PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY BILL

PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.05 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Impetus for the Bill

Sir, in the post 9/11 security environment, the Government has

Column: 1350

enhanced our security measures in key installations and upgraded the capabilities of our security forces to deal with the new threat of terrorism. However, the police cannot be everywhere. Therefore, it is imperative that we also upgrade the professional standards in the private security industry, so that it can complement the work of our security forces in contributing to Singapore's overall safety and security.

The critical role of security personnel can be seen in the many incidents that have occurred in the region and elsewhere in the world. In both the Marriott and Australian Embassy bombings in Jakarta, security personnel had approached the vehicles loaded with explosives before the vehicles were driven up to the buildings proper. As a result, the suicide bombers detonated their bombs earlier than planned - before they could position their vehicles near the buildings, where the explosion could have caused many more casualties.

As the security threat evolves, we will need to ensure that we have a competent and professional private security industry to help safeguard our safety and security. This is the impetus for the key changes in the Bill that is being read a Second time today.

Introduction of licensing regimes for private investigators and security officers

Sir, let me now take the House through the key features of the Bill.

First and foremost, we have to strengthen our regulatory framework for private investigators and security officers - or what are commonly known as "security guards" -by putting in place separate licensing regimes for them.

Security officers guard many of our shopping malls, commercial buildings,

Column: 1351

hotels and key installations. They should be alert in detecting and reporting potential threats. Their timely reports of any suspicious activity can bring about expeditious action by law enforcement agencies. At the same time, they are an additional resource in our response to security incidents.

Let me cite an example. About two months back, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) received an anonymous call before noon, informing them that a bomb was going to explode at Raffles Place. Together with the security officers deployed in the vicinity, Police immediately checked the vicinity of Clifford Centre where the call was traced to. A security officer deployed at Clifford Centre assisted the Police in reviewing the CCTV recording and provided information that helped to identify the likely culprit.

That same afternoon, there was a second call to the SCDF informing them that bombs had been planted at Orchard Road and Tanjong Pagar. This time, the call was traced to International Plaza. Police responded immediately. Security officers deployed at the location again assisted Police in reviewing the CCTV recording. The likely culprit of the morning episode was again identified in this set of CCTV recording. A quick search was done in the vicinity and the culprit was arrested following his admission to making both the bomb hoax calls.

This example shows the value of well-trained and vigilant security officers who can complement our security forces. We are therefore introducing an enhanced regulatory regime, where all security officers, and private investigators as well, will be licensed personally, so that (a) it will enable the licensing authority to conduct the necessary background checks and prevent undesirable elements from operating as security officers or private investigators; and (b) it will enable the

Column: 1352

licensing authority to specify the requisite skills and qualifications that private investigators and security officers should have. In time to come, the licensing authority may also require security officers who work at more sensitive installations, where the security threat is higher, to possess higher level qualifications and skills.

This licensing regime will apply to those security officers and private investigators in the direct employment of building owners and businesses, and who currently do not need Police's approval to work.

There will also be regulations governing the conduct of security officers and security agencies. The net result is that better training and conduct will raise standards and give the security officers a greater sense of pride and professionalism.

Should a private investigator or security officer be charged with or convicted of a prescribed offence which makes his continued employment as a private investigator or security officer undesirable, his licence can be suspended with immediate effect. This power is provided in clause 24(5) of the Bill.

With the introduction of the licensing schemes for security officers and private investigators, more than 500 private investigators and 30,000 security officers will need to apply for a licence.

We are aware that some security officers and private investigators are unable to attain a licence, despite their best efforts. If they work in places where the security threat is lower, we will consider exempting them from the licensing requirement under the Act. This will ease the level of displacement from the industry when the Act comes into force. But I foresee that many of them would be able to make the grade.

