Private Security Industry (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) provides for the regulation of private investigators, private investigation agencies, security officers, security agencies and security service providers. It was introduced in 2007, with the aim of upgrading professional standards in the private security industry. This was to enable the industry to better contribute to Singapore’s overall safety and security, as the security landscape evolves.

Since then, MHA and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have continued to work closely with the industry on various initiatives to uplift industry standards. One example is the Security Industry Transformation Map (ITM) that was launched in 2018, which aims to shift the industry towards integrating skilled manpower and technology to deliver higher quality security services.

Security officers are vital partners of the Home Team. They play important roles in safeguarding Singapore’s safety and security. They are deployed for important duties such as screening, security patrols and access control at a wide range of premises, both in the private and public.

In recent times, they have also stepped up to assist with COVID-19 safe management measures. These roles require them to interact with members of the public. While the large majority of the public are cooperative, there have been cases of persons confronting security officers carrying out their duties, with some going further to verbally or even physically abuse them.

From 2018 to 2020, there was an average of about 150 reported cases of such abuse a year. A survey of security officers conducted by the Union of Security Employees and the Singapore University of Social Sciences last year found that four in 10 security officers experienced some forms of abuse at their workplace.

Some cases are particularly egregious. In 2019, a security officer at Roxy Square was verbally abused and punched by a man; a video that captured the incident was circulated widely. Last year, a woman deliberately sneezed at a security officer at Ion Orchard, after she was denied entry for not wearing a mask.

MHA has repeatedly emphasised that we take a very serious view of the abuse of security officers. Members of this House, the security industry and the union, have also called for better protection for security officers.

Hence, the imperative to enhance the protection for security officers is clear and present. The Bill will amend the PSIA to create offences against common types of abuse faced by security officers. The Bill will also update the regulatory regime for certain security services, taking into consideration the development of the industry.

Let me start with the first objective, of creating offences against the abuse of security officers.

Section 17A of clause 3 creates an offence of assaulting or using criminal force to deter a security officer from discharging his or her duties. Section 17B of clause 3 creates an offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a security officer in relation to the discharge of his or her duties. These offences take reference from similar offences under the Penal Code and carry harsher penalties compared to similar acts committed against general member of the public.

Section 17C of clause 3 creates an offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress to a security officer. And this takes reference from similar offences under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) and the penalties are similar to harassment offences committed against public service workers.

Taking reference from POHA, section 17D of clause 3 provides for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders who have previously committed harassment offences. Clause 7 amends POHA accordingly, so that the PSIA harassment offence will also be considered a precedent for enhanced penalties in relation to the relevant POHA offences. This ensures that there is consistency in the treatment of harassment offences.

Section 17F of clause 3 provides that the civil remedies available to public service workers under POHA, such as Protection Orders, are also available to victims of the PSIA harassment offence.

Clause 5 provides that the new PSIA offences are non-arrestable, unless committed in the view of a Police officer. This takes reference from similar offences under POHA and the Penal Code.

I will now speak about the second objective, on changes to the regulation of security services.

Under the PSIA, persons who engage in the business of providing security services must be licensed. This includes security consultants who identify and analyse security risks and provide solutions or strategies to minimise these risks. They also provide advice in relation to equipment designed to provide or enhance security, or for the protection or watching of any property; and they also provide services on security methods or principles, such as on preventing intrusion.

In January 2020, the Association of Certified Security Agencies (ACSA) and Security Association Singapore (SAS) launched the Security Consultants Accreditation Programme (SCAP) to develop competent security consultants with the requisite skills and competencies. The programme requires accredited security consultants to undertake continuous professional development and also has a disciplinary framework for infractions committed by the members.

Moving forward, MHA will remove licensing requirements for security consultants to allow the industry to oversee them, including through SCAP. SPF has also worked closely with Temasek Polytechnic’s Security Industry Institute to develop a Specialist Diploma in Security Consultancy for security consultants to get formal certification of their role.

SPF has assessed that the risk of security consultants abusing their position to commit security-related offences is low, as they do not supply the actual security systems or have access to premises for the installation and maintenance of security systems. There has also been no reported case of such abuse in the past five years.

Even as we move towards industry oversight, if security consultants abuse sensitive information obtained in the course of their work to commit crimes, they would be prosecuted under other applicable laws.

Clause 4 thus amends the PSIA to remove the mentioned activities from requiring licensing. Persons who provide any other security services that fall under section 18 of the PSIA, such as the sale, import, export, installation or maintenance of security equipment, will continue to be licensed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world. Security officers are important partners of the Home Team in ensuring the safety and security of Singaporeans.

Three weeks ago, I tabled the Private Security Industry (Amendment) Bill for the First Reading. The Bill proposes two amendments. First, enhanced punishment for abuse of security officers to better protect them and allow them to discharge their duties with peace of mind. Second, removal of licensing requirements for security consultants.

Singapore has a stringent licensing framework to regulate the security industry. All security officers must undergo and pass assessment for mandatory courses in order to be licensed. This ensures that they remain calm and are able to maintain public order and safety during an incident. However, security officers are often harassed by unreasonable members of public and sometimes verbally and physically abused.

Security officers are just performing their duties to enforce rules or regulations of the premises they protect. Would we prefer the security officers to be irresponsible and not carry out their duties? Security officers are often caught in a bind – they are sometimes scolded when discharging their duties too firmly and also scolded when they are not.

In moving this Bill, we want to remind everyone to respect and protect the interests of security officers and deter abuse. We often say we should not do unto others what we do not want done unto us. I appeal for everyone to continue to work with the industry and union to raise industry standards, and respect and recognise the important role played by security officers in ensuring we continue to enjoy living in a safe and secure Singapore.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, security officers are important partners who support the Home Team’s efforts in keeping Singapore safe and secure. The nature of their work puts them at higher risk of confrontation and it is necessary to ensure that they are adequately protected under the law. It is also necessary to update our regulatory regime for security services, to keep up with industry developments. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

4.27 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

In our civil society, we should not tolerate anyone using abusive language, assault or cause hurt to another person, let alone using abusive language, assault and cause hurt to a security officer on duty. Yet, 40% of the security officers who took part in a survey last year indicated that they suffered some form of abuse in the course of their work.

Thus, it is timely for the Private Security Industry Act to be amended to make it an offence to abuse, assault or cause hurt to a security officer. With this newfound protection and power, if the Bill is passed, people will expect more from the security officer. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There are close to 50,000 security officers in Singapore. They are of varying standards because of the low entry requirements. In the past, security officers earned less than $1,000 a month and had to work 12 hours a day to just earn a living. Fortunately, there has been an improvement in the salaries of security officers after the implementation of Progressive Wage Model in the security industry.

Security officers are often not taken seriously. In 2019, there was a case of a senior executive in the finance sector that insulted a security guard at the car park of a condominium and sparked a public outrage. This incident of abusing a security officer also shows the importance of amending the Private Security Industry Act.

The Private Security industry (Amendment) Bill aims to better protect our security officers. If you abuse, attack or cause hurt to a security officer while on duty, you will face a maximum fine of $5,000 to $10,000 or maximum imprisonment of one to five years, or both. Once the Bill is passed, 50,000 security officers will benefit.

With the new protections and powers, we need to ensure that security officers do not abuse their power to bully innocent people. Recently, online shopping and food delivery have become a trend. There were cases where delivery persons were bullied by security officers when they delivered parcel or food to offices and condominiums. Thus, I would like to ask the Minister of State three questions.

Firstly, can MHA work with security companies, Union of Security Employees, Security Association Singapore and The Association of Certified Security Agencies to ensure that new security officers and the nearly 50,000 existing security officers understand the new regulations and powers? At the same time, security officers also need to be aware of the consequences of abusing their power.

Secondly, defendants are generally presumed innocent unless proven guilty under the Singapore legal system. However, under section 17(C)(3) of this Bill, it is stated that the accused has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accused’s conduct was reasonable in order not to be convicted in Court. In other words, as long as security officers feel that they have been verbally abused by the other party and the other party is charged in Court, the chances of the other party being found guilty are much higher than in ordinary cases. It appears that the security officers are even better protected in this aspect than civil servants. I would like to ask the Minister, why is this so?

Thirdly, with the new protection measures, security officers may become more effective in their work. However, some black sheep may abuse their power and make life difficult for others for no good reason. At present, when people encounter an unreasonable security officer, they usually complain to the security company or the entity that hires their service. Under the new framework, can the Minister consider allowing people to also lodge complaints with the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department? If there are too many complaints, perhaps the relevant authority could consider setting up a separate department to investigate complaints.

Although I agree with the Bill to give more protection to our security officers, we also need to be aware of the counter effect of the amendments. I will continue in English.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I agree with the additional protection to be given to the security officers with the amendments to the Private Security Industry Act. However, we need to better train the security officers so that they can understand the new clauses that protect them and not to abuse the new protective measures.

In addition, I have reservation why we need to shift the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defence lawyer or the accused to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accused's conduct was reasonable under section 17(C)(3). The accused here refers to a person being accused to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a security officer.

I would like to ask the Minister of State if a Police report must be made before the Police will investigate the offence disclosed under section 17(A) to (C)? If so, would the Police be more inclined to charge a person in Court when the person is accused to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a security officer because of section 17C(3)? Would the Minister of State be able to explain the rationale of shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence?

In short, I support the Bill. But we need to have sufficient safeguards against possible abuse so that the pendulum will not shift too much to the other direction.

4.34 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the private security industry plays a vital role in our nation's security, supporting our law enforcement agencies. With increased concerns over the threat of terrorism and social frictions, such as race relations, the demands on our security sector are increasingly complex and challenging.

