BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL

BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.08 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Background

Madam, the Bill aims to strengthen the building control regulatory framework to uplift the professionalism, standards of safety and quality in the construction industry.

The construction industry plays a vital role in shaping and developing Singapore into a distinctive global city. It ensures that our built environment is safe, of high quality and also environmentally sustainable. It is also an important sector of our economy, constituting about 4% of our GDP.

Column: 2054

Going forward, the sector is expected to expand strongly, with construction demand projected to reach between $19 billion and $22 billion this year. It is hence important to make sure the construction industry remains strong and professional.

By its very nature, any construction incident can potentially cause loss of lives and considerable damage to properties. The Nicoll Highway collapse in 2004 was a wake-up call for the construction industry. The observation that the incident could have been avoided was most regretful. Following the incident, MND and MOM set up the Joint Review Committee on Construction Safety, or JRC, to systematically examine the regulatory framework at various stages of the construction process, including the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders.

Building Control (Amendment) Bill

This Bill will put in place various measures recommended by the JRC to enhance professionalism and safety standards in the construction industry. These include the regulation of underground building works, provision of adequate site supervision, ensuring independence of parties in a construction project, licensing of builders and raising of penalties for non-compliance.

The Bill also incorporates amendments to set minimum standards of environmental sustainability for buildings as well as to require compliance with the performance requirements in the Building Control Regulations, in particular, the provisions for disability access.

Over the past two years, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has consulted the industry stakeholders extensively on the measures to be introduced. A public consultation exercise

Column: 2055

was also conducted. The feedback has been considered, and some suggestions have been incorporated into the Bill or will be taken up when drafting the relevant subsidiary legislation.

Madam, let me now explain the key amendments of the Bill.

Repeal and re-enactment of Part II

Many of the amendments are related to Part II of the Act,

which covers the "control of building works". We have reorganised it into seven divisions to cover the following changes.

_Regulating of underground building works
_

First, the Bill will require formal and more stringent regulation of major underground building works as these works have significant safety impact. In particular, temporary earth-retaining structures (TERS) will be treated like permanent works. TERS are structures used in excavations to support the earth while permanent structures are being constructed. These are the structures that failed in the Nicoll Highway incident. Currently, unlike permanent works, TERS are only regulated through conditions imposed in the permit to commence structural works.

The design and construction of TERS can be very complex due to variable ground conditions and the density of our built-up area. They deserve greater attention and scrutiny in the building regulatory process. The Bill will subject the design and construction of TERS to greater rigour of control. The design of TERS will need to be done by a Professional Engineer (PE) and reviewed by an Accredited Checker (AC). A PE will also be required to supervise its construction. In addition, PEs and ACs who are specialists in geotechnical

Column: 2056

engineering must prepare the geotechnical aspects of TERS in deep excavation works, which are defined as excavation going deeper than six metres.

The requirement for inputs by geotechnical specialists will also apply to other major geotechnical works, such as tunnels greater than two metres in diameter, underground structures deeper than six metres, and complex foundations of tall buildings. Like TERS in deep excavations, these works involve great complexity in geotechnical engineering and have considerable safety impact.

_Duties and independence of project parties
_

The Bill has also reviewed the roles and responsibilities of various key stakeholders involved in construction projects, given that they play a critical part in ensuring safety at various stages of construction. Division 4 of Part II spells out the duties of the developers, Qualified Persons (QPs), site supervisors and builders as well as the requirements to enhance the independence among the various project parties.

Provision of adequate site supervision

Currently, the QP is obliged to appoint at least one qualified site supervisor, regardless of the size or complexity of a development, whilst the builder is not required to do so. The amendment will require both the QPs and builders to provide adequate site supervision to ensure that building works are carried out properly and safely.

The minimum composition of the QP's supervision team will vary according to the value of the project, which is correlated to the scale and complexity of the project. In addition, site supervisors will have to be accredited by BCA or a specified professional body. Site supervisors will need to go for continuous

Column: 2057

vocational training, to ensure that they remain competent and keep abreast of new technical requirements and skills.

Independence of project parties

Madam, the Committee of Inquiry (COI) for the Nicoll Highway incident had highlighted that the relationships between some project parties could potentially give rise to conflict of interests. The Bill will address this concern. It will specify the circumstances under which certain project parties should not be associated with one another.

Firstly, for major construction works, the Bill will require that the QP who supervises the structural works and his supervision team shall not be associated with the developer.

Secondly, the instrumentation specialist shall not be associated with the builder and will have to be appointed by the developer.

Lastly, the existing provisions requiring the AC to be independent of the builder will be extended to the geotechnical specialist AC.

I would like to stress that these provisions are not meant to replace the ethical codes of the various professional boards. They are meant to prevent situations where the professionals are placed in a position of conflict of interests, as this could lead to construction safety being compromised.

