Educational or insulting? Security association and union in spat over SGAG video

One is an organisation representing the security services industry, the other is a union for security workers.

Both parties are now in a war of words over a video produced with the intention of educating security officers to report non-compliance of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM).

The model aims to help raise the income of lower-wage workers, including security officers, by developing a clear career pathway for them, alongside training and improving their productivity. 

The video, commissioned by the Union of Security Employees (USE), is produced by local content producer SGAG and was uploaded on the latter's Instagram page on April 25.

But the Security Association Singapore (SAS) has taken offence at how security officers are portrayed in the clip.

It shows a skit where two security officers are being briefed by their superior and ask several silly questions, including whether they can get guns to shoot terrorists and when to go for toilet breaks. 

[embed]https://www.instagram.com/p/C6JU4lpOTYY/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again[/embed]

On May 2, SAS released a statement, attributed to executive director Jourdan Sabapathy, to express their disapproval of the video. It also asked that the video be taken down. 

While they recognised that the skit is supposed to be satirical, SAS argued that such videos "take on a different character" when they are supported by tripartite partners. USE is an affiliate of the National Trades Union Congress. 

SAS said it objected to the portrayal of security guards as "buffoons" incapable of carrying out basic functions, pointing out that the association and the tripartite partners have worked hard to improve the image of security officers. 

It also took issue with how the security officers in the video are being yelled at by the superior. "Abuse continues to be a big issue in the security industry and should not be trivialised nor normalised," said SAS.

Certain phrases such as "tekan" (Singlish for pressurising) and "security officers must do (overtime of) over 100 hours" were deemed inappropriate by the association, as they promote an adversarial approach against employers. 

"Security officers were able to work such overtime hours only because MOM had, at that time, issued overtime exemptions to security agencies.

"These exemptions allowed agencies to employ officers for overtime that could exceed 100 hours," said SAS, who added that employers were merely hiring in accordance with MOM's parameters.

Although the association acknowledged that the video was meant to draw attention to poor employment practices adopted by a small number of security agencies, it felt there were other correct ways to do this.

"It is SAS' view that the SGAG video is not the correct way to raise or address such issues. In fact, whatever message was intended to be conveyed appears lost amidst the tomfoolery of the characters." 

SAS complaints are a 'red herring': USE

Responding to SAS' statement, USE said the association's complaints were a "red herring" that took the attention away from the video's message. 

"We have always applied a light touch with content creators as we believe they know their audiences well and thus know how best to help get our messages across," said the statement, which is signed by USE president Ardi Amir, general secretary Raymond Chin and executive secretary Steve Tan. 

USE noted that this is their second time collaborating with SGAG and SAS did not have an issue with the previous video. 

"We believe the key issue lies in the messages we were trying to get out to our security officers — to report non-compliance of the PWM. We believe that struck a nerve amongst some within the SAS [executive council]."  

USE also explained that the overtime exemption was an option for companies to exercise in the case of exigencies but eventually became a norm in the security industry, where officers would work beyond the 72 hours of overtime allowed in the Employment Act. 

"To claim that because MOM approved the [overtime exemption] and hence agencies were merely hiring in accordance to the parameters provided by MOM is disingenuous," they said. 

The exemption was removed in January 2021.

SAS later responded to USE's statement saying that it did not deal with the matter at hand, but addressed other issues that are not related to the SGAG video. 

In response to AsiaOne's queries on Friday, SAS's Sabapathy said it has been in contact with the tripartite partners: "We are discussing a way to move forward."

ALSO READ: Accusations and abuse part of the job for many security officers in Singapore

[email protected]