Yet, unfortunately, some negative stereotypes persist about private security officers among sections of our population. Unarmed security officers are often labelled as "old and frail", or as "moonlighters sleeping on the job". Even their cousins, the auxiliary policemen, are derided as merely "acting like policemen" but having no real power to arrest, belying the police powers they are actually vested with. These stereotypes embolden some people, leading them to think they can taunt and even bully our security officers.

So, the proposed amendments to protect our security officers from harassment and abuse, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against members of the public, are very much welcome.

They also signal the standing in which the private security profession ought to be held by the general public, which is crucial in attracting more capable talent, and upgrading and transforming the industry.

As Members of Parliament working to help place our residents in jobs, we know that the private security industry is one sector which seems to have a constant demand for manpower. This suggests that the turnover rate is high. I urge MHA to continue to work on initiatives to attract, develop and retain capable young people into the industry and to keep advocating for their career development and empowerment.

On the shift from licensing to industry-led accreditation for security consultants, I believe this could help to make the industry more competitive and grow the pool of competent security consultants. Being industry-led, a well-run accreditation programme would also allow the industry to be more agile and responsive to changing needs and client demands. It can also help to more clearly and objectively articulate the different skills, knowledge and experience required in different situations, paving the way for more recognition of these skills and, along with that, commensurate increase in wages and more sustainable remuneration packages which, again, can help to entice good people into the security industry.

At the same time, in an industry that requires a range of services, buyers have the flexibility to opt for higher skills when they need to, while opting for lower-level skills or prices when they do not.

However, industry accreditation, without the teeth of licensing, where security consultants are encouraged to get accredited but not required to be accredited, does open up the potential for standards to diverge across security companies, especially when the barriers to entry in the business are not high. The level of understanding and appreciation by buyers of the importance of higher quality services under certain circumstances is also a factor.

Faced with tenders going for the lowest bids, security companies may adopt different standards. In an industry like security, standards and adherence to security protocols are so important, and varying practices and standards can be quite visible to the general public, which will only invite comparison.

I would, therefore, like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister of State.

First, how will MHA ensure that standards are consistent across players in the industry and ensure that these standards continue to go up?

Two, how can MHA encourage the industry to go for accreditation? For example, by requiring accreditation to receive Government grants, or limiting providers for Government contracts to accredited companies or individuals.

What will be done to educate or require buyers of security services to require, and thereafter to fairly assess and compensate, security companies to have accredited security consultants where required?

Lastly, will there be regular audits on company accreditation course contents as well as industry and company practices, and what will be the role of MHA or other industry associations and bodies?

Ultimately, it is important that the general public believes that the SCAP is acting in the interests of the public at large rather than in its own interests or the interests of its peers. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The private security industry hires a relatively high share of our Malay community. I welcome the move to better protect security officers from harassment and abuse at work.

I also hope that it will signal to the public that they should give the private security profession due respect and the standing it deserves. This is crucial in attracting more capable talent and upgrading the industry. A well-run industry accreditation programme for certain aspects of security services, could allow the industry to be more agile and responsive to changing client needs and demands. This will also help to articulate the different skills, knowledge and experience required, thus paving the way for more recognition of these skills and, along with it, an increase in wages and remuneration packages that are more appropriate for security officers. I urge that their accreditation requirements should include professional development. I hope that these moves will open up more opportunities for young and capable Malays to develop their careers in this sector.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, growing up in Singapore, our nation's security is something that is easy for us to take for granted, but there are new threats in the world today and the importance of our nation's security cannot be underestimated.

We must have a strong, capable and trusted private security industry working hand in hand with our law enforcement agencies, who have the trust and respect of the public. Notwithstanding the questions above, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

4.40 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, for a long time, security officers have had to operate in a difficult working environment. While they are tasked to protect property and persons, they are not adequately protected by the law in executing their duties. They are at risk when confronting hostile members of the public and can be unfairly targeted for simply carrying out the instructions of premise owners, instructions which could be unpopular or badly thought-through. The diverse profile of security officers in the industry, ranging from the young to the elderly, is an added concern.

In 2019, the Government pushed ahead to raise standards of conduct among security officers by introducing a change to the Private Security Industry (Conduct) Regulations. The change made it a criminal offence for security officers to be potentially negligent while on duty, such as to fall asleep or to not respond promptly to certain calls for assistance. If convicted of such an offence, an officer could be fined up to $2,000 or jailed for up to three months, or both. While I understood the rationale behind the change, I raised concerns in Parliament at that time. I was concerned about whether a strict implementation of the legislation would be fair, given the diverse profiles of security officers and varying resources available to them at their deployment sites.

Madam, in that regard, I welcome the changes brought by this Bill which will give security officers greater confidence on the ground.

The key change brought about by this Bill is in clause 3, which introduces various new offences to criminalise acts of obstruction and abuse of security officers while on duty. By enacting these specific offences, a public signal is being sent that conduct such as obstructing, abusing or harassing security officers are serious offences that will be punished accordingly.

As for the calibration of punishments, I note that the punishments in the proposed sections 17A and B are set somewhere between the punishments for similar conduct against public officers and that against ordinary citizens. Thus, for instance, the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a security officer in the course of his duty will attract imprisonment of up to five years, between the maximum jail terms in the Penal Code for similar conduct against a public servant which attracts seven years and that against ordinary citizens which attracts three years. I believe this is an appropriate approach for the offences of using criminal force and voluntarily causing hurt to security officers.

However, Madam, in order to ensure that this law will indeed improve outcomes for the industry and for the public, it must be accompanied by appropriate levels of training and the ability to attract able persons into the sector.

For the last few decades, there has been much outsourcing of work previously done by the Police to the Auxiliary Police and to private security. Today, security officers are expected to do much more than just guard the entrances of factories or shopping malls in a balmy environment. Today, security officers may be deployed to work in higher intensity conditions such as event security, crowd control and even to assist in search of persons. Earlier, the Minister of State also mentioned that they are deployed in enforcing COVID-19-related safe management measures, with high interactions with the public.

Madam, whether security officers are adequately trained and suitably equipped for their tasks is an important background factor which will affect the way members of the public interact with them. If they do not have adequate training, or their working environment is not conducive, altercations between them and the public are quite likely to take place.

To this end, I would stress that it is not just the hard skills that are required, for example, knowing what the laws are or the extent of a security officer's powers. It is equally necessary that security officers have training in soft skills, to be able to handle difficult people, use tactful language and so on.

To take an example, security officers in shopping malls may actually spend more time on their shifts dealing with public enquiries about where certain facilities like toilets are located, rather than with the prevention of crime. People skills are thus critical.

At the same time, being able to attract able persons to join the industry has not been easy. From my observations, there is a heavy reliance on Malaysians to fill security positions.

In my former capacity as a Polytechnic lecturer, I had conducted some research into perceptions of Singaporean security officers on their work prospects. At that time, about 15 years ago, some security officers told me that they will not encourage their children to enter the industry, mainly due to the long hours involved. To this end, I note that the situation has improved somewhat. In answer to my Parliamentary Question in July this year, MOM reiterated that the overtime hours for security officers have come down, even if the proportion of full-time security officers who still did overtime each month for last year was still nearly eight out of 10 officers, or 80%.

To attract able people to join the industry, the current efforts to improve the image and working conditions should continue. Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned the Security Industry Transformation Map (ITM) announced in 2018. This ITM has identified key strategies which I agree have the potential to enhance the industry's image and capabilities. For instance, the concerted push towards adopting technology in operations has the potential to both improve job satisfaction and productivity, as well as to reduce manpower needs and long working hours for security officers.

Madam, as these initiatives are still being rolled out, teething problems are expected. For instance, I have observed instances of long and angry queues at the condominiums' entrances when new security systems are installed, with the security officers being the subject of verbal abuse. On this front, I would urge managers of premises to work with security providers to ensure smooth rollouts of new systems and thereby to minimise stress on security officers. Members of the public, too, can play their part by exercising patience and remembering that the officers are simply trying to do their jobs.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

4.47 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as an Advisor to the Union of Security Employees (USE). There are two main features of this Bill. First, enhancing protection for security officers. Second, having the industry accredit security consultants. I will speak on these in turn.

First, I would like to share some of USE's findings and efforts regarding the protection of our security officers.

No one would disagree that security officers' work is difficult: long hours, physically demanding, mentally challenging, uncomfortably juggling between protecting a site and providing quality customer service. Now, they also help in enforcing safe management measures. Yet, some people see them as an inconvenient presence to bear with at best.

The statistics state as such. USE commissioned SUSS to conduct a series of surveys from 2020, the most recent being in September and November of 2020. In the survey released in March 2021, four out of 10 security officers had faced some form of abuse. This is a 10% increase from an earlier survey just eight months ago. This increase has been attributed to security officers enforcing safe management measures (SMMs). And, unfortunately, this seems to be their burden for some time to come.

We need to stand by our security officers. They need our respect and they need our protection. We have come a very long way from calling them "jagas" and "guards" and now, rightfully, "security officers". They are no longer just watchmen. They are critical to fighting terrorism. They are critical to combating the spread of COVID-19. The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) has given them their rightful standing in the security landscape. Now, we need to do more for them.

USE and MHA have been the vanguard in protecting our security officers. In clear cases of abuse of security officers, USE assists security officers in lodging Police reports. Why? Because our older security officers may not be aware of their rights. They face more abuses.

