Tuesday, 24 June 2008

Good ST letter: Effective security system must achieve 3 objectives

Effective security system must achieve 3 objectives

I AM saddened that our Home Team suffered some setbacks with one successful escape and an attempted one within four months of each other. I hope Mas Selamat Kastari, who remains at large, will be recaptured soon.

As a security consultant, I would like to suggest the following pointers to enhance police security systems.

For a security protective system to be effective, it must achieve three security objectives.

First, any security detail should adopt a high-visibility profile that will deter anyone from even considering an escape attempt.

In 1995, a dangerous serial murderer, a foreigner, was charged with killing a tourist in Singapore. Each time he was taken from his cell to court, he was escorted by a special police detail in full tactical gear.

The accused knew very well he would be hanged if found guilty here, so someone at police headquarters obviously did a great job to ensure an escape opportunity did not present itself and it never did.

Second, security must be layered so that, if one layer is circumvented, the culprit will still be trapped or slowed down by other.

To achieve that, each layer should be designed as a stand-alone unit that does not depend on other component units up or down the line.

Third, there needs to be an on-site response force trained to be deployed at short notice to intervene and halt an escape attempt with-in a timeline before the final security layer can be breached.

Since a mentally disturbed man fired an AK-47 assault rifle at the White House in Washington some years ago, the United States Secret Service now has the capability to deploy a response force to ring the entire complex in minutes.

Yearly security audits conducted by an external agency are essential for they bring with them the latest in security expertise and technology.

Security auditors are very effective at gauging system integrity, such as personnel, equipment and procedures, but they are not good at vetting procedural compliance or detecting erosion and decay of procedural discipline.

These tasks are best assigned to those in supervisory positions with responsibility and authority to take corrective action on the ground.

Jimmy Seah

No comments: