In a tender for security officers at a condominium at Hillview has been accused of racial discriminatory hiring practices.
Their tender requirements stated that they will be needed to pay compensation if the security firm failed to provide a Chinese Speaking guard.
Here is the full post:
Potentially Discriminatory Stipulations by Managing Agents and Buyers of Security Services
SAS has had sight of a Tender Document put out by managing agent (“MA”) Savills Property Management Pte Ltd on really.sg for the provision of condominium security services at Hillview Heights that contain the following “Penalty Rates”:
“(19) Failure to provide Chinese speaking guard for more than six shifts per month (dialect acceptable) – Warning Letter and DEDUCTION (Deduction will be imposed for the 1st six shifts too if exceeded six shifts per month) – $100.00 per shift
(20) (sic) Deployment of guards outside the age limit of 21 years old to 60 years old without the prior approval of the management – DEDUCTION – S$100.00 per occurrence”
These are amidst other clauses of concern to SAS, but SAS is highlighting these particular clauses because they appear to penalise security agencies unless they exercise discrimination in their hiring and deployment of security officers.
In clause (19), Savills has stipulated that the agency will be penalised unless it deploys an officer who can speak Chinese or “any dialect”. As we all know, Mandarin and the dialects are not mutually translatable – so what exactly is the job requirement here that Savills is looking for? Furthermore, for a Singapore condominium, is it a reasonable requirement for a Chinese speaking officer to be deployed at all times? It appears that the intention is for an ethnically Chinese officer to be deployed on a frequent basis at the condominium. This would be race discrimination.
As regard clause (20), this appears to be age discrimination, especially because there is nothing in the Tender Document that indicates on what basis the management would give or withhold its “approval”. It appears there is just an intention for older workers not to be deployed at the site.
We welcome Savill’s clarification on the above clauses.
SAS will raise this with TAFEP Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices and Singapore Ministry of Manpower, but we are also well aware that there may not be much they can do, because the fair employment guidelines apply only to employers. In this regard, MAs like Savills and service buyers like Hillview Heights may be able to get away with forcing service providers like security agencies to carry out discriminatory practices. In fact, SAS had raised this gap in the law with MOM last year and urged that the guidelines be extended to buyers of outsourced services as well.
SAS has been reaching out to MAs and security buyers to assist them in crafting outsourced services contracts that are in line with TAFEP guidelines and fair to our workers. We will continue to monitor tenders and contracts put out by MAs and buyers for clauses that are discriminatory.
Members of the public are encouraged to whistleblow unfair practices to MOM, TAFEP, USE or to SAS at [email protected].