New Part VA on licensing of builders

Sir, the builders are key players in ensuring construction and building safety. Clause 9 of the Bill has added a new Part VA to put in place a licensing scheme to set minimum standards of professionalism for builders. We will license general builders and specialist builders engaged in six categories of specialist building works.

Column: 2058

To be licensed, firms must be financially sound and have good safety records as well. They must also appoint key personnel with suitable qualifications and experience to be responsible for managing the firm and supervising the execution of construction works.

The proposed licensing scheme will ensure that our builders are professionally qualified and competent. It will also spur firms to upgrade themselves and, as a result of that, raise the overall competency of the industry.

There will be two classes of licence for the general builders. A licensed Class 1 general builder will be allowed to participate in all projects, while a licensed Class 2 general builder is restricted to projects of value not more than $3 million.

For specialist builders, there will be different types of licence, each authorising a specific area of specialist building works to be carried out as a business. These include specialist works in piling, ground support and stabilisation, site investigation, structural steel, pre-cast concrete and on-site post-tensioning.
The intention is to ensure that only competent licensees are allowed to execute these specialist works, given the inherently high risks associated with such works. A general builder's licence or a specialist builder's licence will be valid for up to three years and is renewable.

Conditions on construction personnel

Madam, consistent with the objective to produce professional builders, we aim to develop a progressive workforce that is anchored by a stable core of skilled construction personnel. As a licensing condition, Class 1 general builders will be required to deploy a minimum number and composition of registered Trade Foremen and Tradesmen in selective key construction trades for projects of value

Column: 2059

$10 million or more. The detailed requirements will be prescribed in the Regulations.

Revocation of licence

The Bill also sets out the circumstances under which the Commissioner of Building Control can revoke a builder's licence. The Commissioner must however give the builder an opportunity to be heard before revoking the licence. The Bill will also allow the Commissioner to consider less severe actions, such as a suspension or a fine, in place of revocation. In addition, there will be a provision for appeal to the Minister. To prepare the industry, a six-month grace period will be granted for general builders and specialist builders to apply for a licence after the relevant part of this Bill comes into force.

Revised penalties for non-compliance

The COI for the Nicoll Highway incident had also commented that "Accidents can be prevented through higher penalties for poor safety management".

In moving the Workplace Safety and Health Bill last year, the Minister for Manpower has asserted the need to ensure that penalties for non-compliance are set at a high enough level to reflect the true cost of poor safety management. This Bill will align the penalties for offences under the Building Control Act with those for offences of similar severity under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA).

The Bill also introduces an amendment concerning continuing offences. It makes clear that where it is an offence if any act or thing is not done by a particular time, the obligation to do so will continue, even after the stipulated time has passed. In

Column: 2060

this regard, the person shall be guilty of a separate offence for each day that he continues to refuse or fail to do that act or thing after the stipulated time.

_Standards on environmental sustainability
_

Madam, I shall now move on to the relevant sections of the Bill which support our emphasis on sustainable development. Clause 15 of the Bill will empower the Minister to make regulations on minimum standards of environmental sustainability for new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major retrofitting works. While a green building is likely to involve higher development cost, on a life-cycle basis, the savings gained from operating a green building will more than offset the higher upfront cost. With widespread adoption of green building technologies, the upfront cost will also decline. With the new provisions, we hope to see more environmentally-friendly buildings with greater energy and water efficiency, and constructed using sustainable methods and materials.

The recent disruptions of sand and granite supplies from Indonesia are useful reminders of the need to embrace sustainable construction. Sustainable construction involves the use of materials that are recyclable, reusable and readily available from many sources. It will help to reduce our reliance on concrete and, hence, materials like sand and granite.

_New Part IIIA on continued compliance with performance requirements
_

Presently, there are cases where provisions for disability access in completed buildings are being frustrated by irresponsible owners or occupiers. To address this problem, we have added a new Part IIIA to require building owners or occupiers to ensure that physical features provided to facilitate mobility are not altered, removed or obstructed. This is necessary to meet the needs of our

Column: 2061

rapidly ageing population and to make Singapore an inclusive society.

The Bill will also have provisions to deal with similar problems where other performance requirements in a completed building are subsequently negated in the course of occupation and use.

_Other amendments
_

Madam, we have also taken the opportunity to make other amendments to improve some of the existing provisions in the Act. I will now highlight the more important ones.

_Dangerous buildings and occurrences
_

Firstly, there is a new provision in Part IV to allow the Commissioner to order an inspection of any building in close proximity with dangerous building works. The current law only limits the order for inspection to the adjacent buildings. In addition, the Commissioner is empowered to issue an occupancy order to direct the owner or occupier of the dangerous building to restrict the number of people allowed in the building at any time or until the Commissioner is satisfied that any inspection or remedial works that he ordered are completed.