We must also help to mediate disputes and steer away from litigation as much as possible. USE launched its Mediation Services in 2018 to resolve issues and disputes involving security officers. In recent years, the Services has seen a marked increase in cases. On average, it handles 200 cases yearly. In a recent case, an officer was tasked with managing entry into a club's facilities room. A visitor, apparently upset with the verification process, vented his frustration and dragged the officer from the chair. The matter was reported to the union and investigations are ongoing. But there should not be such disrespect in the first place. We can only hope that this case is the exception rather than the norm. We are taking no chances. We will launch a mobile application by the end of this year for officers to report cases quickly.

We must reinforce this protection of our officers. We need enhanced penalties against abusers of security officers. There must be zero-tolerance for abuse. It is even more urgent now during COVID-19. Abusers must not breach our defence of SMMs. I would like to raise two points for the Ministry's consideration.

First, the proposed section 17C makes it illegal for an individual to threaten and abuse a security officer. However, it seems that we can only prove liability if the offence is committed while the security officer is doing his duty. What if an abuser abuses and threatens an officer while the latter is off duty because of an earlier incident? Can the abuser be similarly punished?

Second, the elements of section 17C is substantively in pari materia to section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). However, section 3(1)(c) of the POHA, which relates to the offence of doxxing, is not found within the proposed section 17C. This appears to be a gap. Abusers can use social media to publish personal information to harass these officers and their families. Could the Ministry consider including the offence of doxxing in section 3(1)(c) of POHA within the proposed section 17C?

Next, will the Ministry consider the inclusion of section 5 of POHA within the amendments as well? This section concerns causing fear, provocation or the facilitation of violence. Like section 3 of POHA, section 5 also relates to abusive behaviour which security officers may face during their course of duty.

Next, I would like to speak on the proposed shift to accredit security consultants by the industry. The security consultants must take Continuous Professional Development under the Security Consultants Accreditation Programme (SCAP). They are subject to the yearly renewal of their accreditation.

This pivot ensures that Security Consultants are attuned to the new security trends and needs. These consultants can help guide service buyers on outcome-based security contracts as qualified persons by leveraging technology rather than manpower. This can improve security outcomes significantly. We can be more productive. This makes wage increases in the security PWM sustainable. Better jobs and better pay for the longer run. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill enhances the protection of our security officers and improves their working environment. This is the right thing to do. Security officers are our frontline workers who have tirelessly kept Singapore safe and protected. They deserve our respect and protection. The amendment Bill will ensure that our officers can carry out their duties without the fear of repercussions and impose harsher punishments on abusers of our security officers.

Quite often, our security officers also face unfriendly behaviours and attitude from the public. I urge that we must all stand up against such disrespect of security officers. Besides their employers, we are all entrusted to preserving respect for our security officers. Say no to disrespect.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill enhances the protection of our security officers. This is the right thing to do. Security officers are our frontline workers who have tirelessly kept Singapore safe and protected. They deserve our respect and protection. Imposing harsher punishments on abusers of our security officers will ensure that our officers can carry out their duties without the fear of repercussions or reprisals.

However, there are subtler forms of abuse faced by our officers which are not captured by the law and probably cannot be done so. Therefore, we, as the public, must also stand up against such disrespect of security officers. Service buyers and employers are entrusted with this role. But we are all entrusted to preserving respect for our essential workers. Say no to disrespect.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Labour Movement will continue to work with the Ministry to provide our security officers with the respect they deserve. I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

4.56 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, much has been done over the years to enhance the wages and working conditions of the private security industry. For instance, the Progressive Wage Model developed by the Security Tripartite Cluster implemented in 2016 helped to encourage security officers to upgrade their skills and achieve productivity-based wage progression.

Other support includes the joint guidelines announced by MOM, NTUC, SNEF in December 2019 on the provision of proper rest areas for low-wage workers like security officers, as well as a $1 million Workcare Grant announced in May 2021 to help facilities owners set up new or upgrade existing rest areas for outsourced cleaners and security guards.

Taken collectively, these measures have certainly benefited the security industry.

Madam, while we can institutionalise improvements in wage and work conditions of security officers, we cannot legislate societal attitudes towards them. In recent years, several high-profile incidences of security officers being physically and verbally abused by members of the public have been reported in the media.

In September 2019, as mentioned in Minister of State Desmond's speech, a man was jailed for punching a security officer at Roxy Square. In January 2021, another man was jailed for punching a security officer after breaking through a safe distancing barricade and causing a ruckus at Jurong Point. And in a video that went viral on social media, a member of the public was recorded to be berating an elderly security officer and using insulting language on him when the security officer informed him that he needed to pay a fee for his friend to park his vehicle in a condominium after 11 pm. These are all examples of utterly reprehensible behaviour towards our security officers.

Madam, in each of these incidents, the security officers were just doing their job and certainly should not have been subjected to any form of abuse. As such, the proposed amendments to the Private Security Industry Bill are timely and important.

It is heartening to know that the amendments to the Bill will strengthen the penalties against verbally and physically abusing security officers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted everyone, especially frontliners like healthcare workers and security officers. Not only do these workers need to carry out their daily duties, they also find themselves having to interact more frequently with members of the public than before the pandemic.

A recent study conducted by SUSS and Union of Security Employees (USE) revealed that 40% of security officers have experienced some form of abuse, with incidences of abuse occurring more frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic. Part of the increase in incidence of abuse could be attributed to possible tensions that arise from the implementation of COVID-19 related measures, such as safe entry and safe management measures.

While it is understandable that the public might be frustrated by COVID-19-related measures and are even confused in the initial stages when regulated entries into premises are managed and regulated, these frustrations and confusions should not be vented on security officers who are doing their job.

The amount of psychological stress experienced by security officers is arguably higher than that of the public as they are now required to take on new responsibilities beyond just security work. They certainly should not be subjected to additional emotional stress of having to deal with this verbal abuse.

Not only do we need to safeguard and protect our security officers from abuse and harassment, but we also need to take care of their mental and emotional wellness too. I hope that the Government will consider implementing an industry-wide Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) for security officers. Companies that have implemented EAPs have found them to be effective in promoting mental and physical well-being of their employees.

Positive impacts of EAPs include lowered absenteeism and turnover, improved well-being and productivity. The EAP for the security industry can be a permanent feature spearheaded by the industry association and union to provide an additional layer of support for security officers.

Madam, at present, there are several different models for the employment of security officers. Most companies have chosen to outsource their security services to providers, others continue to hire their security officers directly as their employees to maintain stronger control over the training and deployment of these officers.

The latter approach could possibly be adopted by public service organisations if these organisations wish to have stronger oversight over the provision of security services on their premises.

The amendments to the Bill have made a special provision which stated that an individual would be covered by section 6(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act but not the Private Security Industry Bill if he or she is also a public service worker. This could have implications for security officers who are hired directly by public service agencies, if the penalties under the Protection from Harassment Act and other existing legislation are different from those covered by the amendments to the Private Security Industry Bill.

I would just like to seek for clarification as to why and how the Bill differentiates between the two groups of security officers who are essentially carrying out the same job functions and are facing similar levels of job risks? Would this lead to a differentiated level of protection based on employers and employment arrangements? If so, would the Government consider aligning the penalties to ensure parity for all security officers, regardless of the institution and organisation they are working for, and whether they are outsourced or direct-hire staff?

While this Bill has introduced additional protections for security officers from physical and verbal abuse, I would like to propose that we consider additional legislation to further enhance the working conditions of the security officers.

For instance, instead of having guidelines on rest areas for security officers, can the Government consider mandating the minimum standards for rest areas in the same way that the Government has mandated minimum standards for foreign worker dormitories?

Also, given that the security landscape is getting more complex due to the multi-dimensional safety and security threats that we now face, would the Government consider introducing incentives to support security companies to send their officers for enhanced training and reskilling to combat evolving threats of terrorism, managing safety and security in the post-COVID-19 world, and to familiarise themselves with artificial intelligence and other forms of security-surveillance technologies?

Madam, I believe these additional proposed measures will help to enhance the work conditions of security officers, enhance the attractiveness of the industry and, thus, improve the overall standards of the security industry.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, my clarifications notwithstanding, I conclude my speech in firm support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.04 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome this Bill which will hopefully improve the working conditions for the staff of our private security industry.

The men and women hired to protect security for properties such as condominiums, shopping centres, commercial buildings, just to name a few, are facing increasing incidents of abuse from visitors, residents and tenants at the properties they are assigned to.

I had spoken to security personnel in my constituency and they shared these concerns with me. Similarly, members of the condominium management committees have highlighted and given similar feedback.

This COVID-19 pandemic has brought out the worst in many offenders because there are more regulations. Security officers have more responsibilities today – new ones which did not exist before, such as ensuring that people wear their masks, maintain safe distancing and not exceed certain group sizes while on their properties.

Some security personnel told me that there are residents or visitors who blatantly disregard the regulations, by gathering in big groups, pulling down their masks whilst walking, smoking and so on. Attempts by the guards to advise them lead to altercations. Security officers tell me that they have been totally ignored or verbally abused whilst the breaches continue to take place. This is totally unacceptable. Police officers can warn and arrest offenders on the spot, but how about our security personnel?

I would like to suggest that the Ministry make it mandatory for all private security officers to be equipped with body cameras. MCSTs should also be accorded more powers to deal with such offenders on their estates. Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to suggest that MHA make it mandatory for all private security officers to be equipped with body cameras. MCSTs should also be accorded more powers to deal with such offenders on their estates.

(In English): I would also suggest that in addition to the fines and jail terms, offenders be made to serve community service and undergo mandatory social education programmes, where they learn to respect people from different income and social groups.

The private security sector should be treated as an important partner in our national security framework and their officers should be empowered to do their jobs well and effectively. Madam, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.

5.07 pm

Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Madam, allow me to convey my appreciation to my fellow leaders from the Union of Security Employees (USE) for their efforts in pushing and advocating for greater protection of the security officers.

