ARCHITECTS ORDINANCE, 1941

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Assembly pursuant to subsection (1) (b) of section 4 of the Architects Ordinance, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941) resolves that the Scale of Fees to be charged by persons registered under Part II of the Ordinance for professional advice or services rendered or work done, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 32 of 1956 be approved.

I had better make clear the meaning of the approval, which I seek from the Assembly. Under the existing legislation, the Board of Architects fixes the architects' fees, subject to the approval of the Assembly. The fees were last fixed by the Board and approved by the Legislature in 1932 and now, in 1956, the Board has had a look at them and has proposed a new scale of fees, fixed after discussion, and it is now for the Assembly to decide whether to approve it or not. If the Assembly approves, then the new scale becomes operative; if the Assembly disapproves, then the 1932 scale remains in operation.

The existing law gives this Assembly no power to direct the Board as to what fees should be charged. It has only the power of veto; it has no power of initiative. The choice, very simply, is between the 1932 scale and the scale now proposed - 1956. Before discussing the new scale, I should like to explain that this motion for changes in the scale of fees is only one stage in a general reassessment of the professional organisation of our architects. I have had valuable discussions with representatives of the architects and I fully share their feeling of the great need to strengthen their professional organisation. In the past, they have maintained a close link with the Royal Institute of British Architects and, in the earlier days of a colonial territory, that was no doubt very appropriate; but now with an increasing number of qualified professional men and with Singapore moving very fast towards independent nationhood -

The Chief Minister: I hope so.

Mr Francis Thomas: - it is desirable that we should have also strong local professional organisations which can conduct their professional affairs on lines appropriate to this territory, which may not necessarily be the same in its local circumstances as the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that this build-up of our professional organisations can and should be done reasonably quickly. An essential step in the build-up of the architect's profession is the recognition of the civil engineering degrees which large numbers of Malayans are seeking or have sought in Australia, so that having acquired the appropriate civil engineering degrees in Australia, they can then sign and pass plans and function to that extent as architects.

The question of getting their recognition accepted and approved and working out satisfactory arrangements has involved a great deal of work but it has been done and has been embodied in a Bill - I must not anticipate future business of the Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I can mention perhaps that I had a Bill on the Assembly Order Paper which I had to withdraw - and one of the provisions would have been allowing Malayans with civil engineering degrees from Australia to practise, as I have said. However, we had to withdraw the Bill because the life of the Assembly was uncertain and it was obviously not a justifiable case for a Certificate of Urgency to go through the First, Second and Third Readings today, but it can be entered again at the first opportunity.

Now, to turn to this actual motion for approval, the First Schedule and the Second Schedule together constitute a useful advance. The First Schedule deals with conditions of engagement of architects and, in fact, it has been drawn up so as to follow pretty closely the 1954 revisions of the Royal Institute of British Architects in the United Kingdom which provide a satisfactory model for the purpose wanted at this stage. I see no objection to those R.I.B.A. requirements being followed for the time being. The revised conditions of engagement do clarify certain points on which there has been, sometimes, in the past, vexatious obscurity and which has led to uncertainty, and a more precise definition is for the benefit of the architects' clients.

The Second Schedule, which is perhaps more interesting to the ordinary man, introduces three valuable changes. The first is the principle of what is called quantum meruit which should now be applied specifically when friendly relations between the architect and the client are broken off before the building is completed. The principle of quantum meruit means, broadly, that the architect gets fees calculated on the work which is actually done and not on the ultimate cost, whether it is actual or estimated, of the completed building. The second provision is that the architects who are building low-cost housing below $15,000 a unit need not be bound by this scale of fees and can negotiate with their clients any fee they like, presumably a lower fee for simple repetitive work. The client and the architect can, therefore, get together and work out an appropriate fee for a mass-production type of job and, following from this, the former sliding scale which ranged from 10 per cent to 7� per cent of the total value of the work done is now replaced by a fixed rate of 7� per cent. These three significant adjustments undoubtedly constitute improvements over the 1932 Schedule and I think hon. Members will probably support them. If any hon. Member would like to have any point explained, I will heartily try to satisfy him.

Mr Goode: I second it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly pursuant to subsection (1) (b) of section 4 of the Architects Ordinance, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941) resolves that the Scale of Fees to be charged by persons registered under Part II of the Ordinance for professional advice or services rendered or work done, as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 32 of 1956, be approved.