SINGAPORE – It would be “very useful” for the law to provide for heavier penalties against those who abuse private security officers, said security industry associations, in the wake of an officer being assaulted by a man at the Roxy Square car park.

In a joint statement on Thursday (April 11), the Security Association Singapore (SAS) and the Association of Certified Security Agencies (ACSA) as well as training provider Leacov School of Security made this call as they pledged to look into “all ways” to ensure security officers are able to keep themselves safe.

“To underscore the authority of our officers and the respect that is due to their work, and also to keep them safe, it would be very useful to provide for heavier penalties for abusers and stronger protection in law,” they added.

The statement was prompted by an incident on April 4 where a man was caught on camera punching a 60-year-old security supervisor at Roxy Square, allegedly over a dispute about directions out of the building.

The incident, which the police have classified as a case of voluntarily causing hurt, left the supervisor Andrew Lim with a swollen eye, a sprained neck and broken glasses. The 47-year-old man is assisting with police investigations.

Amid the public reaction, some have asked whether private security guards should be armed for self-defence purposes.

Seeking to “encourage a national conversation” on the issues raised by the incident, the joint statement said that while it is logical to feel that officers should be equipped to protect themselves, doing so comes with its risks.

“Such protective tools as the public has suggested – which include batons, pepper spray, tasers – are actually strictly controlled or prohibited in Singapore,” the groups added.

“Furthermore, even if security officers were allowed to use such tools to protect themselves, this does not come without personal and legal risk to them.”

They said private security officers are not protected from litigation or prosecution in the discharge of their duties, and in the heat of the moment, officers may leave themselves open to legal liability.

“To protect them from retaliatory litigation, security officers are trained not to make any physical or violent moves themselves, but to ensure that their actions are witnessed or recorded, and to escalate the case where necessary,” said the statement.

Under the current security training framework, officers are trained to handle situations involving disorderly conduct.

The statement added that Mr Lim had followed his training and upheld his conduct and professionalism even in the face of “grave provocation”.

While the industry can train and prepare officers to handle such situations, there should be more legal protection to reduce the personal need for officers to defend themselves, said SAS, ACSA and Leacov School.

The SAS has about 160 member agencies while the ACSA has about 120 members.

The groups pointed out that under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), only officers working in public places are recognised as “public service workers” and given extra protection, while those in non-public sites are only given “ordinary protection”.

Under the POHA, threatening, abusing or insulting a public servant or public service worker is punishable with up to 12 months’ jail and a $5,000 fine.

The Penal Code also sets out harsher punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from their duties, carrying a maximum punishment of seven years’ jail and fine and caning.

Meanwhile, the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a non-public servant carries a maximum sentence of two years’ jail and a $5,000 fine.

The statement added: “Currently, although our officers play an important role in Singapore’s security, they are not accorded a status in law that sufficiently recognises their importance.”

It also pointed out that the law seems to consider security officers as playing such an important role that their behaviour is specially regulated by a code of conduct backed by criminal penalties.

Under amendments to the code implemented since January, officers who sleep on the job, come to work drunk or display other errant behaviour can be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.

These offences may also be compounded by a fine, in lieu of prosecution.

The statement added: “Yet it does not accord them the corresponding protection and status in law to empower them to perform their job without fear or favour wherever they are.”

It also pointed out that private security officers provide an important public service as a crucial link in the SGSecure national movement to prepare citizens against terror attacks.

But security officers are often underappreciated and not respected, even by the very people they are keeping safe, said the statement.

“While we can prepare and train our officers to handle such situations, there should also be more protection and support for security officers through the law, to reduce their personal need to defend themselves,” the statement added.

“The ideal situation would be one where people are deterred from abusing officers in the first place.”

Source: Read Full Article