Column: 1353

Clause 5(2) of the Bill currently provides that certain persons are not to be regarded as private investigators, such as in-house investigators employed by insurance companies, and those working as investigators in other business sectors, for example, those who obtain or give information on the financial standing of another person, or public accountants, which pose little threat to national security, and are of no concern to the police. The Act also allows the Minister to further exempt other categories of private investigators from licensing under the Act, should their work be of little security concern.

Approval for private investigators to take on certain security assignments

However, for those private investigators who need to be licensed, police will tighten up the regulatory regime to ensure that they do not conduct private investigation activities which may be prejudicial to the public interest or our national security. Clause 11 of the Bill, therefore, states that a private investigator has to seek the licensing officer's approval before accepting any assignment from a foreign government or its proxy agency.

Similarly, a private investigator has to seek the licensing officer's approval before he carries out any surveillance or activities which involve the gathering of information on certain persons or places of security concern. The licensing officer may subsequently revoke this approval if it is not in the public interest or if it poses a threat to national security.

Sir, key Government leaders and sensitive places are known to be targets of terrorists. Having such provisions in our laws will mark out clearly to the industry the boundaries they have to work within. At the same time, such a law

Column: 1354

serves to alert the licensing authority to any activities of security concern, giving the licensing authority advance information, as well as the opportunity to investigate further if necessary.

Record-keeping of identities of private investigator's clients

Sir, other measures to strengthen the regulatory framework over the private investigation industry include clause 10, which requires a private investigation agency to obtain and verify the identity and address of the person engaging its services, before it can accept any assignment from such a person.

To complement this requirement, clause 12 of the Bill specifies the various records, including the identity of the clients, where a private investigation agency or employer of a private investigator has to keep and submit to the licensing authority.

Expansion of regulatory scope to include other activities in the private security industry

The Bill will also cover security service providers, other than private investigators and security officers. As defined in clause 18, those providing security surveillance services, and those installing security equipment like audio devices used for overhearing and recording a conversation in any premises, will be regulated under the new Act. This will allow controls to be imposed on other security service providers, to ensure that they meet certain standards of professionalism.

For example, clause 20 allows the licensing officer to levy a charge on a prescribed security service provider, being a Central Alarm Monitoring Station (CAMS) provider, if it indiscriminately alerts the police whenever an alarm is activated at premises that it is monitoring,

Column: 1355

without first taking reasonable measures to verify whether it is a false alarm.

The Schedule of the Bill contains a list of security equipment that will fall under the ambit of the new Act.

Increase in fine quantum

Sir, the current Act was enacted in 1973, more than 30 years ago. The highest penalty provided for in the Act is a $10,000 fine or a two-year imprisonment term, or both. In the current context, where revenues of industry players are considerably higher, such penalties are no longer adequate, particularly the fines. If the fines are not increased, the Act will pose no deterrence and this will have adverse consequences for our security. Hence, to keep pace with the changes in the business environment and to ensure that there is adequate deterrence in today's context, the Bill will provide for a five-fold increase in the maximum quantum of fines.

Past initiatives to upgrade industry

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me put into context the current amendments in terms of what we are doing to upgrade the private security industry. At the end of 2004, police set up the Security Industry Regulatory Department (SIRD) to look into the regulation of the private security industry. A set of skills standards under the National Skills Recognition System or NSRS was introduced in 2005 for all private security officers employed by the security agencies.

At the beginning of last year, a buyer awareness exhibition and seminar was also held to allow major buyers in the business community to be more discerning in their engagement of security service providers. Last month, I launched the Security Workforce Skills Qualifications or Security WSQ.

Column: 1356

In line with the effort to upgrade the quality of the security services, a pilot exercise was also conducted last year to grade all licensed security agencies according to prescribed professional standards. Part of the objectives of the exercise was also to provide an objective and authoritative assessment of existing security agencies and motivate them to raise their service standards and improve their operational processes. Police has recently completed the formal grading exercise for this year, after refining the criteria following last year's pilot exercise, and will be publishing the results on the Internet very soon.

Sir, much work has been done over the last few years to develop the private security industry into the effective partner of our security forces. Today's amendment to the law is part of this greater transformation of the industry which MHA is helping to facilitate. In the current security environment, this Act will be a key component in our efforts to enhance the capabilities of the private security industry, so that the Government and private sector partnership can work together to keep Singapore safe and secure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.24 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, the 11th September terrorist attack in the United States has changed the security landscape and security industry in many countries. The governments of many countries have implemented various security measures and systems to further enhance the safety and security of their installations. In Singapore, our Home Team and various Government agencies have also developed security measures to safeguard strategic

Column: 1357

installations, such as our airports, MRT system, Government buildings and certain public places. But we cannot solely depend on our Government agencies to provide security. There is a need to engage the private security industry to further enhance our safety and security. As such, the Bill is indeed timely in providing a comprehensive framework to regulate and enhance the professionalism of our private security industry.

Sir, at present, the private security industry lacks supervision and enforcement to ensure that they provide professional security services to their clients. Some security agencies do not provide much training to their security officers, while some employ ad hoc or temporary security guards to fulfill their contractual obligations. This has resulted in unethical business practices and unprofessional practices in the industry.

The private security industry also suffers from an image problem, as the majority of people who are keen to join the industry are senior citizens. Many regard these jobs as their retirement jobs, and do not have much motivation to upgrade their skills and knowledge. Furthermore, due to the intense business competition, some security agencies are tendering at prices which they cannot provide quality and professional services. Today, private security firms are faced with three key challenges:

(1) Intense competition due to low entry barrier into the industry;

(2) Shortage of qualified and well-trained security officers; and

(3) Relatively high turnover of staff and low staff morale.

Sir, the present situation in the industry is indeed unhealthy and will not

Column: 1358

enhance our safety and security. I wish to highlight four areas of the Bill which I hope the Minister will provide clarifications.

Impact on existing security officers

Sir, the Bill will affect the jobs and livelihoods of many security officers/guards, especially inhouse security guards. Many of these security guards are old and may not meet the new licensing requirements or pass the screening or training. The Bill will cause much displacement of jobs and retrenchment. How can we protect or help those affected by the new licensing requirements? Many of these old security guards will encounter difficulty in finding another job. I have received industry feedback that about 20%-30% of these inhouse security guards may not pass the security screening or Security Workforce Skills Qualifications (Security WSQ) training course. Thus, a few thousand security guards may lose their jobs. Some of these guards are relatives or trusted employees of building owners and have been working for many years as security guards. Sir, may I ask the Minister what are the plans of the Ministry to help these affected security guards?

Sir, as the number of existing inhouse security guards who will be affected by the Bill is about 5,000, I would propose to the Ministry to consider phasing the compliance of licensing of security officers in accordance with the different levels of security needs of clients or installations. We can instead issue personal licences for security officers who are trained in different levels of skills and knowledge, such as Class-1 Security Licence for low-security installations, Class-2 for medium security installations and Class-3 for high security installations.

A three-tier personal security licence scheme will facilitate the employment of security officers with the appropriate skills

Column: 1359

and knowledge relevant to the security needs of the installations. It will also provide a career path for security officers who are keen to upgrade themselves to manage complex installations.

Sir, the Government is encouraging Singaporeans to work longer. The private security industry provides many job opportunities for older workers, and certain segments of our population would prefer such jobs. I fully agree that we must raise professional standards for the private security industry, but we must also strike a balance between providing job opportunities for older Singaporeans and ensuring safety and security.

Impact on private security industry

Sir, the implementation of the Private Security Industry Bill will also affect the security industry in a number of ways.

First of all, the stringent licensing requirements for security officers will result in a severe shortage of qualified security officers. At present, the security industry is unable to attract many good workers. Many security officers must work on a 12-hour rotating shift. The salary of security officers is not very attractive. It is between $1,000-$1,200. As such, not many job-seekers are keen to pursue a career in the industry.

