ARCHITECTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.32 a.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, hon. Members will recollect that in June of last year, they gave their unanimous approval to the scale of fees which was fixed by the Board of Architects and brought to them for approval and that in dealing with that scale of fees I referred also to an Architects (Amendment) Ordinance which we at that time proposed but which was withdrawn as the life of the Assembly was then extremely uncertain. In referring to these fees, I pointed out that the changes in the scale of fees were only one stage in a general reassessment.

Since then, certain aspects arising from the operation of the scale of fees have called for study and have received study and I now move an Architects (Amendment) Bill which is significantly different from what we proposed in 1956.

In clause 2 we seek to remove from the Board of Architects the power to fix a scale of fees and I think I had better explain the background to that a little because Members may not be fully in the picture. The argument which has been used to justify a scale of fees fixed under statutory powers is that the architects in Singapore are required to give a degree of supervision to building works which is not required in many other countries. If hon. Members have in their hands the 1956 scale of fees, they will note that it was then laid down that one-fifth of the total fees would be payable on the completion of the sketch plans; the balance up to two-thirds when the contracts have been let; and the remaining one-third would be paid by instalments as the architect from time to time certified progress to his client for payment to the contractors. This implies of course that two-thirds (or 5 per cent) of the fee is appropriate for designing a structure and that 2½ per cent is the appropriate fee for supervision. We are here concerned with the supervision aspect; that is the aspect on which the argument for statutory power to fix a scale is based.

Supervision is defined in section 1 of the 1956 scale and was previously defined in the 1932 scale and it is linked with the local authority by-laws: No. 20 in the Rural Board, I think it is No. 41 in the Municipal by-laws and deriving from a section of the Municipal Ordinance. Briefly, the effect of this is that the person who is responsible as the architect must certify that the contractors have observed the by-laws during the building works. The by-laws are now under revision and I am told that the revision will strengthen that requirement that the certification is given by the architect to the local authority that the local authority's requirements have been complied with.

Now, we all agree, Mr Speaker, that it is very important that buildings should be good and made of good materials. We must avoid the sort of defects which caused the Opposition to rise in some irritation to try and stop me when I enumerated a lengthy list of defects during the Budget debate last year. Such defects are obviously undesirable and they do arise if insufficient supervision is given. If we have unsatisfactory buildings going up in Singapore, it is a very bad thing for the final occupiers, who are saddled with a house which involves a lot of repairs and expense and worry and which may have a much shorter life than they had hoped when they put their money into it. Of course, it is also a serious liability to the country if we have unsatisfactory buildings going up. We have probably a considerable shortage of skilled manpower to do building, some shortage of materials sometimes and shortage of money for spending on capital development; and if private development is of a low or an unsatisfactory standard, then to that degree, scarce resources are being wastefully used. That would be a very regrettable thing. If there were collusion between the contractor and the architect, there would be a grave danger to the public interest. An unholy alliance between architect and contractor, in which the architect cuts his fees to the client but takes a rake-off from the contractor in return for closing his eyes to nefarious omissions by the contractor, is a thing which should not be tolerated.

The question is whether by removing this scale of fees we shall in fact open the way to collusion and improper practices and thus weaken the position with regard to maintenance of proper building standards. I do not think that we shall open the way to collusion. I do not think that removal will have any significant effect in that direction; and I will now give my reasons.

First, under the Architects Ordinance, there are and always have been engineers who were registered as architects under the Ordinance and who were able to function as architects, to sign plans and to certify buildings to the local authorities; but the engineers were not bound by this scale of fees which is applicable only to architects. There is an obvious anomaly in this position. The Board of Architects has recognised it but they have been guided by expert legal advice and they have not seen their way to alter it; and I think that probably it is the case that the general code of conduct laid down by the Board under the Ordinance appears not to apply to engineers who register under the Ordinance.

Now, the result of this, Mr Speaker, is that in private practice in Singapore, there are something like 72 architects and 38 engineers registered under the Ordinance; and I am informed that in the period of one year from June 1955 to June 1956, there were 261 building plans submitted to the City Council by architects and 123 by engineers - a proportion of about two-thirds by architects and one-third by engineers. In a major job such as a block of flats, the proportion will be a good deal higher in the hands of the architects.