When I first got to know about this Bill, I contacted my fellow Union leaders from USE and asked for their views about the changes that the Bill could bring for our workers. I wanted to know if the amendments will improve the workers in the four key areas that we are concerned about: protection, progression, placement and privileges. These 4Ps are NTUC’s key pillars that every union leader is working towards in achieving, in addition to the 3Ws: wages, welfare and work prospects for our workers.

USE leaders' immediate response to me was this, I quote, "Brother Samad, this Bill signifies that the Government never fails to hear our calls to improve the protection of our security officers in their course of work and we certainly welcome these amendments."

For those who are not aware of USE and what they do, USE is one of 58 unions affiliated to NTUC. Formed in 1978, they represent all persons who are employed in the security and security-related services. USE has evolved over the years and currently represents over 20,000 union members. Security officers are aware that USE leaders are security officers, as well as workers from the industry. However, they take on the additional role by walking the ground and understanding the concerns and issues faced by the workers to better serve their needs.

Beyond providing social benefits via NTUC Social Enterprises, USE actively carries out industrial relations works. In fact, they started USE Mediation Service in 2018 as unionised security agencies and union members felt that USE understood the industry practices and was in a better position to deal with grievances. On average, they have been handling over 200 cases per year. The number of cases has been on the rise since COVID-19 struck us last year. Last year, USE handled 267 cases, the same number of cases they see now year-to-date, and we still have one more quarter to go.

USE Mediation Service serves not just members but all officers in the security industry by helping them to mediate issues that range from salary payment to harassment cases. USE will soon launch an app in the fourth quarter this year to allow officers and agencies to report any harassment or work-related grievances for Union to take action together with our tripartite partners. This is in line with NTUC’s belief that Members First, Workers Always, which means every worker matters.

In addition, USE recently has collaborated with the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) to conduct a longitudinal study to track changes in the wages, welfare and work prospects among security officers in Singapore. In the first survey conducted between January and February 2020, 30% of the security officers surveyed had faced some form of abuse in their course of work. When the survey was conducted again between September and November in the same year, 40% of the security officers surveyed had faced some form of abuse in their course of work. This is a 10% increase in a matter of months.

Madam, allow me to share a case that our USE leaders had represented and, hopefully, with the amendments of this Bill, it can help to prevent similar cases from happening again.

A security officer was deployed at a condominium and shared that the tenant and condominium manager at the site had been constantly yelling at them, being disrespectful and using profanities at the security officers. He brought up the issue to his Operations Executive on multiple occasions. However, no follow-up actions were taken by the security agency. Thus, the security officer sought help from, who and where else, USE Mediation Service. Upon receiving the report, USE engaged the security agency and stressed that USE does not condone such behaviour towards any security officers. The agency acknowledged and assured that the matter will be addressed with the condominium manager. This incident was investigated and the condominium manager was issued with a stern warning for his actions. This is just one of the many cases that our union leaders have represented and protected the interest of our workers.

With such uncalled-for behaviour towards our security officers, this Bill is timely as it introduces three new offences to protect security officers when they are executing their duties. It will give the security officer assurance towards any form of assault or criminal force, voluntarily hurt caused by members of the public and also against any indecent, threatening words or behaviour, or such communication against security officers, with intent to cause and as a result causing harassment, alarm or distress.

With the amendments to this Bill, these offences will carry penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against the members of the public. This is very welcoming and heartening news for all our security officers.

I would like to urge security companies to implement other measures to prevent abuse and not solely rely on legislative protection. For example, USE has pointed out that some altercations could be avoided through the better deployment of technology and manpower in order to minimise in-person interactions with officers. This is also in line with NTUC’s push for workplace transformation and towards achieving worker 4.0. Madam, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The amendments to this Act have been long awaited by security officers who have frequently been challenged when carrying out their duties. Please know that the Union of Security Employees (USE) will always be with you to listen to your grievances about your job and every feedback, and we will do our best to find the best solution for all of you.

Many of us know and have also heard stories of security officers being insulted, scolded or verbally abused when carrying out their duties. This is very sad. Therefore, I would like to encourage all security officers to become union members and seek the USE's assistance. If you do not know anyone from USE, please visit the Mediation Centre located within Textile Centre which is at Jalan Sultan. This centre provides a dedicated service for you. We will always listen to you and help you with any problems related to work and the workplace.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the job of security officers has changed a lot compared to the past. Previously, we needed many security officers for a particular place or building. But technology has improved the quality of security officers' jobs. As a result, employers do not need to hire so many security officers anymore because each security officer is now able to use technology to monitor even more areas. Employers can certainly save costs, and here, I implore these employers to share the cost savings with your security officers. Do not just fill the pockets of your bosses. This transformation came as a result of the efforts of USE and NTUC, to improve the capabilities of each officer so that they can reap better benefits in terms of their salary, welfare and career advancement.

Madam and hon Members, the job of a security officer appears great only on the surface. Their responsibilities have increased with time. They are aware of these added responsibilities and they also hope to receive support from all parties in order to carry out their duties.

I call on all parties to appreciate every security officer, whose job is becoming increasingly challenging, especially during the pandemic. To all security officers, I hope that this Act will make you feel safer in performing your duties. Once again, I invite you to join the union so that you can reap its benefits and please visit the Mediation Centre for assistance if you encounter problems at the workplace.

(In English): Beyond this Bill, with the presence and continuous advocacy from USE, security officers are being better protected and we encourage more to join the union and allow us to represent and serve you.

We acknowledge there are some lower-earning security officers who may find it challenging to pay the membership fees. Hence, I call on employers to consider sponsoring the union membership fees for all their security officers. More assistance should be provided to them.

Madam, every security officer is a human being tasked to enforce rules, some of which are not well thought through. But as professionals, they do their jobs when called upon. Behind every abuse is an officer who feels upset, angry and emotional, so, we appreciate these amendments in giving security officers greater protection.

To all security officers, on behalf of NTUC and USE, I would like to convey my appreciation for the good work you do in keeping our loved ones safe. Be assured that with USE and NTUC around, you will never walk alone and we will always be here for you. Madam, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.19 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, COVID-19 has made life harder for our security officers. In addition to their usual work, many now have to do the thankless task of enforcing COVID-19 safe management measures. The Union of Security Employees says that this has increased tensions for security officers.

Indeed, a survey of 1,002 security officers between September and November 2020 found that two out of five security officers had experienced some form of abuse in the course of their work.

I thank our security officers for their service. This Bill is a welcome step for increased protection for them.

I have two points of clarification.

First, I would like to ask what counts as a security officer's duty. This Bill is meant to protect security officers from abuse. To this end, it strongly punishes individuals for assaulting, hurting or harassing security officers. However, this enhanced punishment kicks in only if it happens during the execution or discharge of duty by the officer.

Can the Minister share what counts as the execution and discharge of an officer's duty? Do these new offences apply only to functions outlined in section 13 of the Private Security Industry Act or do they apply to any functions reasonably connected to a security officer's work?

We need to be clear about this as security officers may be required to perform diverse tasks not outlined in section 13 of the Act. Such tasks may equally put the security officers at risk of abuse and harassment. We should look to protect security officers performing such tasks too.

My second clarification relates to the defences against the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress to a security officer under section 17C.

Notably, the wording of section 17C tracks the wording used in section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Section 3 of POHA deals with the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress.

One of the defences to section 17C is that the accused did not know or had no reason to believe that the words, behaviour or communications would be perceived by the target person. However, this is not a defence to the similar offence of intentionally causing harassment in section 3 of POHA.

Instead, this defence appears only in section 4 of POHA. Section 4 of POHA deals with the offence of behaviour, which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Importantly, section 4 is different from section 3 of POHA in that it does not require intention to cause harassment.

It seems inconsistent that a defence to a harassment offence in POHA that does not require the element of intention now applies to a harassment offence in the Private Security Industry Act, which requires intention.

In addition to inconsistency across legislation, this seems difficult to understand in principle. Surely, someone who acted with the intention to harass another person should not be allowed to say that they had no reason to believe that harassing conduct would not be perceived by the victim.

Can the Minister clarify why this defence applies to intentional harassment under section 17C when it does not apply to intentional harassment under POHA? Does this suggest that intentional harassment under the Private Security Industry Act has a different scope from intentional harassment under POHA?

Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.23 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, a number of my Yio Chu Kang residents are security officers. Security officers play an unsung but important role in our society. We sleep soundly at night, knowing that with their vigilance, we are safe and that our property is protected.

Yet, security officers are not safe from abuse. Many Members have spoken about this today. Nearly a third of security officers have experienced abuse on the job, a 30% surge over the past two years.

We cannot claim to be a gracious and kind society if our workers are going into work expecting that it is unfortunate but normal to be insulted, threatened or even assaulted on the job. We need to improve protection and welfare of our security officers.

I would like to highlight four issues.

First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must be able to deter harassment by ensuring effective means to capture concrete evidence. The Bill introduces definitions to the offences that constitute the types of harassment and abuse faced by security officers. This is a good initiative. However, without a witness or closed-circuit camera in the vicinity, harassment and verbal abuse can be difficult to prove.

The high-profile case of a condominium resident verbally abusing a security guard last year came to light only because it was caught on video and then circulated. Many other security officers would suffer in silence.

Similar to the point made earlier by Member Joan Pereira, I urge the Government to consider recommending or requiring security guards to wear a body camera. Notwithstanding, we must account for the need to balance the provision of adequate protection with the challenges of ensuring data privacy, as well as managing rising costs in the industry.

