking measures, such as the docking of pay, for instance, of the security officer.

So, even with the new code of conduct amendments, which move some of the code of conduct breaches over to the regulations, the Police and the authorities will actually take a very calibrated approach, a very targeted one. So, we will look at the actual egregiousness of the offence that was committed, and we will look at the range of penalties that are available.

I think my answer to that second part actually also answers the third question that the Member had.

Speaker, just to follow up with two other questions. First is whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can specifically confirm or otherwise about whether there is a move to move to shorter shift hours for security officers. That means, currently, it is quite common to have 12-hour shifts, and whether there is actually a move to try to go into eight-hour shifts.

Last of all, related to the issue of the requirement to respond promptly to request for assistance, I just like to highlight that you do have deployment situations where a security officer may be quite alone in the guard post. He is supposed to be there to man and record entrance and so on. And if somebody runs to him to say that he needs help and so on, what is expected of that person? Is the person expected to leave the post to attend to the situation or is it all right for him to just try to call for help? Maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on that.

I will take the second question first. On that point, the assessment has to be made as to how big a security lapse it could be if the security officer were to leave his position. So, the authorities will take a case-by-case approach. As I mentioned, they will look at the action that has been taken. They will look at the potential penalties, there is a range of options. And as I mentioned, the authorities will actually take a very calibrated and targeted approach. Actually, the new penalties now allow for them to do so. Because, previously, under the old set of regulations, the authorities really only had two options: either to give a warning or to basically revoke or suspend the security officer. Now, the authorities can compound the offence. So, if there were any transgressions, they will look at the offence and see whether or not it warrants a lower amount of fine. And whether or not they actually implemented that will depend on how serious the security transgression was, and they will definitely look at the circumstances of the case.

With regard to the Member's first question on the movement towards shift hours, definitely the Security Industry Transformation Committee, which has been very instrumental in looking at the Security Industry Transformation Map, wants to have better working conditions for our security officers. So, definitely, where possible, and the security agencies are able to adjust their working hours, they would encourage the security agencies to move towards shorter working hours.