ARCHITECTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.21 p.m.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Tan Eng Liang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill seeks to replace the Architects Act of 1941 which has been outmoded by the establishment of the School of Architecture in the University of Singapore and by other developments affecting the architectural profession.

The Bill provides for a Board of Architects consisting of a President to be appointed by the Minister and eight members from the University, the private sector and the Government.

The functions of the Board include the maintenance of a register of architects, the regulation of the conduct and ethics of the architectural profession and other associated functions. The Board is also empowered to cancel the registration or suspend a registered architect under certain circumstances.

An important change is that under this Bill members of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) will cease to enjoy the privilege of automatic recognition which will instead be accorded to graduates of the Singapore University School of Architecture and to holders of the Diploma in Architecture from the Singapore Polytechnic. Other persons holding approved qualifications will also be entitled to register.

Persons who are registered under the present Architects Act shall be deemed to be registered under the new Act. But a professional engineer who is registered as an architect will after three years cease to be entitled to be so registered if he continues to practise as an engineer, unless otherwise approved by the Minister. This is because the registration of engineers has been provided under the Professional Engineers Act enacted in 1970.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a piece of legislation to safeguard the interests of architects, the profession ought to be happy with the Bill before the House.

However, looking at it as a member of the public, I must express my disappointment that insufficient attention would appear to have been paid to safeguard the interests of the public. In saying so. Sir, I have in mind particularly the need for Government to at least have some say in how an architect's fee should be calculated. At present, I believe architects in the Republic follow an agreed scale of fee fixed by the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA for short). This scale, if I am not mistaken, was taken wholesale from the RIBA, the British counterpart of SIA. With the memory of the fierce rate of inflation in the cost of construction over the last couple of years still fresh in my mind, I do like to question the equity of the customary practice of the architectural profession in calculating fees by applying a uniform percentage on the contract sum of any one particular job irrespective as to the time spent. This would appear to me also to be totally unrelated to the quantity of work involved.

Just to give an illustration, if today the contract value of a particular job is $10,000 the architect's fee applicable calculated at 7½% would be $750. But tomorrow, if for any reason either on account of escalation in the costs of building materials or labour, the same job should be valued at $20,000 the architect would still be entitled to 7½% but on the enhanced value, or $1,500, i.e, an increase of 100% in fees: although it is highly questionable whether the quantity of work involved under such circumstances has proportionately increased.

This is the sort of internally-generated inflation which is well within our control, and something ought to be done about it, perhaps by suitable provision in the law giving the regulating authorities the right to step in as and when the occasion so demands. At a time when we are energetically pursuing the renewal of our City state, we should wherever and whenever possible endeavour to bring down the cost of construction.

Clause 17, sub-clause (1)(c) imposes certain penalties upon unauthorised persons undertaking "architectural work". However, there appears to be no attempt under the Bill to define what is "architectural work". This leads me to wonder whether in the actual implementation of the law a situation might not arise whereby owing to ambiguities of the law, offences could be committed unwittingly by certain members of the public under the relevant section. What is architectural work? Is interior decoration involving minor structural alteration to be considered as architectural work? There are at present a number of small-time contractors involved in such type of work at HDB flats and other private residential estates. Would they be considered as undertaking architectural work? Presumably the legal definition is to be found in our Building bye-laws and regulations. Perhaps the Hon. Minister would care to clarify for the benefit of the general public.

I would also take the opportunity of urging the Minister to review our existing bye-laws and regulations at an early date; first, to ensure whether they are still in keeping with and relevant to our present circumstances, and secondly, to consider excluding therefrom certain types of work which may not strictly require architectural expertise. In making the second suggestion I have in mind the construction and alteration of wooden structures commonly seen in our rural areas. At present, the services of architects are required in conjunction with all such structures except. I believe, where the built-up area is less than 200 sq, ft. In practice considerable confusion has been caused by the regulating authorities in this particular area of work. For instance, I have come across cases where occupants, applying for a change of roofing from attap to corrugated iron sheets, have been asked to submit architectural plans.