_Disciplinary procedures governing ACs
_

We are also strengthening the disciplinary procedures governing the ACs. The Bill allows the Commissioner to appoint a lawyer to help him in an inquiry against any AC, specialist geotechnical AC or AC Organisation, and to recover the costs and expenses incurred in conducting such an inquiry, up to a maximum of $10,000, from the ACs or AC Organisation. This is similar to the provisions for disciplinary inquiries in the Professional Engineers Act and the Architects Act.

Column: 2062

_Notification of any contravention
_

Currently, the Act imposes a duty on the QP and builder to notify the Commissioner of Building Control of any contravention of the Act or Regulations relating to their project that they know or ought reasonably to know. This duty will be extended to the developer, who is also a key party to the project.

Conclusion

Mdm Deputy Speaker, building safety cannot be left to chance, and complacency has no place in any construction project. Utmost attention must be paid to enhance the professionalism and safety standards of the industry.

In amending the Building Control Act, we are mindful that the measures to be introduced must be practical and not add undue regulatory burden and cost. BCA has also consulted the industry widely on the proposed measures in this Bill. There was general agreement that these measures would help to enhance safety standards and that the cost increase would not be significant. I also want to make the point that the cost of not taking active measures to uplift the safety and professional standards in the construction industry is potentially much higher.

This Bill will put in place an enhanced building control framework to help industry stakeholders move towards higher standards in safety, quality and professionalism.

Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.27 pm

Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, to begin with, I will declare my interest as a passionate practising Professional Engineer. In the

Column: 2063

last few days, some of you asked me what is this "Er" that is being added to my name. "Er" actually stands for Professional Engineer, not because I have a new husband.

Singapore's amazing journey from a Third World country to a developed nation in a short period of 42 years is a miracle to many. Without natural resources, its success can be attributed to the skills, dedication and commitment of our local engineers. They have made it possible to house the entire nation, to have a dynamic CBD skyline, a seamless road network, efficient airport and seaport, to name a few, making Singapore one of the greatest cities in the world to live in. Our local engineers are the enablers and providers of infrastructure, which is the basic drive for economic growth.

The construction industry has been put in the spotlight in recent times, and all for the right reasons. When I say this, I am referring to the number of new construction contracts being awarded - and that means jobs for construction companies as well as related professional companies in industries such as architecture and engineering. Building construction is constantly evolving as well, and buildings are soaring to new heights. This factor, combined with the increased complexity in modern designs, demands more from professionals involved in their planning, design as well as construction.

Being a professional

Before I go any further, I think that it would be appropriate that I give a quick summary of defining the characteristics of a professional. Professionals are people who have to undergo specialised learning and training with some depth in their field. They have acquired knowledge which has been accumulated over the years of their

Column: 2064

working life. As professionals, they are required to maintain a high standard in the execution of their responsibilities because the lives, welfare and well-being of others depend on it. The professional is thus expected to make sound and reasonable judgments in matters of importance, and on issues of uncertainty.

Professionals thus have an obligation to serve the community with the high standards expected of them, and they are expected to fulfil their responsibilities by working out solutions that place the interests of the community above all else, including their own. Accordingly, in order to perform their roles effectively, these professionals must be able to examine all their options without any external influence or pressure. As such, their clients - be it an individual, a community or an entire society - will have to place some trust in their judgments and conduct.

High standards

I entirely agree that a high standard of work must be maintained by professionals involved in the construction industry. I recognise that a great many lives are at stake if any degree of negligence or incompetence is allowed to slip into the construction process. I welcome the proposed changes that will improve construction safety. However, changes have to be measured as more rules and regulations may not always solve all problems. If you ask any developer, architect, engineer or builder, you will hear the loud sigh at the multiple approvals that a plan has to obtain before it is given the final stamp of approval by the authorities, which include the Building and Construction Authority, among others. Some are more high-handed than others.

The Professional Engineer is given the task of "gatekeeping". It is an onerous responsibility which, over the years,

Column: 2065

judging by the number of building projects that have sprung up in Singapore, has had a good track record. What this means is that we need good people - and by good, I mean more than just the moral character, but also people who have the intellect - to be drawn to the profession.

Hence, from the picture painted, you can see that not anybody can be a Professional Engineer. With regard to the backdrop that I have painted earlier, in order to get people who can attain that level of learning, who can make sound judgments, especially in times of uncertainty, who can put the interests of others before self, you need to attract people that not only possess scholastic aptitude, but also with the moral character.