Secondly, the buoyant property development market will further increase the demand for security officers of many new buildings, such as shopping centres, offices and integrated resorts. This will result in the poaching of qualified security guards amongst security service providers, thus causing more disruption to the security services of many buildings. The impact will be more severe in buildings managed by small or medium-sized security firms.

Thirdly, the new requirements of the Bill will add on much administrative burden on security and private

Column: 1360

investigation firms. Many of these are small business outfits or one-man-operations.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

First, what is the manpower forecast for security officers in the next three years?

Second, do we have adequate WDA-accredited training service providers for security officer courses?

Third, what are the measures in place to help small and medium security firms cope with the new compliances of the Bill?

Professional framework for security officers and private investigators

Sir, licensing alone will not enhance the professionalism of security officers and private investigators. We need to develop a comprehensive framework to set professional standards and key desired outcomes of our security services. This would entail quality and professional training by accredited training establishments, and close supervision by the Ministry to ensure professional standards. Due to the complexity of the private security industry and the importance of security, we cannot assume compliance of the Act automatically. Although the increased penalty will act as a deterrent for non-compliances, it is necessary for the Ministry to adopt a more proactive approach in conducting spot checks to ensure professional standards and achieve the desired outcomes of the Bill.

Sir, with regard to enhancing professional standards, I wish to seek the Minister's clarifications on the following. First, is there a professional framework by the Ministry to raise professional standards of the private security industry

Column: 1361

such as a Singapore Standards for security services or Code of Practice (CP) for security services? Second, what are the key desired outcomes of professional standards? And third, is there any enforcement team in the Ministry to ensure compliance of the Act?

Cost of business

Sir, the new requirements of the Bill will pose a cost burden to businesses, especially small and medium enterprises. Clauses 8, 9, 16 and 17 of the Bill require the licensed private investigation agency or licensed security agency to inform the licensing officer within 14 days after the employment or termination of their employees. This is indeed a very stringent administrative requirement to comply with, especially for smaller security firms. I propose that the Ministry should consider liaising with the CPF Board which now requires all employers to submit the employer's statement of account (CPF Form 92) to indicate the status of their employees. The information provided by the CPF's Form 92 should be adequate for the licensing officers to conduct the necessary checks on the suitability of the candidates for employment in this security industry.

Sir, the cost of training for security officers is high (about $550 for training and $150 for assessment tests) and does increase the business cost of security firms. WDA only subsidises 80% to 90% of the course fee. The high turnover of security officers also serves as a disincentive for many firms to send their officers for training. To ensure that there is an adequate supply of trained security officers, we should consider lowering the cost of training for security officers, especially the basic security course. We should also provide more flexibility for individuals who are keen to join the security industry. Course subsidy could be

Column: 1362

given directly to the individuals attending security courses. The Ministry should also consider granting personal security licences to individuals directly as in the case of driving licence. In this way, we will be able to encourage more personal accountability of individuals wanting to join the security industry and develop a more stable and committed workforce in the security industry.

Sir, the raising of professional standards as stipulated by the Bill will further complement the Government's efforts in making Singapore a safe and secure place. But we need both the Ministry and industry stakeholders to show commitment to achieve the desired outcomes of the Bill.

Sir, I support the Bill.

3.36 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill in general and I also appreciate the rationale for professionalising the industry.

However, one provision which I believe is of considerable concern is clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 provides that no person may accept a security assignment unless the licensing officer has given prior written approval. What amounts to a security assignment is defined in that clause to encompass various situations. Although the Minister has explained that the concern is public interest and national security, my view is that the provision is too wide. The most politically sensitive aspect is that the security assignment includes any brief requiring the gathering of information or surveillance of a "political figure". A "political figure" is itself defined in clause 2 to mean four categories of office-holders - the President, the Prime Minister, a Minister or a Minister of State. In other words, the effect of this clause is that it will be illegal for any person to

Column: 1363

accept a brief to conduct surveillance or to gather information on the President, Prime Minister, any Minister or Minister of State unless he applies to the licensing officer and gets prior written approval. Further, Sir, clause 11(2)(b)(v) makes it clear that the need to get prior approval extends to gathering information or doing surveillance on the political figure's household member as well.