Now, that is the actual extent to which the anomaly exists. There are two ways of dealing with it. The first is to bring the engineers within the scale and within the code of conduct and to bring them completely in parity with the architects in so far as they are registered as architects. That was indeed my first thought: the alternative is to take the architect out from the scale and I have chosen that because if the scale were an essential protection in the public interest and if the scale were really necessary to prevent collusion and cut-throat competition and to ensure that proper standards are maintained, then we simply have to recognise that in fact the scale has not been operating for a third of the profession. The engineering qualification has enabled a very large section of the people who are actually functioning as architects to function outside the scale. If it was going to produce collusion or cut-throat operations, it would already have produced those ill-effects but the Institute of Architects of Malaya have shown no signs of being aware that they are threatened or being under-cut by the operations of registered engineers. The Board of Architects has not drawn attention to it and said, "This is producing disastrous results. We must remove this anomaly." The engineers - the Joint Overseas Group - have not been worried about it and I am bound to presume from this that the architects have not felt themselves threatened nor have the leaders of the profession felt their standards threatened by the fact that that scale was largely ineffective. There appears to have been no fear in the past that the absence of the scale with regard to one-third of those working as architects had produced, was producing or would produce any serious ill-effects, any tendency for the architects or the engineers to yield to temptations to collusive or dishonest practices. It is that which leads me to think it is a very fair presumption.

I am also not wholly satisfied that in all cases the scale is adhered to by those to whom it applies - the registered architects. We should not have to go very far to find cases where a firm of architects undertake a charitable job - a home for one sort or another of charitable organisation - and in one way or another does not in fact charge the full fee. That is very laudable and admirable generosity on their part but it defeats the intention of the Ordinance. It is a kick-back to the charitable organisation because they have a respect for the charitable organisation but it is obviously a means of defeating the operation of the scale fixed by statutory power.

I am also told - I cannot produce evidence needed to convince a court of law - that it does occur sometimes that for an ordinary commercial building job, a client makes a deal with his architect for a lump sum payment of fee and this is not in any way related to the scale of fees but it is just fixed to suit both parties. In the nature of things, nobody can easily tell whether that is happening or not and I do not know of any effective machinery at present existing by which one could detect whether it is happening or not. If you cannot detect breaches of the scale, then you cannot take action to punish breaches of the scale and the scale is in fact a decoration which appears to provide a protection to the public but does not provide it, The protection lies in the professional pride, competence and standards which are maintained by members of a highly respected profession. The scale appears to put them under penalty if they fall below their proper standards but it does not appear to me that the scale would be enforceable if it was necessary nor does it appear to me to be necessary. I think very strongly that unnecessary or unenforceable control should never be imposed. If they have been imposed, then they should be removed as quickly as possible and that is what I am seeking to do.

The effects of the removal require a word. Professional organisations will now have squarely in their own hands the responsibility for maintaining proper professional standards of conduct amongst their members. I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Institute of Architects, Malaya, and with the Joint Overseas Group of Engineers and we also had a certain amount of correspondence extending over a year or so. I am aware of their views and they have said that they will consider whether they ought to initiate any further action in order to ensure that codes of conduct and standards of building are maintained at a professional level. I look forward with interest to hearing from the leaders of the profession what they think is necessary.

Now, Mr Speaker, although I do not think it is necessary or useful or desirable to retain this scale of fees, I do not want to suggest that the maintenance of proper building standards needs no further attention. I think it does need further attention. We are having very rapid development - both private and public development - in Singapore today. The economic survey reports show somewhere around $100 million worth of investment in construction a year; population is rising; the need for houses is increasing all the time; and, in short, the building industry is being subjected to new strains and stresses which did not exist in the much more spacious and less overcrowded days when most of the legislation and by-laws and machinery of control were designed.