The engineering profession

I have, on previous occasions, brought up in this House the issue of unattractive compensation that is received by Professional Engineers, in comparison with other professions. Surprisingly or not, more than 40% of our Ministers and top civil servants are either trained as engineers or hold an engineering degree, and I can tell you that there are many more residing in the top hierarchy of the corporate world. Indeed, these figures will appeal to those who are thinking of enrolling into engineering courses. However, the compensation for those who choose to stay as professional engineers pales in comparison to the earnings of the top echelons in the public and private sectors. Nonetheless, a core group has chosen to stay on and practise, and this bodes well for our country. Today, engineers have a significant contribution to make in our nation building. The many engineering feats that they have accomplished - from underground train tunnels to flyovers, high-rise buildings and NEWater - are testimony of their professional skills. However, the

Column: 2066

torch must be passed on from one generation to another.

There must be a continual flow of good people willing to come into this profession, just like we need good people to enter politics and serve the nation. We need engineers in many industries, not just the construction industry.

How do we attract good people? Job satisfaction, remuneration, recognition and a congenial working environment are among a few that I can think of. Today, before this House stands a motion to amend the law that will increase the penalties for Professional Engineers if they are in default. The proposed amendment seeks to double the fines and jail term. With the strengthening of the regulatory framework, it is expected that professionalism, quality and safety in construction will be raised. In my opinion, it is therefore not necessary to also increase the penalties for offences under the Act. Many are already having concern working in the construction industry. We should not overdo things that could result in brain-drain of talented individuals from the construction industry.

As it stands, there are already sufficient disincentives to deter the best brains from applying to join the profession. A few years ago, I asked one of my staff. He has been with me for many years. I said, "Why don't you go and apply for Professional Engineer?" Straightaway, he resigned. He said, "I do not want to be subject to undue pressure." So enhancing jail terms as a penalty will send a wrong and negative signal to those who may harbour any ambitions to be an engineer and, in so doing, would undoubtedly make them ask a few pertinent searching questions: shall I study engineering? What if I ended up working in the construction industry? Why do I want to subject myself to such severe penalties?

Column: 2067

Why is there a need for the penalties to be increased if indeed, the profession is doing well and held in high esteem?

Madam, may I ask Minister, in the last five years, how many Professional Engineers were sent to jail under the Building Control Act? Is there a need to raise the penalties? I would like to ask the Minister what would be the consequence or setback if the penalty is not aligned with those in the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006? Will our Professional Engineers be less professional? Will our buildings be less safe? I tend to believe that the answer in the prevention of any lapses in the line of work of a professional lies not in raising penalties.

Rather, we should raise the level of education, thereby enhancing knowledge and improving the manner in which they go about their responsibilities, the Code of Ethics, for example. I therefore ask the Minister not to revise upwards the current penalties spelt out in the existing Act. In fact, we should abolish the jail term totally.

The next point I like to speak on is the role of Professional Engineers as the "gatekeeper" for the Building and Construction Authority, who has the last say in the entire construction industry. The current law imposes penalties on Professional Engineers, but the same is inapplicable to Government officers who approve construction projects. Why should these officers be tempered with a "light touch" while the Professional Engineers face the prospect of getting the book thrown in their face? Why should they be treated differently? I am not advocating punishment for Government officers, but I just want Members to understand the feeling and low morale of the Professional Engineers.

Column: 2068

Next, I would like to raise the issue of Professional Engineers (Geotechnical) which has been proposed for design of foundations of structures of heights that are 30 storeys and above. In fact, after the collapse of the Nicoll Highway, many of my friends in the construction industry had expected the Government to introduce more measures to strengthen safety at construction sites, as usual, they say, the typical knee-jerk reaction. In fact, they dare me to bet with them. To them, some changes are not necessary.

One such example is the new requirement of introducing Professional Engineers (Geotechnical) for prescribed foundation on works for buildings more than 30 storeys. What do you mean by "prescribed foundation work"? If you talk about cassion, raft foundation, fine. We do not do this very often. And when we do this, anyway, we will always seek opinions of Geotechnical engineers. But certainly, not for piling works, such as bored pile or percussion piles which are used practically in every project, and we have been doing projects of 30 storeys and above for so many years.

All along, the foundations of high-rise buildings have been designed by professional civil engineers, and only when they consider it necessary would they engage a geotechnical engineer to assist.

With this new amendment, whether there is a need or not, the developer must employ a geotechnical engineer. It is not only a waste of money - we may think that it is only a small fraction - but it is also a waste of precious time. When there are two professional engineers involved in the design of an element, the accountability can never be clear. As a practising engineer, I can tell you that this is not practical and unnecessary.

We may be aware that most of the problems are at the temporary works construction, not the permanent works

Column: 2069

design. Are we addressing the root cause of the problem? Can the Minister please give specific examples of problems with tall buildings in the past that could be avoided if we had the services of Professional Engineers (Geotechnical)?