Sir, let me elaborate on why I believe the provision is too wide. Singaporeans may have legitimate reasons to want to gather information or ask for surveillance on political figures or their families. To illustrate, let me play devil's advocate. For instance, a person may have reasons to suspect that a political figure is in a relationship with that person's spouse which will give grounds for divorce. That person will need a private investigator to gather evidence to see if there are grounds to start divorce proceedings. This has nothing to do with national security. Why should that person be required to seek Police's permission to monitor the political figure's movements?

Another example could be a case where a member of a political figure's family attempts to use his political connections for business gain, a case of suspected corruption. Due to the sensitivity of the case, the complainant may want to get a private investigator to produce a preliminary report before reporting the matter to the authorities. In this situation, some would in fact argue that it is in the public interest to allow the private investigation to carry on undisclosed. Sir, no matter what standards of personal integrity are imposed by any organisation, there will be some who fall short. History has taught us that even in Singapore, by enacting this clause, are we inadvertently erecting a firewall around our political office-holders?

The requirement for prior written approval will also generate doubts in

Column: 1364

people's minds about the effectiveness of subsequent investigations, for example, (1), the issue of time. How long will the Police take to consider the application? Will it be a few days or a few weeks? What if a transaction is on-going and it is over by the time the approval comes? (2) The question of approval channels. When the Police are considering the application for approval, who should they inform or seek advice from? Would the Minister for Home Affairs be consulted? Who else will know about the application and is there any guarantee that the political figure will not come to know of it? Would leaks botch up the investigations? (3) The question of how much disclosure is required to get Police approval. Under clause 11(7), the applicant may be required to disclose to the licensing officer what evidence and information he already has in hand. Who would come to know of these details?

Sir, besides the issue of political office-holders, there are other categories of people which need prior approval to investigate but seem to have little to do with public interest or national security, for example, under clause 11(2)(c), it covers any person working in a Government building, or any person working in a private school which has mainly foreign students. This would seem to mean that we will need Police approval to tail even a cashier working in a food court in a Government building or a local security guard working at an international school. Is this not too wide? Sir, there are already laws in place prohibiting intrusions into protected places, laws against trespassing and so on. Why add this blanket requirement to inform the Police of such security assignments?

Lastly, Sir, clause 42 of the Bill amends the Miscellaneous Offences Act to include a new section 22(A). Section 22(A)(4) permits the licensing officer to allow certain private investigators or

Column: 1365

private security personnel to carry truncheons and even handcuffs. Given that private security personnel do not have Police powers under the law and they do not have similar training requirements, are we not running a risk of excessive force being used by these private security personnel?

3.41 pm

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, I am the advisor to the Union of Security Employees (USE) and I would like to just raise two points.

Sir, I welcome the Bill as it is another significant move to upgrade the private security industry. Properly licensed with proper training and a better professional image, the salaries of security officers should also increase. Security officers who are members of the USE have seen their pay go up as their jobs get recreated and their skills upgraded and certified. On average, they now earn $1,300 to $1,500 per month, depending on assignments, compared to about $800 to $1,000 a few years ago. But not all security officers have enjoyed this improvement in wages and career prospects.

Nationally, the medium gross wages of private security guards have fallen from $1,403 a month in 2001 to $1,257 last year, according to the report on wages in Singapore which was recently released. Sir, some security agencies are still cutting corners and not paying their security officers decent wages or CPF. Other than professional criteria, can I ask the Minister if the Ministry will also look into upgrading security officers and also on their compliance in paying CPF to the security officers?