To address these concerns, one suggestion is for body cameras to be considered if the security guard works in a location where he is susceptible to higher risks of abuse, patrolling alone or out of range of nearby closed-circuit television (CCTVs).

The body camera proposal is not just beneficial for the wearer. Section 17 of POHA states that the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the offence is beyond a reasonable doubt and disprove a defence raised based on a balance of probabilities.

However, whether the accused's choice of words and tone can be interpreted as abuse is subjective. Moreover, prior provocation may have occurred to lead to their choice of words and tone.

There has been feedback that some security officers are rude. There are usually two sides to every story. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

The body camera can help to even the odds. It can shed some objective light into where truth may lie.

If harassment of security officers falls under this Act, the burden of proof falls on the accused to justify their word choice and behaviour. Likewise, without witnesses and audio-visual proof, it will be difficult to prove their innocence.

Yet, in the eyes of the law, an accused is innocent until proven otherwise or beyond reasonable doubt. The onus should be on the plaintiff, in this case, the security guard, to provide the evidence of harassment or abuse. In this case, the evidence would come from the officer's body camera. It is indisputable evidence that is up for evaluation by the Court, rather than personal interpretation.

Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, security officers must be equipped with the necessary skills to protect themselves and to react appropriately when faced with aggression.

Self-defence training should be recommended and made accessible for those who are in the security industry or planning to join it. These courses should be tailored to different age groups. This is because the age demographic in the industry is varied, with youngsters in their 20s to elderly in their 60s.

Those in a front-facing role should also receive training on communication skills. These skills should focus on managing disputes with residents and de-escalating conflicts.

In this regard, would such training and skillsets be made mandatory in subsidiary legislations or guidelines? How does the Government plan to work with the industry to further professionalise the sector and provide pathways for progression? Expectations will be increased. However, these skillsets are transferable and will serve security officers well if they wish to explore other roles or to take on greater responsibilities in the sector.

Third, Mdm Deputy Speaker, security officers are often ordered to do things that are beyond their job scope and they rarely receive remuneration for it. A resident of mine who is a security officer in a condominium told me that he has been asked to drop off the mail or food delivery, water the plants or even clean up messes when the cleaner is not available.

Whilst some security officers do so out of goodwill, it should not be a given. Not only is this unfair, it is also dangerous. They are called away from their focus of security work. In the meantime, there is no one around to cover for them.

Although they can lodge a complaint to MOM, I have been informed that some employers tend to side with the residents. Lodging a complaint may also threaten the officer's job security, so most would rather accept the extra work.

Beyond the abovementioned issues, many security officers have to work up to 12 hours a day for six days a week to alleviate a persistent manpower crunch. The long hours and lack of rest time make the job unappealing, which only perpetuates the problem.

I hope the Bill will introduce regulations to make it explicitly illegal for security officers to be tasked with extra work beyond the agreed job scope.

But it takes more than laws to eradicate the undesirable mentality that such workers are at the beck and call of the privileged who engage their services. We must continue to address this problem through multiple angles. This includes drawing awareness to the problem through education and by enforcing stiff penalties against those who abuse their positions of power towards the vulnerable.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, my last point is on granting reformed ex-offenders the chance to qualify for security jobs.

A few residents shared with me about their distresses with job hunting at my Meet-the-People Sessions. They were keen to be security officers, given the high demand for such jobs. They were willing to attend the necessary courses to obtain the relevant skills. However, because they have a criminal record, they have had difficulties obtaining a security officer licence.

Can the Ministry clarify whether a criminal record automatically disqualifies one from working in the security industry? This information is not immediately clear from the Security Officer Licence application website. However, past media reports suggest that this is indeed the case.

While security is an industry that requires a high amount of integrity and trust, writing someone off for having a criminal record seems to run contrary to our advocacy for giving second chances and for the Yellow Ribbon initiative.

I recognise that the public and buyers of service may be uncomfortable with ex-offenders as private security guards, due to the perception that ex-offenders may recidivate. Be that as it may, if the industry further evolves and develops sub-specialties in roles, surely we can find positions for ex-offenders in the industry. These include appropriate roles that give them an opportunity to perform and show that they have reintegrated into society, without the perceived risk of putting a known thief to guard one's belongings. From there, they can further professionalise and assume greater responsibilities, having demonstrated that they have turned over a new leaf, perhaps through licensing and so on.

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, when we occasionally encounter a problem at work or in public places, one of our first instincts, besides calling the Police, is to approach the security officer for help. When a child goes missing in a mall, the parents would ask the security officer for help to look for the child. When one encounters a stalker, they head immediately to the nearest security officer for protection.

It is ironic that despite our reliance on security officers for safety, they command little respect and recognition for their work. This must change. Our security officers must have more protection, more training and we must prevent haphazard designation of work that is unrelated to their job. I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Fahmi Aliman.

5.32 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the amendments to the Private Security Industry (Amendment) Bill.

The Labour Movement welcomes the key amendments which will enhance the protection of security officers, as well as the shift towards the industry-led accreditation of security consultants. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During COVID-19, many security officers have stepped up to take on more tasks to ensure our well-being, including temperature-taking, crowd control and the checking of SafeEntry check-ins. These steps have been essential in helping our community curb the spread of COVID-19. However, these additional tasks have also meant that our security officers have increased interactions with the public, including those who may be hostile.

Recently, we have seen a few cases in the news of abuse towards security officers. This is worrying, and the Labour Movement condemns these acts of intimidation and abuse.

Abuse towards security officers may be more commonplace than we think. The results of a survey conducted by the Union of Security Employees, which were released in March this year, found that two in five security officers were exposed to some form of abuse in their line of work.

The amendments to enhance the protection for security officers are thus timely. While there have always been existing laws to protect all from harassment and abuse, no special provision has been given before this specifically for security officers. That being said, I would like to ask MHA what will be done to ensure that security officers and members of the public will be made aware of these amendments so that our security officers will know their rights and be able to better assert themselves while carrying out their duties.

(In English): The second amendment, the shift towards the industry-led accreditation of security consultants is an important step for the private security industry. With this amendment, the certification of security consultants would now reside within the industry, which potentially signals an increased availability of qualified security consultants who can help buyers buy security correctly: conduct a proper security assessment, install the right technology and deploying ably trained manpower to leverage the technology. This Assessment, Technology and Manpower or ATM approach can improve security outcomes significantly and lower overall security costs through increased productivity.

The ATM approach also complements outcome-based contracting, where clients specify outcomes rather than go by the traditional procurement method of specifying headcounts. Outcome-based contracts also advocate for the use of technology and job redesign which can help to make the work of security officers more efficient and effective. With the use of technology such as the remote gate guarding, facial recognition, visitor management system and remote video surveillance, the service buyer has been able to achieve the same or better outcomes.

The transition to outcome-based contracting can be daunting for many service buyers. Many are unsure how to craft an outcome-based tender specifications that may be intimidated by the upfront cost of purchasing technology. Furthermore, it can also prove challenging to convince all stakeholders that the transition to outcome-based contracting will be a fruitful one. For example, many residents in condominiums may still feel that having security officers on-site 24/7 is important.

However, after undertaking the transition, the benefits often outweigh the initial adjustment period. One such example of a security agency that was able to help their clients better procure security services via outcome-based sourcing is Focus Security. With the use of technology such as a vehicle management system at the entrance to the residential site, they were able to cut down the manpower needed by two while continuing to deliver similar outcomes.

In addition to increased productivity, a better-designed deployment plan coupled with technology adoption will help minimise the risk of abuse of security officers who will no longer need to manually enforce rules in a public-facing setting. For example, illegal parking can be better managed through gantries, signages and CCTV with Video Analytics rather than a patrolling security officer who is tasked with requesting that errant drivers move their cars.

Thus, I would like to ask MHA if there are any plans to encourage the adoption of outcome-based contracting and technology to help make our security officers' work safer and more effective.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my support for the amendments to the Private Security Industry (Amendment) Bill. The proposed amendments will send a clear signal that any abuse will not be tolerated and enhance the pool of qualified security consultants who can help buyers better procure security services.

As a Labour Movement, we applaud these amendments and continue to work to improve wages, welfare and work conditions for security officers together with our tripartite partners.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

5.39 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to enhance protection accorded to our security officers.

Madam, as a former Police officer and a current trustee of the Union of Security Employees (USE), I have many regular interactions with security officers, who share with me candidly the various forms of abuse that they face regularly throughout the course of their work.

As guardians of the premises where they are deployed, it is common for them to have to deal with difficult stakeholders who could have malicious intent, are uncooperative, or are just plain rude.

Members in this House may remember several high-profile cases of abuse towards security officers, such as in 2019, when a viral video emerged of an investment banker verbally abusing a security officer working in a condominium over a $10 parking fee for visitors.

Madam, unfortunately, for every case that goes viral and captures public attention, countless more go unreported. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the situation worse. In a joint survey conducted by USE and the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), cases of abuse against security employees have surged by as much as one-third since the pandemic started.

We must send a clear message that any abuse of security officers will not be tolerated. I, therefore, fully support the proposed enhancements to the Act, which will introduce new offences to address common types of harassment and abuse faced by our security officers in the course of their duties.

Madam, the same survey by the union and SUSS found that 40% of officers surveyed had faced some sort of abuse in the course of their work. I would like to ask, on average, how many reports does the Police receive annually, with regard to security officers being abused?

Although abuse of security officers may happen frequently, my sense is that the number of Police reports made against abusers are few and far between. And possibly only a tiny handful of abusive incidents ever translate into arrests and prosecutions. Madam, why is this so?

One key issue is likely to be a lack of clear evidence. How can we get past the usual impasse of one person's word against the other? What can we do to enhance current procedures to make it easier for security officers to take abusers to task, especially considering the proposed new offences?