Next, I think the amendment to the Building Control Act on licensing of builders would affect the operation of smaller construction companies. There is concern that many local construction companies will only be eligible for a Class 2 licence, which is for works up to the contract value of $3 million. Medium-sized projects, eg, bungalow upgrading works, nowadays easily cost more than $3 million. It would take some time for such local companies to change their business structure to qualify for the next Class 1 licence. My recommendation is either to introduce another intermediate category or increase the contract value to $10 million for a Class 2 licence.

Lastly, I agree that it is ideal to develop a core skilled and experienced workforce. While the details of the scheme are being worked out, I would like to urge the Ministry to consider both traditional source and non-traditional source workers who have worked in Singapore for a period of time to be considered as localised workers in the computation formula, as it is extremely difficult to get Singaporeans to work in construction sites.

I would like to conclude, by the stroke of the pen, that we are going to affect the decision of many bright Junior College students. And by raising our hand high, we are going to affect the way high-rise buildings are designed and the livelihood of many existing Professional Engineers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill, but I certainly hope that the Minister will consider my suggestions and concerns.

Column: 2070

4.45 pm

Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the move to enhance safety, quality and professionalism in the construction industry through the Building Control (Amendment) Bill.

The Amendment Bill is timely, given the resurgence in the construction industry, as Singapore develops and redevelops its urban landscape in the 21st century. The Bill would ensure that Singapore retains the confidence of its safety standards and enhances the credibility of its construction industry, both locally and internationally. What is most important is that the essence of the Bill aligns itself to the notion that every individual counts and safety standards should never be compromised.

However, I would like to comment and propose the following suggestion. With reference to the amendment in the area of temporary earth retaining structures, I agree that temporary works should be given the same respect and regulatory standard as permanent works. Further to this issue, I would like to propose that both the above and underground temporary structure works to be put under one umbrella. I understand that, currently, each of this type of temporary structure works is under the purview of two Government organisations, namely, the Building and Construction Authority and the Ministry of Manpower. This merger, I believe, would provide the synergy for a holistic approach to regulating the two types of works. In turn, safety of both areas would also be managed more efficiently and would certainly result in the optimisation of our scarce resources.

With reference to the Amendment Bill in the area on deep excavation, I welcome the move for more geotechnical specialist's inputs in the construction

Column: 2071

process. However, I would like to know if there are many in the field who are Singaporeans. Should there be a need to develop this field of expertise more in Singapore, given the potential of this industry? What would be the role of local institutes of higher learning and other educational and professional institutions in supporting this approach? On this issue, I have received numerous feedback from construction professionals who say that there is an inadequacy with regard to geotechnical specialists. As such, the cost of engaging their services has increased substantially. I would like to ask the Minister how would the Ministry be addressing this issue.

With regard to the amendment on the licensing of builders, I would like the Government to explore more options to attract more Singaporeans to the construction industry. There is also greater investment needed in the development of the image of the construction industry to attract more people to the industry. I would like to compare our recruitment approach to the analogy of "Bob, the builder", a popular icon among young children. The profession should not be portrayed as someone just working as an ordinary labourer in the construction industry. It should portray a creative, dynamic, talented and individual creator of things, just like "Bob, the builder", who propounds the value of teamwork, problem- solving and achieving something by working together. This is also very much the essence of our education system. For this to succeed, it will require the support of the educational and professional institutions to play and support the development of the image of the profession further.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, Er Lee Bee Wah, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, earlier questioned about the move to revise

Column: 2072

upwards the current penalties, and she has highlighted her concern on its impact on attracting Singaporeans to join the engineering profession. I urge the Minister to consider providing a good balance in enhancing safety while, at the same time, not deterring Singaporeans from joining the construction industry.

Madam, on that note, I support the amendments to the Bill.

4.55 pm

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill.

It is not often that I speak on Bills but I cannot help but do so in this instance. This is not a prelude to sharp criticism on the Bill and I shall save that for another day. But rather, I am heartened that this legislation has not forgotten to include all members of society, in this instance, the disabled.

Madam, I am referring to the new Part IIIA that is to be inserted, which refers to the disability and other performance requirements for buildings. It may just be one part of the Bill but it is as significant as any of the amendments being proposed, the reason being that it signifies the importance of legislation to bring about socially desirable outcomes. The efforts to change mindsets can only be strengthened by the muscle of legislation.

The three new sections in Part IIIA ensure continued compliance with disability and other certain performance requirements for buildings. In good old Singaporean style, we never rest on our laurels and are constantly striving to improve on our achievements. So, adhering to this spirit of constantly wanting to be better, I would like to get greater clarity on the processes by which the Act is implemented.

Column: 2073

Firstly, how will the Commissioner of Building Control ensure that the owner or occupier of a building does not alter, remove or obstruct any physical feature of the building that is in compliance with the building performance requirements, as stated in clause 22(e)? How often will these checks be carried out, and will there be an annual report to capture the state of compliance? And how will the Building and Control Authority educate the occupants about adhering to this Act?

