Ensuring Real Wage Growth for Security Officers following PWM Implementation

2 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on security agencies which incorporate security officers’ allowances into their basic pay following the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM); (b) if so, whether this has resulted in any reduction of total wages for security officers; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure that salary adjustments under PWM result in genuine income growth rather than reclassification of existing wage components.

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, we do not have data on security agencies which incorporate allowances into basic wages following the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). However, we observe that gross wages for security officers, which include allowances, have increased since the implementation of PWM for security officers in 2016. From 2016, when we started PWM, to 2023, the median gross wage of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents working as full-time security officers increased 19.2% cumulatively.

Employers have the prerogative to decide how to structure workers’ overall compensation, provided they comply with PWM requirements. While it is possible for employers to incorporate allowances into the basic wage to offset PWM-mandated wage increases, such practices are unsustainable. PWM requirements increase year on year and there is a limit to how much wage components can be shifted.

Let me explain. In 2016, the PWM wage requirements for a security officer employed by a security agency was $1,300. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 10 March 2025, Vol 95, Issue 161, Correction By Written Statement section.] From 1 January 2025, this year, this has increased to $2,870 and by 2028, this would increase to $3,530. So, this translates to PWM raising the salaries of security officers to around 220% more than the wage requirement in 2016.

This means that security officers will likely see that total take-home pay, which includes both basic wages and variable components, such as allowances, increase over the coming years. Security officers who wish to report contractual breaches or employers not adhering to PWM requirements can approach their union or contact the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for assistance.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Sir, given that security officers earning above $2,600 now a month are no longer covered under Part 4 of the Employment Act, has the Ministry assessed whether security agencies are increasing reliance on overtime instead of hiring additional officers following the PWM implementation and what measures will be taken if excessive overtime becomes the norm?

And related to that, how is MOM ensuring that security officers are not subjected to arbitrarily low overtime pay, now that they rely on employer-determined overtime rates?

Lastly, will the Ministry consider increasing the salary threshold for Part 4 protections so that security officers can retain essential protections under the Act, even as wages rise?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. In fact, it is a good thing actually that our security officers now earn above what is covered in the Employment Act, Part 4, because, ultimately, this means that their wages now are growing beyond the bottom 20% mark.

Technically, if you want to go by strict definitions, they are exceeding past what we used to think as low-wage workers. So, that is good progress from the unions and the tripartite partners in terms of how we have managed to increase the low wages of security officers such that by 2028, they will even get up to $3,500, which is much higher than what many of our low-wage workers earn today. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 10 March 2025, Vol 95, Issue 161, Correction By Written Statement section.] So, to a large extent, that shows progress.

However, I take the Member's point. In short, the Minister for Manpower announced during the Committee of Supply debate that we are reviewing the Employment Act as well and that will include things like this, whether the thresholds have to be increased to keep up with the current pace, for example. These are areas we will look at.

But I just want to assure the Member that security officers are not worse off in terms of the maximum number of overtime hours or paid leave entitlements because, ultimately, security officers continue to be licensed by the Singapore Police Force's (SPF's) Police Licensing and Regulatory Department. So, this is a licensed area. Today, the relevant provisions of the Employment Act still apply to them. For example, the licensing conditions provide that the total number of extra hours above the 44-hour work week is kept at a maximum of 72 hours per month. So, this ensures that there is no gaming, hopefully. But if there was any gaming, please surface it to us and we will take them to task with the Police. These are aspects in which there is still protection available because this is a licensed sector.

Nonetheless, having said that, one of the key reasons why we moved towards a gross wage structure for PWM is to make sure that they do not game the system, such that everything is all-in or all-encompassing, and as long as you meet the PWM requirements for gross wage, I think that is sufficient to ensure that there is a minimum amount that security officers can benefit from PWM. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 10 March 2025, Vol 95, Issue 161, Correction By Written Statement section.]