The Government view is that the whole situation with regard to private building standards needs to be examined and the Government is therefore going to appoint a very competent officer, whose appointment is terminating under Malayanisation, to make a full study and to report. This will involve paying him a professional fee and I shall be seeking approval for this payment from the House on another occasion. I do not wish to prejudge in any way the findings which may appear in his report, which I hope will be available in about two months - possibly a little longer, not more than three months. We shall be quite wrong to prejudge what may appear in the report but the intention is that the report will give a general gathering together of information of all types on which it will be possible to judge better how far proper building standards are being maintained and whether any action is desirable to ensure that they are maintained in the future. It is possible that in the general context of the report, this scale of fees which we are now seeking to remove may need to be considered again. If it was made clear that the scale of fees was a useful weapon and that it could effectively be used, that machinery could be set up which would make it possible to detect breaches of the scale; then it should certainly be considered again and, if necessary, the weapon should be sharpened up and brought into use. So much, Mr Speaker, for clause 2 (Scale of Fees).

We pass on to clause 3. In clause 3 (a), there is a slight liberalisation of the means of recognition for a young man who is qualified as an architect; for instead of having to get his qualification against a prescribed list, he can bring his qualification along and say, "Will you approve this qualification?" I do not know if the changes are profoundly significant but it does liberalise the situation.

There are minor punctuation changes and then at (d), we preserve to a single mechanical engineer who registered during the last year his position as a registered person under the Ordinance. The amendment (of which Members have had notice that I propose to move, on the Order Paper) which will change "July, 1956" to read "July, 1957" in order to preserve to this gentleman a status which he has acquired and which should not be removed from him.

Clause 4 provides for higher registration fees and renewal fees from those who register. Those fees were made in the past at a time when the dollar was worth a great deal more than it is now, and it is appropriate that they should be brought up in line with the income which an architect can expect to earn and with the costs which the Board may have to incur, for example, in payment of legal expenses.

Clause 5 removes certain classes of engineering qualifications. I do not want to go into them in detail but I can do so if the House desires. But I must briefly point out that this is only in relation to those who wish to practise in effect as architects. The removal of the qualifications does not mean that a man cannot practise as a municipal engineer or an electrical engineer or a surveyor, it only means that he cannot sign plans, and so on, in relation to the Ordinance and the local authority requirements. I think in the past it was probably a sound thing that wherever anybody could be held to be qualified, he should have had a chance to come in and help in building work because there was a shortage of qualified men; but I do not think that that shortage exists now. It certainly, I think, will not exist in the future with the large number of students of architecture and civil engineering who are at present overseas and who will be returning here in due course. There is no reason to fear a shortage and I do not think that our young men or women when they come back from a taxing, difficult and expensive course overseas should be exposed to possible competition from, say, a surveyor who has abandoned his proper work of surveying and, having registered as an architect, wishes in fact to practise as an architect for which he has not really been trained.

There is one point in connection with this, it sometimes happens to an electrical or mechanical engineer that in designing a factory layout, he finds it necessary to suggest that some additional building - say a pump-house or an engine-house - should be added to the building; or he needs to design a concrete floor on which an engine has to stand; and it is a very convenient and sensible thing that he should be able, in those circumstances, to put his plans to the local authority to get them approved and not to have to run around and waste his time and everyone else's getting an architect to put his chop on them. I should not wish to stop the mechanical or electrical engineer from doing that as long as that was all he was doing. I have put the point to the Joint Overseas Group and they are studying it. I hope they will suggest a reasonable solution but a reasonable solution must, to my mind, be in the terms that the mechanical or electrical engineer is not able to abandon his proper work of mechanical or electrical engineering and take up signing plans for building estates. If we can get a workable solution suggested, we can have a look at it and see if we should make some further amendment.

The second part of clause 5 opens the door to a very valued class of students - those who are at present in Australia taking various engineering qualifications which are sufficiently indicated in the Explanatory Note. Hitherto, on qualifying, they have of course been able to come back and practise as engineers but they have not been able to register under the Ordinance. This will now enable them to register. To put it in very simple language, we heartily welcome our young men and women taking professional qualifications and we are delighted to have them come back again to lend a hand in Singapore's much needed development.