Madam, I feel that the fines set out in the Bill seem to be token fines and amounts to a slap on the wrist for errant occupants. Is it an appropriate amount to show that the Government means business? Lastly, is there a requirement for older existing buildings to meet current accessibility standards under the building regulations?

Madam, all these are issues that need to be clarified for both the public, building owners and occupiers to be aware of. I think that we are making progress here and look forward to more legislation that is inclusive and will slowly carve out the enlightened society we aspire to be.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this is definitely one Bill that I rise in support of.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I must, first, thank Members for speaking on this Bill. We have had very passionate speeches from Er Lee Bee Wah, Dr Faishal and Ms Olsen. All of them were in support of the essence of the Bill that we are discussing today. It is really for Singapore to progress and to maintain our reputation as a city with good first-class infrastructure. We need to improve the regulatory framework with a view to improve the safety standards of the construction industry.

I would like to take specific comments given by the Members. First, on the point of building works requirements, Er Lee asked whether it is necessary to require a

Column: 2074

geotechnical specialist to design the geotechnical aspects of the foundations of buildings which are 30 storeys and above. What we are talking about is really buildings that are 30 storeys and above, and these high-rise buildings do have very demanding requirements on the piling and the foundations. They can be very complex and therefore, what we are saying in this Bill is that only the geotechnical aspects of it are to be designed by Professional Engineers and checked by Accredited Checkers, both of which are to be registered as geotechnical engineers; in other words, Professional Engineer (Geotechnical) and Accredited Checker (Geotechnical).

Any structural problems with the foundation of such high-rise buildings actually will have very serious consequences, especially so in Singapore when we are so densely populated and quite built-up as well, and we have certain lessons to be learnt in the past. One such lesson was an incident involving a high-rise building at Church Street. If Members can recall, it started to tilt when the foundations were found later to be faulty. And the types of foundations used in these high-rise buildings could be complex. Currently, although the design can be done by Professional Engineers (Civil), as Er Lee herself has said, in circumstances where the foundations are complex, Professional Engineers (Civil) do seek out specialist's inputs on geotechnical elements. So I am sure that by formalising this requirement and doing so judiciously for a very limited number of buildings, we believe that between the Professional Engineer (Civil) and the Professional Engineer (Geotechnical), they will come up with some amicable working relationship, because this relationship already exists at the present day. So what we are doing here is really to formalise the requirement of Professional Engineer (Geotechnical) and Accredited Checker (Geotechnical) for the complex piling requirements. And what is

Column: 2075

considered as complex, I think Er Lee has mentioned a series or types of foundations which I have no intention of engaging her on. Basically, it would be something that we will be discussing with the industry and formalising in the regulations. The BCA will be writing a subsidiary legislation and that is something that we will discuss with the industry. In fact, we have done quite a bit of industry and public consultation, and many of the feedback have been taken into consideration.

Dr Faishal has also asked whether there are sufficient geotechnical specialists

to meet the new legislative requirements. BCA's assessment is yes. The Professional Engineers Board has actually commenced registration for specialist geotechnical PEs since last year. And now we have more than 50 registered PE (Geotechnical), of whom two-thirds are Singaporeans, and we expect more to be registered in the coming months. We hope that the cost of PE (Geotechnical), even though it has risen, as Dr Faishal has said, before the legislation, will be tempered with more PE (Geotechnical) being registered in the coming months.

Our local university can definitely play a part in developing more expertise in this field by conducting post-graduate Master's courses. And I would like to assure the House that we are definitely very mindful of the need to balance safety on one hand and not adding on additional or undue regulatory burden. I think the fact that we have Er Lee who called for lesser penalties and removal of custodial sentences and, on the other hand, Ms Olsen was asking for greater penalties to be added, shows the kind of delicate balance that we have to take in balancing the needs, both of ensuring safety which we are doing for the safety of the public and also not adding additional undue cost

Column: 2076

or inefficiency to the system. And to show what we mean by that, the building of 30 storeys high, the cut-off that we adopted will actually make up less than 1% of the total number of new buildings constructed last year. So, you can see that we do not set a benchmark that is too difficult for the industry to meet. We also noted that similar practices have been adopted in overseas jurisdiction. In Hong Kong, geotechnical inputs from a registered geotechnical engineer are required for building foundations of all buildings, regardless of storeys and height.

BCA will basically calibrate the requirements in the legislation. As Er Lee has pointed out, there are different types of foundations and, therefore, I think that the detailed requirements will be documented in the regulations and will be finalised with the industry inputs.

