Proposal to train security staff as fire safety managers not based on facts

I refer to the letter “Train security personnel as fire safety managers for industrial buildings” (June 18).

The writer claimed that outsourced fire safety managers usually manage several properties, with the likelihood that they are too busy and hence are “unable to ensure that equal time for fire safety/hazards inspections is given to all their clients”.

This is a common misconception among those unfamiliar with the industry. Fire safety managers are allowed to register themselves only for one building at any one time, as stated in the Fire Safety Act and endorsed by the Singapore Civil Defence Force.

The letter mentioned also that outsourced fire safety duties can cost managing agents about S$1,000 to S$2,000 a month. This paints a rosy picture and gives people the impression that the fees are lucrative and paid directly to the fire safety manager.

From my observations and experiences gleaned from more than a decade in this industry, the monthly fees paid by building owners and managing agents normally range between S$500 and S$800.

Fire safety managers who assume the concurrent role of building executive, especially those whose employers are building developers, are paid only a monthly sum of approximately S$300 on top of their gross salary as a building executive.

This amount is for fire safety services rendered and is reimbursed by the employer. The fire safety portfolio is merely an additional one for the building executive. The aforementioned market remuneration has remained much the same over the years.

Since 1989, the Civil Defence Academy and the relevant educational institutions have produced many fire safety managers. In recent years, the market has been flooded with too many of them, fighting for limited building assignments.

The suggestion to rope in security personnel to become fire safety managers would create fiercer competition for assignments. It is highly improbable that this would result in any win-win situation for all parties as the writer intended.

I am baffled and alarmed as to how he had drawn his conclusions, which do not align with the real situation here.