Another area of development that has prompted me to suggest a review is the increasing tendency to use prefabricated steel structures for industrial and warehousing purposes. Looking at such type of structures, as a layman it would appear to me to be sufficient to require only the services of engineers without involving architects. In this way we could help to keep construction costs down, as we all know that the architect's fee is normally calculated at 7½%, whereas the engineer's fee is only 2½%. It is pertinent for me to make clear that I have not been lobbied by the engineering profession and therefore hold no briefs on their behalf. My concern here is simply the saving of construction costs for our general public.

3.30 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which seeks to amend the Architects Act of 1941 is commendable, as it replaces the old Act and updates the provisions dealing with the registration of architects, the qualifications and practice of architects, and so on.

My worry is this. I am wondering whether the Ministry has given sufficient thought to this Bill before introducing it. As my Friend, the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu, has pointed out, some further amendments could be introduced to improve it. I also notice that many amendments will be moved at the Committee stage. This is a Bill to amend an old Act and I am sure the Ministry must have been thinking of amending this Act for quite some time. The Bill contains only 26 clauses, of which eight are to be amended. The total number of amendments that will be moved is 15.

Sir, it is becoming a habit of the Government to amend Bills at Committee stage, not in the case of this Bill alone but even in other Bills previously. I can understand if the amendments come from this side of the House or if a Bill is sent to a Select Committee when, as a result of representations received, amendments are introduced. But in this particular case, as in many other previous instances, the Bill has been introduced by the Government and soon after its Second Reading, many, many amendments are to be moved by the Government in Committee.

I am just wondering. Sir, whether this is the result of carelessness or insufficient thought given on the part of the Ministry that introduces the Bill, or whether the problem lies with the people who drafted the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would care to explain. I am sure he has a legitimate reason for these amendments. If so, why were they not given sufficient thought before the Bill was introduced?

3.35 p.m.

Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I share some of the sentiments of the Member for Jalan Kayu. Here I would like to state that while the architects' interests are being sufficiently provided for in this Bill, the consumer is still not adequately protected.

I must hasten to add that there is some protection now afforded to consumers, but very little indeed. There must be a move by Government to ensure that in the services area there is consumer protection. The Government had seen it fit to introduce in the products area protection for consumers in the form of the Consumers Protection Act. It is my hope that the Government looks more closely into the services area to ensure adequate protection for consumers.

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Mr Speaker, Sir, by "consumer protection" I presume the Hon. Member for Potong Pasir implies architect's fees and those matters relating to work done. I shall take my reply together with the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu.

On the question of architect's fees raised by the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu, the fee for new works done is 7½% of the cost of the executed works as currently shown in the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) "Scale of Professional Charges". For repetitive work, the fee is on a declining scale from 6% down to 4%. I understand and it is also understood that these rates are non-mandatory guides for SIA members and that in actual practice, the fees are negotiable between the client and the architect. It is also my understanding that the total cost of works may be based on the tender price or on a fixed lump sum, in which case the question of inflation affecting architect's fees does not arise. However, should the total cost of work be based on the final settlement of the accounts, then the basis of arriving at the final cost of works is negotiable between the architect and the client. Any increase in fees due to inflationary elements is again a matter of mutual settlement. Since architects' fees are negotiable, there is no necessity to make provisions in this Bill to stipulate the scale of fees.

However, it may be pertinent to point out that clause 5 of this Bill provides that one of the functions of the Board of Architects is to determine and regulate the professional conduct and ethics of the architectural profession, as well as to hear and determine disputes relating to the professional conduct or ethics of registered architects. Within this context, therefore. cases of malpractice or conduct which is infamous in the professional aspect can be brought to the attention of the Board.

Hon. Members of Parliament may wish to know that previously, under the Architects Ordinance of 1941, the Board of Architects was empowered to fix a scale of fees charged. However, this was removed by an amendment in the Ordinance in 1957 as it was felt that the Government should not interfere in the fees charged, which should be left to market forces. However, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that should a situation at any time warrant the architect's fees to be fixed, amendments could accordingly be considered.

