ALMOST half of the security companies in Singapore chose not to take part in an annual audit conducted by the police which grades them according to their operations, leadership and other criteria.
Of the 262 private security agencies operating here now, 120 were ungraded.
In last year's audit, 86 out of 270 agencies decided not to take part.
But among those agencies which did participate in the voluntary survey this year, more appear to be faring better.
Twenty-seven agencies obtained the top grade of A compared to just 19 last year. This included local security giant Certis Cisco, which moved up a notch after previously scoring B for the past two years.
There were also fewer agencies which got the worst grade of D - 11 this year, compared to 31 the year before.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam, who is also Second Minister for Home Affairs, said at yesterday's opening of the World Security Forum at the Singapore Management University that the scores were a marked improvement from last year's results. This, he said, was a good testimony to the rising standards of security agencies here.
More security officers are also going for training under the Security Workforce Skills Qualifications programme launched last year and run by several organisations, including government agencies and security industry practitioners. On average, over 1,600 people attend classes every month.
The annual audit, which has been in place since 2006, scrutinises a firm's operations, management and manpower quality, among other criteria.
The evaluation is done by the police's Security Industry Regulatory Department (SIRD) and is meant to provide an independent assessment of the agencies to raise overall safety and security levels.
For now, the assessment is voluntary, although being graded gives firms more credibility with their clients. In a statement, the police said a number of agencies that did not take part in the grading were new firms or small outfits with a 'very low clientele base'. Six of them were new agencies.
Those who knew they were going to fare badly might have also opted out, said industry players.
The SIRD is looking at making the grading exercise compulsory in the future.
Non-participating firms like Combat Investigations & Security said their clientele already knew their quality. 'That's why the grading doesn't affect us. They (clients) just want cheap and good service,' said its director Matthew Ng, whose firm has about 50 officers on the payroll.
Other firms cited cost as a barrier in upgrading themselves.
But Mr James Aruldoss, president of the Association of Certified Security Agencies, said the audit should be mandatory for all firms 'big or small'.
He said: 'You can spend little money and still run a smooth operation...It's about putting in a proper structure.'
Mr Anthony Lee, honorary chairman of security practitioners' society ASIS Singapore, said the audit was useful in helping customers make informed decisions.
Better grades have also spun off more business for suppliers of security officers.
Mr Alvin Lee, managing director of Reachfield Security, said: 'As an A-grader, you really get more invitations than what you can cope with.'
The latest report card was an 'encouraging sign that standards are rising in the security industry', said Superintendent Gwee Aik Chiong, the SIRD's assistant director of policy and development.
The remaining 58 firms scored Bs, while 46 others attained Cs, which stand for 'satisfactory' performance.
This article was first published in The Straits Times on October 08, 2008.
