PRIVATE INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.02 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, since 1969 there has been a sharp increase in the number of private investigation and security guard agencies. There are at present some 80 such agencies registered in the Registries of Business Names and Companies. Their activities cover a wide area and include, inter alia: -

(a) the provision of guards for buildings, hotels, warehouses, factories, shopping complexes and ships;

(b) the provision of body-guards for wealthy businessmen;

(c) enquiries in connection with divorce and other matrimonial proceedings;

(d) investigation of claims made under insurance policies;

(e) investigation of trade-mark infringements;

(f) assisting firms, banks and business houses in enquiries of a commercial nature, e.g, enquiries relating to credit status and character of clients; and

(g) assisting finance companies, moneylenders and chit fund companies to trace debtors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proliferation of these agencies in recent years reflects an increasing demand for their services. This has been brought about by the rapid expansion in the commercial and industrial sectors of our Republic.

Existing legal controls over such agencies are minimal. Any person desirous of opening an agency has merely to register it with the Registrar of Business Names, paying a fee of $10, with no questions asked. Thereafter he is free to conduct his business in whatever way he thinks fit and he may employ (as an investigator or as a security guard) any person he wishes to employ.

Whilst private investigation and security guard agencies can provide legitimate and valuable services to the public, the lack of proper control of such agencies has culminated in an undesirable state of affairs. Police records show that quite a number of individuals who operate these agencies are of dubious character. They include ex-police personnel with CPIB records and persons with a criminal background. Employees of some of these agencies are unreliable and quite a number of them have criminal records. Further, a number of these agencies are no better than organisations of toughs using strong-arm tactics for debt collection.

Over the last two years there have been 11 criminal cases involving employees of some of these agencies. The seriousness of the situation can be gauged from the following examples:-

(1) On 31st March, 1971, 890 lbs of copper wire valued at $2,500 were stolen from an electrical firm at Jalan Besi. Police investigations revealed that two security guards employed to guard the firm were responsible for the theft. Subsequently one of them was charged in court and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment,

(2) On 13th January, 1972 a Police ambush party apprehended three security guards in the act of stealing $225,128 worth of machinery from a firm in Jurong, at which they were employed. They were convicted of housebreaking and theft and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from two to three years,

(3) On 26th April, 1972 an off-duty Police Inspector and his male cousin were assaulted by a uniformed security guard at a shopping complex, following an argument over the question of collecting a car from the complex's car park which was closed. The guard used his truncheon and inflicted physical injury resulting in a fracture on one of the two complainants. He was subsequently convicted of causing grievous hurt and causing hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty, and was sentenced to nine months' and three months' imprisonment respectively,

(4) On 5th November, 1972, two security guards (house detectives) and a supervisor employed at a leading hotel accosted three dance hostesses at the hotel, forced them to strip and used criminal force on them. The two security guards were recently convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment and $500 fine respectively.

When a member of the public hires the services of a private investigation or security guard agency, his relationship with the agency is one of trust. He expects the agency and its employees to conscientiously and honestly render the services he requires. As the matter stands today, quite often it is the agency's employees who steal the property of the client whom they are supposed to guard. Hence, the need for control.

This Bill seeks to regulate and control the activities of persons who carry on the business of a private investigator or of a security guard agency and to provide for the licensing thereof.

Clause 5 stipulates that after the expiry of two months from the commencement of the Act, no person shall carry on the business of or act as a private investigator unless he is the holder of a private investigator's licence issued under the Act. Similarly, clause 6 provides that, after the expiration of two months from the commencement of the Act, no person shall carry on the business of a security guard agency unless he is the holder of a security guard agency's licence issued under the Act. The terms private investigator' and security guard' are defined in clause 2.

Clause 3 stipulates that members of the Singapore Police Force and of the Singapore Armed Forces, officers or employees of the Government and officers or employees of any Auxiliary Police Force duly created under the provisions of the Police Force Act shall not require a licence under the Act for the exercise of their official functions. It also stipulates that certain other categories of persons who carry on work similar to that of a private investigator are exempted from the requirement of a private investigator's licence.

Clause 4 provides that the Minister may appoint a public servant to be the licensing officer who shall be responsible generally for carrying out the provisions of the Act. There are provisions in the Bill which deal with the procedure for the application of a licence, the fees to be paid, and the revocation of a licence. The licensing officer shall refuse to grant a private investigator's licence or a security guard agency's licence for any one of the grounds listed in clause 7, namely, if: -

`(a) satisfactory evidence has not been produced of the good name and character of the applicant or, if the applicant is a company, of its officers holding a managerial or an executive position;

(b) satisfactory evidence has not been produced to show that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence;

(c) the applicant has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or moral turpitude or, if the applicant is a company, any of its officers holding a managerial or an executive position has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or moral turpitude; or

(d) he [that is, the licensing officer] considers it in the public interest to refuse a licence.'

The Bill also provides for control over the persons who may be employed by a licensee. Clause 12 prohibits the holder of a private investigator's licence from employing any person who has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or moral turpitude or who is, in the opinion of the licensing officer, not a fit and proper person to be employed to assist in the work of a private investigator. Clause 13 contains the same prohibition in respect of the employees of a holder of a security guard agency's licence. Further, clause 14 stipulates that no person is to be employed in the business of a private investigator or of a security guard agency unless his particulars are first submitted to the licensing officer. These employees are to be issued with identification papers by their respective employers.

Effective control over the type of weapons or equipment that employees of private investigation or security guard agencies may use is provided by clause 18. This clause prohibits a person from carrying in a public place any truncheon, handcuffs or such other weapon or equipment as the Minister may from time to time specify in a Gazette notification, unless he has lawful authority to do so. The licensing officer is conferred the power to exempt any person or class of persons from the provisions of clause 18.

The Bill confers upon the licensing officer and upon any police officer duly authorised by the licensing officer the powers to search premises, to arrest persons and to carry out investigations into offences under the Act.

The Minister is empowered by clause 27 to make regulations generally for carrying out the provisions of the Act. There is transitional provision in the Bill to deal with those persons who are employed in the business of a private investigator or of a security guard agency before the enactment of the Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 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 Chua Sian Chin.]

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