Mr Speaker, those are very briefly the main points which I think I have dealt with in regard to this Bill. There are of course a great many other points which are more or less remotely connected and if any Member wishes to have them dealt with, I will be delighted to do the best I can with them; but I do not think that we need take up the time of the House any further until we know what hon. Members have in their minds.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.00 a.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill for slightly different reasons from those that have been expounded to us by the Minister for Communications and Works.

The chief reason, in a short analysis, he has given to us for his wanting to withdraw support for the scale of fees is roughly that this scale has been more honoured by its breach than by its observance, because firstly, one-third of the number of practising architects are not bound to observe the scale and secondly, he has heard of cases where the members who are bound by the scale do not observe it. To my knowledge, Sir, I also agree with the second observation that in cases of very large contracts, by some way or other this rule has not been observed by the architects themselves and therefore for this House to support a rule that is not fully observed is wrong and to my mind unworkable.

But I come into this picture for a very different reason. This scale of fees was fixed about 30 years ago. No doubt, at that time, the scale was 7½ per cent minimum and you could go up sky-high. The only concession that we had been able to obtain through last year's negotiations with the Institute of Architects was the waiving of any fee above 7½ per cent. It may appear generous to the architects but, in practice, there is no generosity at all because since the scale of fees has been fixed, the cost of building has gone up at least four times. Therefore the scale if applied pre-war would be operating round about 30 per cent.

Another point is this. When this scale was fixed, no one visualised building projects of building estates, public buildings and even private buildings running into millions of dollars and when you come to apply the minimum scale of 7½ per cent to a project which runs into from $5 million to $10 million, then we get a shock as I am sure we all did when I queried during the Budget sittings last year the allocation of half a million dollars for the Polytechnic. When applied to this project of $5 million, not only have we to provide 7½ per cent minimum fee but there is also another 2 per cent for quantity survey and another 33 1/3 per cent on the value of reinforced concrete work which all added together makes ten per cent. So ten per cent of $5 million is half a million dollars and I for one feel that the public cannot be asked to pay such sums which in several cases have led to professional men being able to retire after three or four years' practice. We do welcome people being well remunerated for their work but I do not think that the public of Singapore will support any scale which will enable anyone to retire at public expense, and I say so because I can visualise in the future that we in Singapore and in Malaya will have to depend more and more on private architects than on our own public servants as the amount of work that has to be done is really tremendous. We simply cannot recruit enough men to be able to carry out that work. As it is, we can see the slowing down of the Singapore Improvement Trust. Last year, we built 1,000 units instead of 4,000 units. This year, I think the same thing will follow and even our Public Works Department has not been able to catch up with all the projects it has in hand. The only thing we have to do now is to go out to the private architect and ask him to do the work for us. When we do that, what happens to us? Yes, the scale is 7½ per cent minimum. Whereas private persons have been able to make the architects depart from this scale, the Government will have to pay that scale because this Assembly last June approved it. I must say that I was away at that time on leave. Are we going to support this rule? No.

Another point is this: what I am very much against the scale is the minimum five per cent withdrawal fee. I will just cite one instance; I know of several where a grave injustice was caused. A friend of mine bought a house and he wanted it to be renovated. So he went to an architect and asked him to produce plans to enlarge the house. When the plans were submitted to him, he found that they were very poor plans and he did not like them. The estimated cost of renovation ran into $80,000. Then he said, "No, no. Let us just forget about it." He forgot about it but he received a bill for $4,000 and that was a bill based on a scale on which he had to pay. If he went to court, he would have lost the case. There are other instances but they will take too long a time. Therefore I and my Party do support the amendment to section 2 by withdrawing our support altogether.