The Member for Jalan Kayu made a correct observation in that the term "architectural work" is not defined in the Bill. The Ministry is aware of this and to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation (and this is one of the reasons in answer to the Hon. Member for Telok Blangah) an amendment will be introduced at the Committee stage to delete clause 17 (1)(c). Certain other minor amendments to the Bill will also be moved at the Committee stage and the reasons are to make the Bill more explicit. Perhaps I can say that the reasons for the amendments are both of a drafting nature as well as the result of representations and observations made by some MPs and the Singapore Institute of Architects. Generally, architects do not build houses without amendment to the plans. So at the last moment the Singapore Institute of Architects made further representations to the Ministry, and to show that we are open to suggestions we have therefore incorporated a few of the suggestions or recommen dations made by them.

The amendments proposed also seek to strengthen the authority of the Minister vis-avis the Board of Architects and also to give the Board of Architects more flexibility in meting out punishment for lesser offences which do not warrant suspension or deregistration as required under the existing unamended Bill.

On the other point raised by the Hon. Member for Jalan Kayu on minor works, let me say that for alterations and additions to HDB flats and other private residences a submission of building plans by architects is not required. However, where there are major additions and alterations or where additions and alterations entail structural works involving safety standards, architect's plans are required. Recently, the Building Control Division issued guidelines as to the type of building works which do not require submission of building plans by architects, and this information is available at the Building Control Division, if required.

As to the Member's comment on the erection of temporary dwellings in the rural areas, the BCD makes available six standard-type plans so that applicants need not engage the services of an architect. The services of an architect are only required where erections do not conform to any of these six standard-type plans, and this is obviously to ensure that the plans comply with all the necessary building requirements.

The Member also suggested looking into and updating the existing regulations under the Local Government (Building) Regulations. We are looking into this at this juncture, and appropriate amendments will be made when we are ready for it. I would also like to inform the Member that the change of roofing from attap to corrugated iron sheets or other light-weight materials such as asbestos does not require architect's plans.

The Member has also made a valid point on the use of services of engineers as against architects in engineering type of works. As things stand, building plans can only be submitted by persons registered under the Architects Act. Consequently, in the present context an engineer cannot submit building plans unless he is registered under the Architects Act. The Institution of Engineers Singapore, and the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore, together with the Singapore Institute of Architects, have made representations to the Ministry. The question of permitting engineers to submit building plans for certain types of projects, for example, prefabricated works, as brought up by the Member, is being discussed between these interested parties. We will incorporate the necessary recommendations in the Schedule to the Building Regulations when these issues are mutually settled.

Finally, I would like to assure Members of this House that both the Singapore Institute of Architects and the present Board of Architects have been consulted throughout the whole period of the drafting of this Bill. I have also indicated earlier that even at the last moment representations made by these organisations were accepted and incorporated in amendments which will be introduced at the Committee stage, and they have fully supported this Bill.

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. - [Dr Tan Eng Liang].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.45 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 5, lines 9 and 10, to leave Out "Board may with the approval of the Minister exempt" and insert "Minister may after consultation with the Board exempt subject to such conditions as he thinks fit".

The purpose of this amendment is to empower the Minister to grant exemption in respect of fulfilling certain conditions for registration after consultation with the Board of Architects.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 21, at end, to add -

"(f) if it appears to the Board that he has contravened any provision of the code of professional conduct and ethics prescribed under section 21; and".

The purpose of this amendment is to give additional and specific details of the circumstances under which the Board may take disciplinary action against a registered architect.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will have to be made,

In page 6, line 21, to leave Out "and";

In page 6, line 22, to leave out "(f)' and insert "(g)".

These will be done.

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move.

In page 6, line 24, at end, to add -

"(2) The Board may in any case in which it considers that no cause of sufficient gravity for cancellation of registration or suspension from practice exists-

(a) by order impose on the registered architect a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars; or

(b) by writing under the hand of the President censure the registered architect.".

