Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

MP calls for tougher penalties for those who harass private security officers, cleaners, waste collectors

SINGAPORE — A Member of Parliament (MP) has called for cleaners, waste collectors, as well as private security officers to be covered as public service workers under the Protection from Harassment Act.

A cleaner mops the floor of an empty hall at a convention centre in Singapore.

A cleaner mops the floor of an empty hall at a convention centre in Singapore.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — A Member of Parliament (MP) has called for cleaners, waste collectors, as well as private security officers to be covered as public service workers under the Protection from Harassment Act.

Mr Patrick Tay, MP for West Coast Group Representation Constituency, is lobbying for the definition of public service workers to be expanded to include this group of “vulnerable workers” who work in areas accessible to the public, such as shopping malls.

If allowed, this means that those who threaten, abuse or insult these workers can get stiffer punishment should they be convicted. The penalty is tougher than that for offenders harassing victims who are other members of the public, which is a maximum fine of S$5,000, or up to six months in jail, or both.

For offenders who threaten, abuse or insult public service workers — defined as those who “(perform) administrative, security, cleaning or operations services” in public institutions such as schools, public transport networks and public healthcare institutions — they can be fined up to $5,000, or jailed up to 12 months, or both.

The law also specifies that a cleaner carrying out cleaning work in a public place or a public market can be considered a public service worker.

Mr Tay tabled two questions in Parliament on Monday (Nov 19) for the Home Affairs Ministry, urging it to consider other workers who are, for example, “performing services which are essential to the well-being of the public… (and) are vulnerable to harassment and abuse in the course of their work”.

However, in a written reply to Mr Tay’s suggestion, Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that “there are sufficient protections under (the Act) for everyone”, and public service workers have to serve the wider public on their jobs, not just patrons of private establishments.

Mr Tay told TODAY that his proposal stemmed from feedback given by private security officers, among others.

He said that some of these employees work in “places that are not (listed as) public sector areas, but are private premises with public access”.

Some examples are shopping malls with “porous access”, or condominiums, where security officers may interact with members of the public just outside the vicinity.

Given that these workers have interactions with the public, Mr Tay had hoped that a “stronger deterrent” message could be sent to would-be offenders that they could face harsher punishments.

Mr Tay had spoken about the need to include this group of workers as public service workers when the Protection from Harassment Bill was debated in the House about four years ago. He added that he will continue to speak up on the matter. 

Mr Surjeet Singh, who has been a security officer for 20 years, supported Mr Tay’s proposal.

The 58-year-old told TODAY that he knew of former colleagues who “left this industry” because “they could not take the frustration of (always being) harassed”.

He believes that a law protecting people in his line of work will be a “deterrent” to those who might be inclined to harass others.

Mr Singh has been called names such as “dog” and “idiot” when he is on the job and trying to get people to comply with the rules of the premises he guards.

Cleaning supervisor Loke Yoke Chee, 60, has been on the job for 20 years and has not been harassed before, but he said that such a move will help “better protect” workers such as himself.

In his reply to Mr Tay, Mr Shanmugam said that the ministry generally considers individuals as public service workers for the purpose of extra protection under the Protection from Harassment Act if their jobs serve the general public, and not just patrons of a private business or establishment.

“For example, cleaners in public hospitals and security guards at bus interchanges would be considered as public service workers. On the other hand, cleaners in private hospitals and security guards in commercial buildings would not be considered as public service workers,” he added.

Related topics

harassment security guard cleaners

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.