Now I come to clause 5 of the Bill. The Explanatory Note says that certain qualifications obtained in Australia are now going to be recognised here to enable Malayans who hold these degrees to practise. That, Sir, I think, is a very good move, it has been very long overdue but it does not go far enough. I am now speaking for those of our Malayans who are holding qualifications obtained in foreign institutions, qualifications which in New York, Shanghai and Hong Kong have been responsible for the building of huge skyscrapers, ten times what we have in Singapore, and yet not one of them has been allowed to be registered as an architect. I have seriously considered moving an amendment to the Bill but on going through the Architects Ordinance, I find that under section 6, there is provision for the Board of Architects to register any person who shall satisfy the Board that he is fully qualified for having received a proper and recognised training in the profession of architecture. To us who are not members of this profession, we wonder why it is that not one of these people is good enough. I refer to the ones I have mentioned as being able to put up skyscrapers, a hundred storeys high. Particularly more so when I know that at least the applications of ten people who have been qualified either in the United States of America or Hong Kong have applied for registration (some of them applied as long as two years ago) are still being considered. Sir, I would urge the Institute of Architects to consider very rapidly the question of admitting these people to practise, otherwise, rightly or wrongly, the public will form the impression that this honoured body of professional men is unwilling to move or change with the times as has happened over this question of minimum fee.

To conclude, Sir, I agree with the hon. Minister when he said that we have to be careful to see that our buildings are not shoddily built and I for one am prepared to support any realistic scale with a reducing minimum after the first $100,000 or $200,000 when it is presented to us, because I do feel that an honourable profession like an architect's profession should not be subject to cut-throat rates; but let us have a realistic scale and not one under which a man can retire in three years' time.

11.10 a.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I am the only architect in this House, I feel I have to say something on this Bill or at least to express my personal opinion on it.

I do not think there is such a law in any part of the world as regards the question of minimum fees, that is, clause 4 of the Bill. I have made enquiries from the Federation, Hongkong and other parts of the world. I have found no evidence that they have such a law in those countries. In fact, a Minister in the Federation told me that the Board of Architects in the Federation have tried to introduce that clause for the last five years and that every time it went to the Executive Council, it was thrown out. Although such a law is not in existence in the Federation or in Hongkong, I believe that they have less badly constructed or tilted buildings than we have in Singapore.

The Ordinance, I believe, was introduced in 1926 by a number of people, mostly qualified from abroad. They must have come together and said, "Since we are only a few here, why do we not try to extort as much as possible from the public?" That was their view then and I think that is the view that is being adopted now. When this matter was discussed in the Institute of Architects, Malaya, one of its members said, "Why should we go home empty-handed? Why cannot we make hay while the sun shines?" That is the attitude they are adopting. Those so-called big firms which have been advocating that they should retain the minimum charge knowing very well that the big projects of Government will go to them because the advisers are their friends. The fee of $800,000 for the Polytechnic is equal to 20 years' salary of the Chief Minister. Is that not a shame that this kind of robbery is allowed to go on?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Hear, hear. Down with the white man!

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I do not say that. That is the way they are doing it. With Malayanisation around the corner, I think there will be a lot of jobs which Government has to give to the private architects, and if this minimum scale of fees is not removed, every firm will come to the Government and say, "Even if I wish to charge less, I will not be allowed to do that. You do not want me to commit an offence, do you?"

Another question is - as has been pointed out by the Member for Paya Lebar - that, as the present law stands, whether a building costs $20,000 or $20 million, the minimum fee is the same- 7½ per cent. Whether it is a warehouse or a cinema, the fee is the same although the former takes about less than half of the work required for the latter. Is this fair?

Since there is no such protection in any other profession, why should architects want it? They want such protection because they know very well that without it they will not have a chance to rob the public as much as they would like. If a man wants to charge less for his work why should Government forbid him from doing so? Suppose the only way an architect can earn a living is to charge less, do you think it is right that Government should prevent him from doing so to earn a living? I think it is rubbish to say that ending the power to fix fees will result in bad buildings being erected. I do not see any reason for an architect to say that the removal of this clause will result in a lot of corruption: that depends on the man himself. If that is the line of argument, I think we should raise the salaries of all Government officers by three or four times to prevent corruption, but I do not think that is the way to prevent it.