Er Lee expressed concerns over the approval process faced by the industry professionals. She lamented that she has met problems in the approval process and that probably some agencies have been high-handed, more so than the rest. But what we would like to say here is that a building project is really a very complex one and, therefore, the approval process involves various agencies. To assist the industry, we try to streamline the process taken, and we have put in place an electronic submission system and we hope that through an online submission method, we can reduce the need for repeated documentation, and so forth. But we are open to suggestions and we definitely want to see improvement in this area. So, if Er Lee could provide us with specific cases or processes where improvements can be made, we will be very happy to attend to them.

On the regulation of temporary works or TERS, Dr Faishal has asked whether the regulation of all temporary works could come under one agency, be held

Column: 2077

under one umbrella, which is what the work is being done between MOM and MND. Let me explain how this demarcation came about.

Traditionally, temporary works, both above and below ground, are considered as construction methods used by the builder to facilitate the construction of permanent structures. They are not defined as building works and, therefore, they are not regulated under the Building Control Act. So, these works have been regulated under the legislation on worksite safety. However, following the Nicoll Highway incident, we recognise the need to treat TERS which are used to support ground excavation as a special category because TERS can have a very high safety impact, not only within the worksite, but on properties around it. The Bill will thus treat TERS like permanent works and subject TERS to formal regulation under the Building Control Act. The other types of temporary works, such as scaffoldings, ladders, temporary floors and so on, will continue to be administered by MOM because they are more workplace safety related.

On licensing of builders, Er Lee has expressed concern that the new requirements will adversely affect the smaller contractors. She specifically asked to allow Class 2 companies to be allowed to undertake contracts of $10 million, instead of $3 million, or that we set up an intermediary category. Our response is this. When we set up this regulatory framework, we actually benchmark the classes with the ability of the builders and the contractors. In other words, if we say that a builder with a paid-up capital of $25,000 is able to undertake a project of $3 million, that has been calibrated in terms of their ability as well as the risk they are prepared to take. If we were to raise that limit to $10 million, it means two things. It means that either we have lost the objective of these licensing requirements or we may have to increase

Column: 2078

the hurdles for companies to qualify at the $10 million mark, which, in a way, may reduce the number of companies that is able to be licensed as well.

In this process of deciding what is the correct level, we have decided to choose a framework that is simple. Basically, it just has two categories: general builders or specialist builders. Within the general builders, there are two sub-categories: Class 1 and Class 2. For a start, we think that it is best to go for a simple framework and not to make it too complex. As I have said, for a Class 2 builder, looking at the financial requirements, we are talking about a firm with a paid-up capital of $25,000 being able to undertake a contract of $3 million. We think that it is a very reasonable amount. To have this company at $25,000 paid-up capital undertake a $10 million contract, I think we have lost the objective in the licensing.

I would like to thank Ms Oslen for her support for Part IIIA. On the question about how we intend to ensure continued compliance, BCA's view is that it is most practical for us basically to work on feedback from the public, given that the number of buildings in Singapore is just too many. So we do not intend to work on a regular inspection but we hope that the public will help us in this enforcement area, and tell us if they felt that certain buildings or occupiers have basically been deprived of the use of the facilities that they were intended to.

Whether the prescribed penalties are sufficient, our comment is that besides a $5,000 fine, we are talking about a possible jail term of up to three months. And I think that is sufficient deterrence for an offence under this provision.

On the issue of penalties, Er Lee has made a very passionate plea on this subject. She asked whether it is necessary to increase the penalties or

Column: 2079

even have custodial sentences at all, for offences under the Building Control Act. I think the purpose of revising the penalties here is just to ensure that the severity and the offences commensurate with one another, and that the penalties serve as an effective deterrence. Custodial sentence is common for serious offences that could cause death or injury. We have also found custodial sentences imposed on professionals under the Building Control laws in other developed countries. For example, the Building Control Ordinance in Hong Kong, the California Building Standards Code and the New York City Building Code have provisions for custodial sentence for serious offences committed by professional practitioners. In Singapore, custodial sentences may also be meted out for offences committed by other professionals. So it is not just an issue that is faced by professional engineers. Other professionals also have similar custodial sentences provided in their relevant legislation, such as the medical profession under the Infectious Diseases Act.

Are higher penalties and custodial provisions effective deterrence? We believe so. Will higher penalties and custodial provisions dissuade people of high moral character - those characters that Er Lee has so convincingly described? Do we think that because we have high deterrent sentences, we will dissuade them to practise in their profession? We do not think so. In fact, as we see that the professionals are able to weed out the black sheep in their profession, that would increase the confidence that the society has on the profession and the trust that Er Lee has so passionately pleaded for. I would like to use an example of drink driving. We have very severe penalties for drink driving. But does that stop people from driving? I do not think so. People who are responsible on the road will continue to drive and they will discard

Column: 2080

their irresponsible act of driving after drinking. I think this is an example of what we believe in having deterrence or high penalties in our provisions. We have no intention of putting professional engineers in the jail just for the sake of doing it. It just serves as deterrence. To answer Er Lee's question about how many professional engineers have been sentenced to jail, I am very happy to say that none has been sentenced to jail. But does it mean that because there are none, that we should remove the custodial sentences? We do not think so. Because we believe that it is important to have deterrents put in place in our provisions that commensurate with the severity of the offences.