My second point is to urge the Ministry to also focus on education of

Column: 1366

security agencies and not only on enforcement. We know that many low-skilled workers, especially older ones, as has been pointed out by my hon. colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin, they have switched to working as security guards after they have been retrenched and some of them cannot find another job in the market. There is a worry that some will lose their jobs as a result of this Bill. As long as they are fit and able, they should be given the opportunity to be trained and licensed without compromising on professional standards. Sir, I understand that the image of the security industry needs to be upgraded but I hope that in the process, we will not discriminate against older workers who are fit and able, and are motivated to do the job.

Can I ask the Minister if the Ministry will also educate security agencies on the value of training such workers and to work with relevant agencies, such as NTUC and WDA, to upgrade their skills to license them so that they have prospects in this industry?

Another point I would like to make finally is to urge the Ministry to work with security agencies to see how they can pool their resources together, work on economies of scale, rather than work as different individual agencies with different competing interests and get stuck at a certain level of professionalism. If we can lift the entire industry up through education and enforcement as well as through grants, I think we will give better prospects to our workers for a job as security guards.

3.44 pm

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the three Members for supporting the Bill. In fact, they have made some very relevant points which are also of concern to me when we first decided to have a Bill like this to raise the standards of our security officers as well as to ensure that the

Column: 1367

private investigators conduct their activities properly.

Let me assure the House that the existing security officers who have already qualified under the NSRS scheme - there are about 24,900-plus of them - do not need to retake the test. They have already qualified for licensing as they have passed the NSRS. The group that is currently left out and not yet covered and who will be covered under the new Act will be the in-house guards. The in-house guards are the ones that could be employed by hotels, building owners or condominiums.

I would also say that some of these buildings and condominiums also employ guards from the private security agencies. For these building managements, they should have no problems retaining the guards. But for other forms of in-house guards, they will have to undergo training. The basic training they need is not a security WSQ. This is of a different standard altogether. In fact, the WSQ training, whether it is certificate, advanced certificate or diploma in WSQ is for career advancement, for supervisory leadership and managerial positions. If the security officers wish to move up their career, then they should consider taking the WSQ. But for the rest, they only need to undergo the NSRS training, which is not difficult. From what I have seen in the last few years since we started the scheme, practically all of them passed. If they do not pass, they will be given opportunities to pass. For the existing in-house guards who are now not licensed, they will also be given time to pass. I do not think they need to worry about it.

Of course, there may be some who do not pass the security screening. All those in-house guards do not undergo security screening. Security officers employed by the security agencies will undergo security screening. For these guards who do not pass security screening, we will give them

Column: 1368

time to find other jobs. They will have to look for other things to do since they should not remain as security officers or guards in the buildings.

On the manpower forecast for the security officers, I would say that there would be an increase in demand in the light of the new buildings and the IRs that are being set up. There will be adequate training facilities available. Right now, there are 36 training centres training people for NSRS qualification. I believe these 36 centres will be able to cope with the demand of the industry's needs.

For those which require higher levels of skills like the WSQ, the Temasek Polytechnic is running courses, and they also run parts of these courses together with 10 other training centres for WSQ qualification. I believe there ought to be adequate places for anyone who wants to be a security officer.

For the small and medium firms, I would say that they should have no problem complying with the new licensing requirement. But if they have, they will be given time to adjust.

The standards of professionalism and the skills required are set by the Police. The NSRS standard is also set by the Police. The WSQ standard is also set by the Police working with the industry. So there is already a professional framework required of the kind of skills that are needed to perform certain types of security services. Of course, for more sensitive installations and for higher profile types of establishments, then different skill sets may be required. For these, the Police will also set the standards. Most of the companies will be able to send their employees to undergo the training courses conducted by the respective agencies.

Mr Teo also asked that we give personalised licences. I have already

Column: 1369

mentioned that we will do so. That will actually give the security officers a greater scope for mobility. Right now, whenever they change companies, the new company will apply for approval to hire them. Under the new licensing regime, the individual officer can just move along to another employer who can offer him better terms and better wages.

Sir, in terms of wages, from the information given to me by the Union of Security Employees, the wages have actually gone up. The gross salary has gone up between $880-$1,000 in 2003, to about $1,300-$1,800 in 2006. This is partly because of the increasing standards and training required of our security officers. I suppose when we talk of the average salary of the security officers and if we take into account also those who are not under the present NSRS scheme type of officers, then it could be dragged down by other kinds of unlicensed guards currently employed by other establishments, like condominiums and so on.

Let me now come to Ms Sylvia Lim's question on clause 11. The main rationale for this is to ensure that certain types of people - our key Government leaders, the foreign missions' officials, Ambassadors, Counsellors and officers who are targets for terrorists - are not easily put under surveillance by those who want to do harm to them. And that is the reason why we have this particular clause. It is not to go and track a contractor or a canteen operator going into a particular building. That is not of interest to the Police. And if there is indeed a reason to go and find out about the personal conduct of a person, then by all means do so, so long as there is no security implication for this.

There is no difficulty to get approval, because all one needs to do is to seek

Column: 1370

approval from the licensing officer. The licensing officer will give the permission as quickly as possible, if there is a legitimate interest to do so. The licensing officer will therefore have cognisance of it and that if there is going to be any trip up, then the case is already known to the licensing officer and the Police. Otherwise, there could be a lot of problems. I have known of cases, not of a Government leader or whatever, but some other establishments engaging private investigators doing surveillance on others, and that has come to the Police's notice because some members of the public reported it to the Police who have to spend resources to look into the matter. Then we found that there was a reason why that particular surveillance was done. That is the main reason why this is done. It is not to screen off the political leaders from surveillance by people. Singapore Ministers are all open and they go to the constituencies and attend functions. Of course, people do observe. But if one has a specific assignment to go and "case" a Minister, then there must be a reason why he wants to do that. And if the reason is legitimate, there is no reason why the approval will not be given.

I will come back to Dr Teo Ho Pin's point about ensuring compliance. Indeed, the licensing officer, the SIRD, will have audit checks on the security guard agencies to ensure that they do the job well. And if they do not do the job well, then there is a demerit point system where they will be graded. If they do not pay CPF, for example - and this is also Ms Irene Ng's question - that will also count towards the grading system. And if the breach is serious, then the licence may be withdrawn. So there is indeed a serious business implication for companies that do not comply with the licensing conditions or the provisions in the Act.

Sir, I have dealt with most of the issues.

Column: 1371

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for clarifying my question on clause 11. One point which he did not touch on is my point concerning the approval channels that the Police would need to use. Will they be consulting people outside the police organisation as such? Secondly, there was also the point on the amendment to the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which appears to now envisage that certain private security personnel will be allowed to carry truncheons and handcuffs. I have some concerns there because they only have citizen's powers and they are not as well trained as the police or auxiliary police. Are we running the risk of excessive force being used on the public?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I think there are certain categories who may be allowed to carry truncheons and handcuffs. Because it is not just security guards or private investigators or whichever category who are currently licensed to do so under this particular Act. There could be others who were given permission under other legislation. And that is why that particular provision is moved to the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

Every day, every month, we do see people bringing in such items from overseas, and it keeps our ICA very busy because as part of the security screening, ICA has to make sure that contrabands such as these are not brought in by unlicensed people. So, anyone who is caught carrying such items will be committing an offence and, therefore, he will be dealt with under the Miscellaneous Offences Act, rather than under the Private Security Industry Act.

On approval channels, the

Column: 1372

licensing officer will have to decide on his own. He does not have to tell me. Why do I need to know what particular jobs individual investigators are being assigned? The licensing officer will decide on his own. It is only when the licensing officer decides that approval is not given to a particular agency or guard, then an appeal comes up. And the person being denied a permit or a licence can make an appeal to the Minister, and only then will the Ministry be informed.

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 Wong Kan Seng].

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