My suggestion: body-worn cameras. These cameras have shown to be effective in breaking the deadlock, allowing organisations and individuals to report incidents with confidence.

The Police introduced body-worn cameras for its frontline Police officers back in 2015. These cameras capture both audio and video, and are worn in a visible manner on the front of the officer's uniform.

Madam, I think it is time for security officers to put on similar cameras, much like our regular Police officers today. The cameras can serve as a deterrent against potential abuse of our security officers. The footages can also serve as evidence for police reports to be made against the offender.

Madam, in addition to protecting our security officers, we must also address the acute manpower shortage faced by the private security industry. According to a report by the TODAY newspaper, many security officers work up to 12 hours a day, which is the limit under our labour laws, due to insufficient manpower.

The lack of manpower has an impact on the safety of the premises that our security officers protect. Overworked and tired officers may miss out on threats due to fatigue. The lean workforce also means that security officers sometimes must patrol alone and may not be able to call for timely help if they are attacked.

I would like to ask the Minister of State what is being done to attract more people to join the private security industry. As a Member of Parliament, I sometimes receive appeals from residents whose application for a security officer's licence was rejected by the Police because they had a past conviction.

I would like to ask, on average, how many appeals for a security officer’s licence were made by ex-convicts in the past five years and what is the average success rate for such appeals?

Madam, perhaps, as highlighted by Mr Yip Hon Weng earlier in his speech, there may be a case to be made for persons previously convicted of minor offences to be given a chance to take on the role of security officers. I hope that the Ministry can review this without compromising on the stringent selection criteria for our security professionals.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, our security officers play a very important frontline role in protecting the premises where they are deployed. They help keep us safe. While we make the timely legislative amendments to enhance the protection of our security officers, it is also important for us to consider other measures to improve the safety and well-being of our security professionals.

The ability to prosecute abusers is one crucial deterrent, but just as important is the ability to de-escalate situations before they become unacceptable or unlawful behaviour. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

5.45 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as President of the Security Association Singapore (SAS) and a member of the board of directors of a security company.

At the outset, Madam, I would like to register my strong and wholehearted support for the Bill. The Bill introduces two key amendments. First, three new offences will be enacted to protect security officers while they are executing their duties. Second, it will no longer be required for security consultants to be licensed under the Act.

By way of background to the first set of amendments, the security industry associations and union had lobbied MHA for some years to consider amending the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) to include security officers in the definition of "public service officers". This had also been raised by Mr Patrick Tay in this House, as well as Mr Zainal Sapari. So, clearly the stakeholders were delighted when MHA suggested that we instead introduce protections for security officers under the PSIA.

The new sections 17A to 17C will make it offences to assault, hurt or harass security officers whilst they are carrying out their duties. Section 17D provides for circumstances where enhanced penalties may apply. What is significant is that the penalties prescribed in each section are higher than that stipulated for similar offences under the POHA. This is an important recognition that it is particularly egregious to harass, or to assault or to hurt a security officer while he is carrying out his functions, because the role that he plays is essential and critical to the orderly functioning of society.

To a certain extent, these provisions are a corollary to the amendments made to the Private Security Industry (Conduct) Regulations in 2019. Those amendments introduced penalties, including fines and jail terms, for security officers caught being remiss in the conduct of their duties. The rationale for those amendments was to hold security officers up to a high level of conduct, if they were remiss while on duty, precisely because of their critical functions. It is, therefore, fair and fitting that even as we underscore with those amendments the importance of security officers’ duties, that we also move the current amendments to afford greater protections for them.

The urgency for these new provisions is apparent. The Union of Security Employees (USE) and the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) conducted two surveys that had been referred to by several speakers today. Madam, the findings are nothing short of appalling. Last year’s findings showed that a third of security officers faced abuse and this year’s findings found that the frequency had increased to 40%, with the increase being attributed to the greater role that security officers were required to undertake due to the pandemic measures. Older officers were found to face abuse on a more frequent basis.

The media has reported on specific cases. The Minister of State mentioned in his speech the incident in 2019 where Mr Andrew Lim, a security supervisor at Roxy Square, was punched in the face by one Stuart Boyd Mills. Madam, the footage of the incident is chilling. The sheer force of the punch knocked SS Andrew to the ground. Mills was later convicted and sentenced to a week’s jail under POHA.

In another even more unfortunate incident, 74-year-old Security Officer Chew Choo Chian caught and reprimanded one Teo Chin Lai for urinating behind a door of a Bukit Panjang shopping centre. Teo punched SO Chew in the chest and SO Chew fell backwards and suffered injury to his cervical spine. Sadly, SO Chew died from his injuries six weeks later. Of course, causing grievous hurt as in this case is not part of the amendments to the PSIA, and will still fall under the Penal Code, but my point is that security officers, as frontline workers and as enforcers of rules, are often subject to physical abuse, which has caused injury and has even been fatal on occasion.

As regards incidents of verbal abuse and harassment, these are abundant and a simple search on Google will pull up numerous media articles, videos and accounts of such behaviour.

Madam, I have often found it ironic that the security officers’ uniform, ostensibly a symbol of authority, has instead become looked at by members of the public as a lightning rod for abuse. Today’s amendments will change this. So, I would like to say to all our security officers: your uniform, your PLRD ID are now symbols of the protection that you now have. In the course of your duties, if you are verbally abused, if you are harassed, assaulted or hurt, you are now protected by law. So, carry out your duties proudly, responsibly, professionally and if you are subject to any form of abuse, report it and action will be taken.

There are various ways for reporting to be done. As these are now statutory offences, ultimately at some point, the abused officer will have to make a Police report. But as mentioned by several speakers earlier, the USE is rolling out an easy-to-use app, where officers can now report abuse that they have faced and they can seek advice on how they can proceed to commence the process. This app will be launched by the end of the year.

Madam, there are also other initiatives to uplift the wages and working conditions of our security officers. Chief amongst these is the Progressive Wage Model that the Security Tripartite Cluster will announce soon. Another important initiative was launched by Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad in July this year: the Security Industry Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines, which was drafted by a committee co-chaired by SAS and USE. Third, MOM also launched the Workcare Grant in May this year, which was mentioned by Members earlier. These initiatives go a long way to build workplaces and working conditions that are reasonable, fair and that empower officers to do their best at work.

However, Madam, given that the nature of the industry is one of an outsourced service, there is another dimension to the exploitation of security officers that has been unaddressed for decades, and which may well be the most prevalent and yet also, perhaps, the most insidious and difficult to tackle.

Current legislation looks at protecting employees vis-à-vis their employers. However, security officers are engaged not to work at their employer’s offices, but to work at a third party’s premises to provide specific services. The services that are to be provided and their incumbent terms and conditions are, therefore, the subject of a separate service contract between the security agency and the security buyer. Often, where a service buyer engages a managing agent to manage its site, these service contracts are proposed by the managing agent based on their existing templates.

The problem arises because many of these service contracts contain clauses that directly affect security officers’ employment and employability. SAS recently called out some of these discriminatory and unfair clauses in a tender document that was put out by managing agent Savills Property Management on behalf of its client, Hillview Heights condominium. We identified three specific clauses of concern: an immediate removal clause allowing the managing agent to essentially, summarily dismiss security officers, a clause that appeared to discriminate on race and a clause that appeared to discriminate on age.

But these types of contractual stipulations, Madam, are, in fact, not only found in security contracts, but also in other outsourced services contracts and are actually quite ubiquitous. I do not exaggerate when I say that most, if not all, outsourced services contracts contain some form of discriminatory clauses or immediate removal clauses. These are accompanied with unfettered discretion given to managing agents or security buyers to decide to reject officers deployed to a site or to demand that they be removed immediately.

Madam, many officers apply for security officer jobs based on particular sites or locales. This is because, given that they work 12-hour shifts, they prefer to have a work site near their home so that they can reduce their commuting time to as low as possible. So, imagine, Madam, when that officer arrives at site, and is told that he has been rejected and no reason needs to be given to him. Or he is told that he has been rejected after working at a site for some time, again with no reason needing to be provided to him. An employer, Madam, would not be able to do that. There are processes that need to be abided by for such summary dismissal. But the managing agents and buyers have been able to do this with impunity.

Madam, it bears reading out an immediate removal clause ad verbatim to illustrate to the House the truly awesome powers that buyers and managing agents have over the employment and employability of security officers. I quote: "The MCST or its appointed Managing Agent shall be at liberty to require the Contractor to remove forthwith from the Estate any person employed by the Contractor who, in the opinion of the MCST or its appointed Managing Agent, has misconduct himself, or is incompetent and/or negligent in the performance of his duties, or whose employment is considered by the MCST or its appointed Managing Agent to be undesirable."

As can be seen, Madam, the right to dismiss is absolute, it is arbitrary, with no due process or right of appeal or review.

These types of clauses, therefore, empower managing agents and buyers to hold security officers and other outsourced workers at site in terrorem, or in terror, in fear. Officers who are beholden to these managing agents are often asked to take on non-security functions which they do carry out because of the fear that they may be dismissed by the managing agent if they refuse.

The USE has called this out many times before, giving the examples of security officers being asked, on a routine basis, to buy food for the managing agents, clear notice boards or clean animal poo. Member Yip Hon Weng also mentioned earlier some other examples of errands that officers are asked to perform. All of these are quite clearly not security functions under the PSIA and are unlikely to be services that the officers or the security agencies are contracted to do in the first place.

Madam, I had raised this lacuna of application of the fair employment and fair consideration guidelines last year with MOM and TAFEP. While we agreed that there was indeed a gap and that something ought to be done, the recent announcement that the TAFEP Guidelines would be enshrined in legislation now provides an ideal platform for these issues to be addressed as well.