As to the second part, that is section 5, on the qualifications acceptable for registration, I think in the past we have placed too much confidence on people having British qualifications and that it has been the practice not to register anyone with qualifications obtained from somewhere else. I can understand the attitude adopted then. Nothing could be done but with self-government around the corner I think we should reconsider the whole case. What is wrong with registering architects from China, Indonesia or Japan, or even from Communist Russia? If they are good and can render a service to this country, why should we not admit them? Why should we limit qualifications to those obtained in England alone? Does it mean only the architect qualified in England can design buildings? As the Member for Paya Lebar said, architects in the United States design even skyscrapers and all sorts of other types of buildings, so why should not men trained there be allowed to practise here?

If we are to continue to be dictated to by the Institute of Architects of Malaya, I think the public will be fleeced to the utmost. So I suggest that if the Minister is going to institute an enquiry into qualifications acceptable under the Architects Ordinance, I suggest the members of the committee should be those who have the interest of this country at heart, not those who intend to go away at the first opportunity because then such an enquiry will serve no purpose at all.

11.19 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the racket of giving big business big opportunities to make big money is coming to a close.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Thanks to the Labour Front!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: The Labour Front has just realised it. The Labour Front has given the big $5,000,000 Polytechnic building project to an expatriate firm - thanks to the Labour Front! The amount of architects' fees involved in that contract is only half a million dollars! We have to thank the Labour Front for this!

But let us come back to this question. I am glad the racket is off. Whenever firms want to erect buildings for the Government, they send in tenders, and everybody will try to put up the lowest. And of course the officers deciding on the tenders with the provision of the minimum of 7½ per cent, will have no choice but to say, "We will have to fall back on these expatriate companies because they are big firms." With the removal of a minimum fee, I think the profession will become more competitive. It will enable the people of Singapore to save a great deal more because firms which are not very big will be content with a reasonable profit and therefore tender at lower figures. This is good for Singapore.

I think, Sir, whatever this Assembly wants to do, it has always one motive in mind, and that is: What good will it do to the ordinary people of Singapore? I am thinking, Sir, not of big buildings constructed by big business or millionaires, but of houses for the small man who earns a few hundred dollars a month and who wants to build his own house. I know in many countries, for example, New Zealand, Australia and England, where the Government has drawn up a great variety of housing plans any person can obtain such plans at only a very small fee. In Singapore we do not have these. The best the Government can offer are a few plans for attap houses, many of them not popular with the people here. The Government has no plans for concrete houses. It is high time it helps the people construct such houses by drawing standard plans and make these available at small cost. The small man who wants to construct his own house can buy and use such a standard plan and will need only a little supervision from an architect.

This will be a very good way of helping the people save money and making full use of our few architects. If such plans are drawn up and anybody can go and select one and build his own house, the architects will also then be asked to work on new models, not old models changed here and there. That will mean architects do not do repetitive work, and can concentrate their efforts to put up new designs for houses.

On clause 5, Sir, I agree fully with my colleague when he asked that degrees and qualifications from countries other than the United Kingdom which are appropriate and good should be recognised. We have come to a stage where we must make use of every available and qualified Singaporean to help contribute to the progress of the country. If Malayans spend many years in a foreign land like the United States and come back with a qualification which is not recognised by us but which is accepted in many other countries, we will be denying ourselves of a source of valuable talent. These people can make a contribution to the progress of this land.

Sir, I fully support my colleague on that clause.

11.25 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the House should take note that on such an uncontroversial Bill so many skeletons have suddenly popped out of the cupboard. These are the inherent contradictions in this colonial society. The Member for Paya Lebar has a keen interest in housing because he is interested in housing estates. At the moment I understand he is engaged in a thousand-unit estate at Sembawang Hill; for this no doubt a very large sum will come out of his profits to go to the architects and therefore it is with unusual vehemence that he has denounced the profiteering by people with whom he is associated.

Mr Lim Koon Teck rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Yes, Sir. Is that not an implication on the character of a Member of the House?

Mr Speaker: I was just about to intervene when the Member for Paya Lebar did intervene. That statement seems to imply an improper motive. The hon. Member for Paya Lebar was talking as a Member and I think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar was implying improper motives. If that is so he must withdraw his remark.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I impute to the Member for Paya Lebar the highest of motives, namely, to see that all those embarked on building housing estates should have the cheapest of architects. This is both to his interest and to that of the public because no doubt he will pass on the benefit of lower fees to the unfortunate consumer who has to buy from him on the hire-purchase plan.