As a respectable profession, we do not think that professional engineers will ask themselves to be treated differently from a manager at the worksite. By putting the sentence or the punishment at the same level as the Workplace Safety and Health Act, we think that it is a very fair and equitable treatment.

In fact, a broader question is: how do we raise the image of industry and how do we attract more Singaporeans to join the industry? I am definitely supportive of Er Lee and Dr Faishal's call that we must make the industry an attractive one for young and talented engineers to participate in. Dr Faishal has suggested that we do more, and I fully agree with him. It is our aim to shape the construction industry into one that is progressive, professional and productive. And we believe that the best way to do so is really to show that our professionals are competent, that they discharge their duties with care and that the end results are good quality buildings, safe buildings. This is what the Bill seeks to achieve.

We want to help our workers move up the value chain, improve their productivity, give them an attractive career path so that they can take home more pay.

Column: 2081

And with a more attractive pay structure and better career prospects, we hope that more locals will join the industry. This is what our new workers' registration scheme intends to achieve. We will take Er Lee's suggestions to include foreign workers, be it traditional source or non-traditional source, in this registration scheme. We will take that into consideration. Again, we will also take Dr Faishal's suggestion of working closely with the institute of higher learning and

BCA has been doing that, together with MOE, WDA and NTUC, to conduct career talks, exhibitions, scholarship seminars and various exercises to attract talent into the industry. Recently, BCA has revamped its training institute into an academy for the built environment to provide more focus and high quality training for the professionals. We like the "Bob, the builder" idea and we totally subscribe to the idea of having a builder that has creativity and believe in teamwork. But we may have to find a name that is less gender-specific, with due credit to Er Lee who is sitting there.

Madam, the proposed amendments will not only enhance building and construction safety, but also develop the industry to greater heights, and the changes are wide-ranging and adjustments have to be made. But it is necessary to take a long-term perspective. BCA will continue to work closely with the industry stakeholders, when formulating the detailed requirements in the regulations.

Er Lee Bee Wah: May I have some clarifications, please? In a design of the foundation for building, in one formula, you have geotechnical and structural parameters, and I can see the confusion that comes in when you have two bees involved in the calculation. In fact, from the dialogue session that the engineers had with BCA, even among the BCA officers, the answers given seemed to be contradicting. So I think this is something

Column: 2082

that we need to fine-tune and look into. I queried them, in the past, which were the projects where they could show examples that if we introduced the PE (Geotechnical), then they would have avoided the problem totally. Kong lie kong ker, they could only quote me Church Street. And I asked them which aspect of Church Street. In fact, to prepare for this, I had lunch with Church Street's PE, and he also told me that he was doubtful with the introduction of PE (Geotechnical). That problem could be avoided.

Just now, the Minister of State mentioned that less than 1% of new projects are 30 storeys and above. But is the Minister of State aware that there are some PEs where most of their projects are high-rise buildings?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In reply to Er Lee's first question about how the work between a PE (Geotechnical) and a PE (Civil) has to be demarcated, I believe that there are already cases where PE (Civil) seeks the specialist's inputs of PE (Geotechnical). So I am sure, between the two professionals, they will be able to work out the arrangements. But, as I said, what defines a complex piling foundation is something that will be set out in the regulations, and that is something that BCA will be drawing up in due course.

And this issue about Church Street, I am not sure if I agree with Er Lee that we must wait for one building to either have structural problems or collapsing because of specific geotechnical issues before we will enact the Bill. I think to do so would be very reactive and is not something that the Singapore Government is typically proud of. We want to be responsive, and I think that, arising from the COI on Nicoll Highway, it has pointed out certain systemic problems in the industry, including in the area of TERS. Because of that, we have reviewed the entire building

Column: 2083

process, including the permanent building works. And we felt that it is necessary at this point in time to stipulate this change. So whether the PE involved in the Church Street himself would say that it is effective, I would leave it to the industry and the professional bodies to make that judgement.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: It is open to anybody with clarification.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I just like to ask if she could clarify one of the questions that I have asked, and that is whether there is a requirement for older existing buildings to meet the current accessibility standards under the building regulations and how does BCA intend to implement it?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Existing buildings will be required to comply with the provisions if they undergo major retrofitting works. Before that, we encourage building owners to undertake such changes by giving them incentives to do so. So we are basically taking a two-pronged approach to both require them to do so under legislation and also to provide some incentives if they choose to do so before the law requires them to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.