In this regard, I urge that MOM includes in the new legislation measures that prevent managing agents and buyers from demanding the immediate removal of outsourced workers at site; that if they do request a change, that they are required to provide reasons in writing and that there should be a mechanism for appeal and review against such requests. Of course, discriminatory stipulations in service contracts like those on age, gender and race should also be proscribed by the new law and should not be allowed in outsourced services tender documents and service contracts.

Separately, I was happy to read that pursuant to our feedback to TAFEP, that TAFEP has strongly recommended to MOM to review the offending managing agent's work pass privileges. In this regard, I am heartened that there is current recourse for security officers and security agencies subject to unfair and discriminatory clauses in that they can head to TAFEP for assistance. I thank TAFEP for its proactiveness in acting to address unfair practices and to protect our officers. MOM has also confirmed in the Minister’s written answer to Miss Cheng Li Hui's Parliamentary Question yesterday that investigations are ongoing against the managing agent and that MOM takes a serious view of workplace discrimination.

In addition to this, I would also like to urge security agencies not to just accept any contractual terms just to secure a contract, especially when these terms are detrimental to our officers. Agencies that merely chase contracts without regard for the working conditions of security officers on the ground and how they are treated by managing agents and buyers will ultimately gain the reputation as poor employers and will not be able to attract good or eventually any officers.

I would also like to urge security agencies that are responsible and that reject such unfair contracts to publicly declare their commitment to fair employment and fair consideration in outsourced services contracts. This will make it easier for our security officers to identify responsible employers, and to shun security agencies that sacrifice the welfare and dignity of their officers for the sake of just getting more business. Industry needs to be committed and to work together to make things better for our officers. The status quo is unacceptable. Security agencies need to do our part to clean up our own industry, to wipe out unfair employment practices, unfair working conditions and to end the exploitation of our officers.

Madam, I will move on now to speak about the removal of the requirement for security consultants to be licensed under the PSIA. I hope I will be able to address some of the questions and concerns raised by, in particular, Member Mariam Jaafar.

Again, Madam, I had been intimately involved in initiatives surrounding this amendment. The Minister of State had mentioned that security consultants will now be encouraged to seek accreditation under the Security Consultants Accreditation Programme or SCAP, which I chair.

By way of background, the SCAP was formed pursuant to an MOU between MHA, the Association of Certified Security Agencies and the SAS. The SCAP adopted the structure of SAS’ long running Certified Security Professional certification, which SAS discontinued in favour of SCAP. SCAP also adopted the existing Continuous Professional Development framework, which aims to ensure that accredited persons remain current and well-acquainted with developments in the industry, in particular, with regard to emerging and evolving technologies. In order for a consultant to be able to renew his accreditation, he would need to meet the CPD requirements for the previous year.

In order to further ensure professionalism and standards, as well as give the public an avenue to report errant consultants, the SCAP Board will introduce a Code of Conduct to guide how consultants should carry out their work, including ethical considerations.

As I mentioned, I chair the SCAP Board, which also includes representatives from the other security trade association, SUSS, the Security Industry Institute and experienced security consultants. MHA and the SPF’s Centre for Protective Security attend as observers, and the Board consults closely with them on all decisions.

Admission is either by experience or by experience and passing an examination. To directly address Member Mariam Jaafar’s concern about standards, the examination is set and marked by SPF. In the first examination that was held in July, we had a one-third failure rate, so the bar is set very high, and intentionally so, because we only want truly competent and qualified persons to be accredited.

To-date, the Board has accredited 17 consultants. There are 10 persons who have applied as of today for the next examination scheduled in December 2021. And we expect to have accredited around 50 to 70 consultants by the end of next year.

Most importantly, the removal of security consultants from a statutory licensing regime in favour of an industry-led initiative is an important move towards self-regulation for this particular profession. This ensures that the security consultants profession develops in a manner that is relevant to the industry and to clients’ needs without unnecessary Government bureaucracy and administration.

As President of SAS, I am thankful for the trust and confidence that MHA has in the industry to allow us to lead this self-regulation and I assure Members of this House that the industry will step up and do well. Hopefully, this can serve as an example, a model and, perhaps, an inspiration for other industries to self-regulate in appropriate areas.

What then is the role that security consultants play in the transformation of the security industry? It is important to note that the development of a core of security consultants is one pillar out of four pillars in the Security Industry Transformation Map. As Members know, and as mentioned by Member Mohd Fahmi Aliman, one of the biggest drives in the PWM sectors is to move away from headcount-based contracts to outcome-based contracts.

In headcount-based contracts, buyers stipulate the number of security officers they require. In outcome-based contracts, buyers stipulate only the expected outcomes and leave it to vendors to propose solutions that optimise manpower and technology resources. In order for a vendor to propose such holistic solutions, it would first need to conduct a security risk assessment – and the person who carries this out is the security consultant.

There are, of course, many benefits to outcome-based contracts: more efficient and effective security solutions, job redesign for security officers as well as the possibility to move towards more reasonable working hours, a fairer contracting regime. This is why outcome-based contracts are in and of themselves another pillar of the Industry Transformation Map. But in order to make that move towards outcome-based contracts, we need to have a core of security consultants to carry out the first steps.

Madam, next year, SAS will launch an online-based tender generator and repository called OBX, which will provide an easy-to-use platform that will help security buyers make that jump to outcome-based contracting. We are glad to have gotten strong support from SPF and Enterprise Singapore for this initiative. But we will also need to ensure that as this platform provides that big push towards OBCs, that there is a sufficient number of consultants to service these new contracts.

In this regard, SCAP is working hard to accredit consultants and ensure that they have a high level of competence and the technical expertise to provide the best holistic solutions to clients.

Madam, please allow me to conclude by coming back to the amendments introducing protections for security officers. In my maiden speech earlier this year, I urged that we make it a priority to ensure that all our workers have a working environment that affords them respect and dignity. I urged that we take steps to make sure that we take care of those who take care of us.

The amendments introduced today will go a long way to bring us towards that aspiration. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

6.05 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Madam, I rise in support of the Bill. Security officers play a vital role as the first line of defence for many of Singapore’s residents. They are on the lookout for any suspicious activities. They guard our homes, our businesses against unwanted incidents and crimes.

With their responsibilities, we need to first acknowledge that security officers are not Police officers. They do not have the power to arrest. They do not carry arms. When they are carrying out their responsibilities, most of the security officers fend for themselves before any reinforcement arrives.

We need to realise that these officers are someone’s parents, children, grandparents, relatives and friends. The Bill offers them greater protection and harsher penalties to those who cause harm to them, be it physically or not. I am in full support of the Bill.

However, even as we enhance this Bill to protect their rights better, there are a few broad issues that I still find to be concerning.

First, can the Minister of State give us an overview of the number of abuse and harassment cases reported against security officers by themselves, members of the public or security agencies over the past three years? Presenting this data would show the severity of the issue and the challenges security officers and agencies face.

Moving on from that point, what are some actions taken thus far against those who abuse or harass security officers?

Madam, the second point that I would like to raise is that, in this House, we can pass Bills and legislation to better protect the rights of Singaporeans from being abused or harassed. At the same time, victims must, they must come forward to report to the authorities about their abuse. There must never be any impediments for victims to lodge a report or complaint.

With that, I would like to ask the Minister of State if there will be a proper protocol, perhaps a whistle-blowing channel, for security officers to use to report incidents of abuse or harassment?

I ask this as I would like to ensure that all security officers are free to report any cases of harassment or abuse that they might face in their line of duty without compromising their careers with the security agencies and their clients.

Madam, I would also like to highlight the skills of the security officers in their line of duty. This is not to say that they are ill-equipped with the skills needed to be security officers, as we know they are required to undergo courses and trainings to face evolving challenges.

Given the severity of abuse cases among security officers, will there be an upgrade of the framework that can be applied to officers across the board if they face any problems of abuse and harassment? Should security agencies invest then in body-worn cameras to better equip officers against possible perpetrators?

Finally, we know that security officers work round the clock and man 12-hour shifts. This would induce lethargy among officers. Will the Ministry introduce any limit to working hours, including mandated off days or off hours, for officers, without affecting their salary?

Madam, notwithstanding the queries I had presented, I am in full support of this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

6.09 pm

Mr Desmond Tan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and views and for their strong support for the Bill.

Please allow me to address the questions from the Members in turn.

Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Melvin Yong asked for an overview of the number of abuse and harassment cases reported against security officers in recent years. Dr Rizal also asked what actions were taken against these offenders.

As mentioned in my earlier speech, in the last three years, there was an average of about 150 cases of abuse while security officers were on duty per year. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the action taken against offenders may range from stern warnings to Court prosecutions.

Let me now address Members’ questions on the new offences.

Mr Louis Ng asked what counts as the execution and discharge of a security officer’s duty. This refers to the functions of a security officer as defined in section 13 of the PSIA, as he has alluded to, and includes broad roles such as patrolling or guarding another person’s property, or to check individuals seeking entry to any place. This could extend to certain other functions, including SMM functions, such as denying entry to persons who do not wear masks.

Mr Desmond Choo asked whether the new section 17C PSIA applies to abuse committed while a security officer is off duty and whether MHA will consider including other harassment activities covered by POHA section 3, such as doxxing, or section 5 in the new PSIA offences.

I have to say that the introduction of offences in PSIA expressly provides targeted protection for security officers against common types of abuse and harassment faced by the security officers at their work.