We have heard the Member for Pasir Panjang who decided, presumably after having suffered for years at the hands of expatriates who controlled the Malayan Board of Architects, to let off some steam against them. We in this House welcome these disclosures, welcome the revelation that there are people in Malaya who have no interest in this country and who, when it comes to a question of the public benefit, have been known to exclaim that they should not be expected to go home empty-handed!

Finally, I think it must also go on record that the only person who spoke on this Bill who has no direct interest in the architects profession is the Member for Serangoon. Of course not being conversant with these matters, the Member's contribution cannot be said to have been very concrete but nevertheless we did enjoy a discussion on the general principles of good building and building designs.

But all said and done, the House had better remember this: that all these little bits of reform for which the Labour Front wishes to claim credit, are well and good, but reforms alone are not enough. It is not enough just to let in a few more architects who have been trained in Australia, Canada, India, Hongkong or Indonesia. The rate at which housing development should take place if we are to cope with our population, both the existing slum population and the growth in total number, is such that the Minister had better give serious consideration to starting an architectural school producing hundreds and even thousands of architects. We need architects who can not only design enormous skyscrapers for the benefit of the capitalists, or enormous housing estates for those who are members of limited companies and who own large tracts of land, but who can devote their time to building cheap, economical, low-cost houses.

I remember a discussion I had with the Member for Pasir Panjang in which he told me of a business-cum-pleasure fact-finding survey of Brazil, Mexico and other parts of the world, where enormous equipment could produce low-cost houses at such terrific speed and such low cost that it could revolutionize the whole concept of low-cost housing in Malaya.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether this speech on low-cost housing has anything to do with the Bill before us, which relates to architects' fees.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just winding up my speech with a peroration in tribute to the Member for Pasir Panjang who deserves high praise today for his revealing disclosures of what is going on in the architects' profession.

Mr Speaker: Order, it seems to me that both the hon. Member's exordium and his peroration were irrelevant.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: To go back to the relevant then, Sir; we support this Bill because obviously whatever our conflicting interests we are all united in seeing: one, that European architects do not exploit local businessmen; two, that local architects do not exploit local businessmen; and three, that there is no exploitation at all by anyone.

11.31 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak in the debate on this Bill. I had considered that the hon. Minister and the Member for Pasir Panjang had said enough on it but I cannot let one statement made by the Member for Serangoon go unchallenged as it will be misguiding Members of this House. Let me assure the hon. Member that he has nothing to thank the Labour Front for except for bringing up this Bill which seeks to remove the provision about fees.

As to the contract: that was given by the Board of the Polytechnic to whoever it was given, and I would say that that Board was appointed in 1954 before the Labour Front Government took office. Therefore we cannot claim any thanks for it; except for the action of the Minister in bringing up this amending Bill here.

11.32 a.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: I was overwhelmed, Mr Speaker, by the uproarious enthusiasm with which my humble Bill has been greeted from all sides. There are just one or two little points I would like to deal with in reply.

One hon. Member of the Opposition referred to the cost to Government in paying private architects according to this scale. This was mentioned in the debate on the budget last year and of course I took note of it; but I must emphatically say that this has not been the guiding factor which has led the Government to move this particular amending clause. The factor which has been and is in my mind is the one which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to, firstly, the need for an expansion of building capacity - very many more buildings - and secondly, very much better buildings at lower cost. That of course means the building industry must be fully efficient and economic.

That is the basis on which my mind has been working, and is the broad problem. A particular job will need to be done to that end - a survey of the standards of private building as they are at present. That is what I propose - I mentioned it in my speech. And when the officer has been appointed and has finished his work we shall be able to see some of the problems involved in creating a fully efficient and economic building industry which will really serve the needs of the people. This little clause on the scale of fees is put in just to do a little tidying up, to put straight what obviously is wrong and must be put right.