If a security officer is abused while off duty, but the abuse is in relation to the execution of the officer’s duties under section 13 of the PSIA, then an offence under the new section 17C PSIA may be made out. The key here is the abuse or harassment must be in relation to the work or the duty that he performs. I want to assure Mr Desmond Choo that we will continue to monitor the ground situation to ensure that security officers get adequate protection.

Mr Louis Ng also asked why the new section 17C PSIA offence allows the accused to prove that he had no reason to believe that his actions would be perceived by the target person. Mr Ng noted that this is not a defence for a section 3 POHA offence. Mr Ang Wei Neng raised concerns about shifting the burden of proof and suggested that, for a similar offence, section 17C PSIA may accord security officers with a higher level of protection than public servants.

To clarify, stipulating defences does not shift the burden of proof to the accused. The prosecution still needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. The defences make it clear that the accused may be absolved under certain specific circumstances. That said, it is not the case that the accused can simply claim that he or she did not believe that his or her actions would be perceived by the target person.

Rather, the defence under the new section 17C PSIA requires the accused to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the communication made, would be heard, seen or otherwise perceived by the target person. An example of this scenario can be found in illustration (b) of section 3 POHA and I read:

"Character X writes a letter containing threatening words towards Y intending to send the letter to person Y to cause him alarm. X decides not to send the letter and throws it away. Person Y finds the letter and is alarmed. X is not guilty of an offence as he had no reason to believe that the letter would be seen by Y."

The proposed section 17C PSIA is not intended to mirror POHA completely and takes into consideration the nature of security officers’ work.

Nevertheless, the defences available for a section 17C PSIA offence are similarly available for offences against public servants, under section 6 POHA. Hence, there is no higher protection as suggested. Although a similar defence is not present in section 3 POHA, it is also clear from illustration (b) that I have read of that section that if an accused had no reason to believe that an offensive communication would be perceived by the target person, the offence under that section would not be made out.

Mr Darryl David asked why and how section 17C PSIA differentiates itself from section 6 POHA for security officers who are essentially carrying out the same job functions. He asked if this would lead to differentiated level of protection of security officers.

To clarify, some security officers are already considered Public Service Workers under POHA, such as those deployed at public healthcare institutions, step-down care institutions or educational institutions.

Security officers who are executing duties in the capacity of Public Service Workers are excluded from the new section 17C PSIA offence, to avoid overlap with section 6 POHA. This group of security officers continue to be accorded protection under POHA, with the same penalties as the new section 17C PSIA harassment offence.

Mr Ang asked if Police reports must be made before the Police investigates into the new PSIA offences and whether the Police would be more inclined to charge persons for the new section 17C PSIA offence. Yes, reports should be lodged in such cases. I would like to emphasise that the Police have treated all cases and allegations of harassment and abuse against security officers equally and seriously, and will continue to do so.

Ms Joan Pereira suggested that offenders should be made to serve community service and undergo mandatory social education programmes. The Criminal Procedure Code already allows for the Courts to issue community orders for suitable cases. Such community orders include mandatory treatment orders for psychiatric conditions and community service orders, which can also be combined with short detention orders.

Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Yip asked if ex-offenders are automatically disqualified and how many are employed in the security industry. Given that the security officers are placed in a position of trust, the Police need to ensure that they are competent and suitable for the roles that they are licensed to perform. Depending on the merits of each application, the Police may and have granted licences under suitable conditions, including to ex-offenders.

Between 2017 and 2021, the Police received an average of 300 security officer licence application appeals per year, including from ex-offenders, of which about a fifth were successful. We will continue to look at each application on their merits and to ensure eligible applicants, including ex-offenders, can continue to join this industry.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Melvin Yong and Dr Wan Rizal asked about and gave suggestions on the use of body-worn cameras. These are issues that should be discussed by the service buyer and service provider, taking into account various factors, such as the needs of the buyer, the deployment locations as well as the costs involved.

We have, in MHA, strongly encouraged the industry to make use of technology, like body-worn cameras, to facilitate better onsite management or investigation into allegations of abuse. And the industry has responded, as we have seen an increasing trend of security agencies deploying body-worn cameras for their security operations. Between 2019 and 2021, the Police approved 43 requests made by 15 licensed security agencies for the use of body-worn cameras at various deployment sites for their security officers.

As part of the Security Industry Transformation Map efforts to uplift the industry, Government agencies, such as ESG, have supported security agencies in the adoption of such relevant technologies.

Mr Yong and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked what is being done to further improve work conditions and make the private security sector more attractive.

This Bill is just one of the initiatives under the security ITM to help transform and raise industry standards, improve wages and, also, improve the work conditions and environment for our security officers. The Government has and will continue to work closely with tripartite partners through the Security Tripartite Cluster to uplift wages and skills upgrading of our security officers. For example, on wages, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) has improved wages for about 40,000 security officers. Real median monthly gross wages for security officers grew cumulatively by 36% from 2014 to 2019, outstripping the 21% growth for workers in general.

Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Darryl David and Dr Wan Rizal also asked about skills upgrading and training for our security officers. It is indeed an important area. And on this area, tripartite partners have introduced courses to train security officers in public management, such as customer orientation, problem-solving and collaboration skills, as well as identifying relevant skills to combat evolving security threats and including terrorism threats. Security agencies that need help in redesigning jobs, incorporating technology and upskilling their officers can also leverage on WSG's Job Redesign Reskilling Programme for Security Officers.

Regarding working conditions, Dr Rizal also asked if the Ministry will introduce any limit to security officers' working hours, including mandated off days and hours. I would like to assure Dr Rizal that these are currently covered under the Employment Act. Tripartite partners have also taken concrete steps to address security officers' long working hours. The most recent is the removal of overtime exemption in January 2021.

Previously, with the exemption, security officers could work up to 95 hours of overtime per month and now, overtime is capped at 72 hours per month. So, the cap on overtime hours will hopefully improve the working conditions and increase attractiveness into the demanding industry.

On Mr David and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' suggestions for rest areas for security officers, we are unable to mandate minimum rest areas due to the practical infrastructure constraints of certain premises, but we have encouraged buyers of outsourced services to set up proper rest areas for outsourced workers at their premises through the Workcare Grant. MHA and our tripartite partners will continue to monitor the ground situation to ensure that our security officers' welfare is not neglected, and will not hesitate to intervene where necessary.

On Mr Fahmi's further query on the adoption of outcome-based contracting (OBC) to make security officers' work safer and more effective, MHA had shared in our response to a Parliamentary Question in July that the Government has already taken the lead in the adoption of OBC. MHA will continue to work closely with industry partners in the engagement and training of buyers on OBC, to push for OBC adoption in both the public as well as the private sectors.

Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Yong asked about protocols or whistle-blowing channels for security officers to report incidents of abuse or harassment. There are a few ways to do so. One, affected personnel can report all legitimate cases of abuse and harassment to the Police. Two, a one-stop email helpline launched by the Security Industry Council, where cases would be attended to by the Union of Security Employees (USE).

As Mr Abdul Samad shared, affected officers can also approach the USE Mediation Centre directly for help. And soon, as also mentioned by Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Thomas and Mr Abdul Samad, through a new mobile application by USE.

There is no need to set up a new unit under the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department to manage complaints on misconduct of security officers, as suggested by Mr Ang, at this moment. Members of the public can continue to lodge such reports with the Police directly.

Mr Ang and Mr Fahmi asked what will be done to ensure that security officers and members of the public are aware of the new legislative amendments. In coming up with the Bill, the Ministry has consulted and worked closely with the industry and union on public campaigns to reinforce the anti-abuse message and we will continue to amplify this message.

Last, I echo the point made by Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Yip, Mr Thomas, Mr Abdul Samad and all the other Members that we, as members of the public, should equally play our part in exercising patience and respecting our security officers who are simply doing their jobs in keeping Singapore safe and secure.

Finally, I will address questions relating to the changes to the regulatory regime for security services. Ms Mariam Jaafar raised potential concerns about industry-led accreditation for security consultants. To clarify, we are removing persons who only provide security consultancy services from regulation under the PSIA. Persons who provide any other services that fall under Section 18 of the PSIA would still have to be licensed.

Since the launch of the industry-led Security Consultants Accreditation Programme (SCAP), the SCAP Board developed a code of ethics to guide the way security consultants interact with clients, and a Continuous Professional Development framework that consists courses in areas such as OBC and contingency planning, to ensure that accredited security consultants have the updated competencies required.

As affirmed by Mr Thomas, there is a high bar for admission into SCAP. The SPF Centre for Protective Security guides the SCAP Board in administering these admission assessments to ensure that all accredited consultants have sufficient level of experience and competency in security consultancy work. MHA and SPF will continue to work closely with the security associations to maintain oversight of standards in the security consultancy industry.

Ms Mariam Jaafar had other queries on how to encourage the industry to go for accreditation and what will be done to educate service buyers to fairly assess security service providers who have accredited security consultants. We will be doing this through outcome-based contracting, where industry partners need to advocate that the use of technology and job redesign is to improve the overall effectiveness and professionalism of the security sector.

In gist, the Ministry is empowering the industry to take charge in developing security consultancy as a professional discipline.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Bill is an important piece of legislation that will provide much needed protection for our security officers and update the regulatory regime for security services in the face of an evolving security industry.

I would like to thank the security industry associations, the Union of Security Employees and Government agencies for working with us closely on this Bill and the Security ITM initiatives to professionalise and transform the private security industry.

Once again, I thank Members for their overwhelming support for this Bill. Our security officers play an important role in keeping us safe and our premises secured. They deserve not just protection from harassment, alarm and distress. They deserve our respect.

We can all start by acknowledging our security officers by their names today, when we see them in our residences or at our workplaces and thanking them for doing what they do. Madam, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Tan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.