We have had several references to the desirability of liberalising our attitude towards the recognition of qualifications. This is a matter which very easily engenders a great deal more heat than light. We will find that anybody who has a qualification, however low it may be, will desire it to be given the fullest recognition; but as soon as that is done he says. "Now I am registered, recognised", and he will be able to get his hands well into the money-making aspect of his work. The statement that all people who have qualified in any way and who then come to Singapore do so solely to serve the country with no thought of self at all is, I am afraid, not one which is likely to be borne out by practical experience. Indeed the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang indicated that some people who have the qualifications were in his opinion making a very good thing out of them; so to get people without suitable qualifications and give them a chance of making a good thing out of the building industry would probably be disastrous.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Point of order, Sir. I did not indicate in my speech that a man of no qualification should be registered. I merely said that we should not limit registration to British qualifications only.

Mr Speaker: It is a point for explanation, not a point of order.

Mr Francis Thomas: I was talking without notes and I think I expressed myself wrongly. I did not intend to imply that the hon. Member wished to give people registration who have no qualification, but that there is a tendency to lower qualifications. On that point I have two important points to make both connected with our own local young men and women who are qualifying themselves. The first is that we have every prospect of a sufficient intake of qualified people in the architectural and civil engineering professions in the next few years. I have asked for, though I have not yet got, the latest figures; but in general a year or two ago we had a total of 48 Government and 53 private engineering and technical students in the United Kingdom alone, in Australia 23 Government and 45 private students and in the United States 13 private students, which gives you a total of 182 - a fairly handsome intake if they come in during the next three or four years. We shall then have an ample supply of young people who are qualified. They will not have the experience to do the big jobs but they will have the qualifications. So if we start to recognise many other degrees, the prospects for these young men and women will be markedly decreased. They may find themselves in a flooded market. They do need a reasonable measure of protection to get themselves established and get into industry. If things are too hard for them they may get a most unfortunate impression. I am thinking in terms of a profession as a function of industry.

The other aspect of course is that we are developing technical education here. In the nature of things you cannot set up a complete system of technical education by waving hands in the air. You have to acquire the staff and the buildings, and then the students have to go through a long course of work. But when we do have our own local qualifications we shall no doubt hope that they will be acceptable, recognisable, in other territories, as our medical qualifications have in fact been so long recognised. If we accord recognition to all comers now, we shall have no bargaining power when in future we seek reciprocal recognition for our own qualifications.

An aspect of this question is that I personally hope that this territory will become a centre for education not only for Singapore and the Federation, but also for other territories around us. It may very well be that in future we shall have the capacity to train a large number of students from Vietnam, Thailand. Indonesia or elsewhere who will welcome the opportunity to come here rather than go to Australia or the United Kingdom. And there will be an added attraction if they know that the qualifications they get here are widely recognisable.

The United States has been mentioned. I do not know if I should place the U.S. high on the scale of strictness in recognition but I am informed that there, a man who may build a beautiful skyscraper in New York may be unable to build one in San Francisco because even between the States there is no mutual recognition of each other's qualifications. So I feel that until we have gone a bit further into that it will be unwise to say that any American qualification can be accepted. No doubt they may be very valuable ones but they must be scrutinised in relation to syllabus, the actual work done, the period taken and the quality of subsequent training. The Board of Architects has already referred this matter to the Institute of Architects of Malaya which is not a wholly expatriate body but has highly competent and experienced local men on it. We shall no doubt go forward gradually in this but it is not a matter on which we should rush ourselves.

I do not foresee any immediate shortage of newly qualified men for Singapore. The shortage will be of men with ten, twelve or fifteen years' experience who are competent to direct the work of the newly qualified men, and that shortage will not be affected significantly by the proposal which has been made.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill [Mr Francis Thomas].

Bill considered in Committee:

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

11.42 a.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3-

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

In page 2, line 11, to leave out "June, 1956" and insert "July, 1957".

I have already given an explanation of the purpose of this amendment in my speech but the effect of it is to permit a registration made between the date when we first proposed the amendment and the present date to remain valid. It seems proper that the single mechanical engineer should be allowed to retain his registration made between these dates, and that the bar should be imposed only on registrations after the present date and not made retrospective and so deprive him of what he has already achieved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

11.45 a.m.

Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third time and passed.