Sir, the proposed new sub-clause empowers the Board to impose lesser punishment than suspension or cancellation of registration in cases of lesser offence.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: A consequential amendment will have to be made.

In page 6, line 25, to leave Out "(2)" and insert "(3)".

This will be done.

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 25, to leave Out "make any order" and insert "exercise its powers".

This amendment is necessary for its change of wording, and the purpose is to cover new sub-clause 2 (b) where no order is made.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 26, after "(1)", to insert "or (2)".

The reason for the amendment is the same as that given above.

Amendment agreed to,

Further amendment made:

In page 6, lines 32 and 33, to leave Out "make the order" and insert "exercise its powers".-[Dr Tan Eng Liang].

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 33, at end: to add -

"(4) Every penalty imposed by the Board under subsection (2) shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Board.".

The purpose of this new sub-clause (4) is to enable the Board to recover the penalty if not paid by the offending registered architect.

Amendment agreed to,

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 35, after "suspension", to insert "or any imposition of penalty".

This amendment is to give the registered architect the right of appeal against any imposition of penalty.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 8, to leave Out lines 1 to 3 inclusive.

The purpose is to avoid penalising any owner or tenant of premises who does his own drawings or alterations or repairs of a minor nature in respect of such premises.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will have to be made.

In page 7, line 39, at end, to insert "or"; and

In page 8, line 4, to leave Out "(d)" and insert "(c)'.

These will be done.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 8, line 17, to leave out "has not been" and insert "is not".

The reason is that only a currently registered architect can be employed as an architect.

Amendment agreed to,

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 9, line 14, at end, to add -

"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Board may appoint an Investigation Committee, consisting of such number of members which may include members of the Board as the Board may determine, for the purpose of investigating into any complaint against a registered architect.

(3) The Investigation Committee shall after investigating into any complaint report to the Board on the matter.

(4) Subject to any rules made under section 21, the Investigation Committee shall have power to regulate its procedure.".

Sir, the reason for these sub-clauses is to provide for the appointment of an Investigation Committee with the power to regulate its own procedure of investigation into complaints against any registered architect and to report the results of such investigation to the Board,

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: A consequential amendment will have to be made.

In page 9, line 10, after "20.", to insert "-(l)".

This will be done.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 10, line 12, after "shall", to insert ", without the approval of the Minister.".

Sir, the reason for this amendment is that, at the expiry of three years from the commencement of this Act, a person shall not, without the approval of the Minister:-

(a) be simultaneously registered under both the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act; and

(b) be registered under this Act even if he was registered under the old Act by virtue of his engineering qualifications.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 10, line 14, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 17 and insert -

"--

(a) if such person is at the same time registered as a professional engineer under the Professional Engineers Act; or

(b) if such person, though not registered under the Professional Engineers Act, is entitled to be registered under this Act under paragraph (dl of subsection Ill of section 8 by virtue of possessing one of the engineering qualifications set Out in the First and Second Schedules to the Architects Act repealed by this Act.".

The reasons for the amendment are similar to the above amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 -

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 10, line 18, to leave out the full-stop and insert -

"; but, without limiting the provisions of the Interpretation Act, such repeal shall, not affect any document or any thing whatsoever done under any provision of the repealed Act, and every such document or thing so far as it is subsisting or in force at the time of the repeal shall continue and have effect as if it had been made or done under the corresponding provision of this Act and as if that provision had been in force when the document was made or the thing was done."

This amendment is part of the transitional provisions and is intended to keep legalised, when necessary, all documents issued and of acts done under the authority of the repealed Act.

Amendment agreed to,

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

4.00 p.m.

New Clause - (1) For the purposes of any "Powers of investigation by the Investigation the Board Committee or any hearing under and Inves- section 12 by the Board, the tigation Investigation Committee or the Board Committee may - to require (a) require evidence to be given attendance on oath and for that purpose of witnesses, the Chairman of the etc. Investigation Committee or the President or other member of the Board presiding at the hearing may administer an oath; and (b) require any person to attend and give evidence before it and to produce all books, documents and papers in that person's custody or under his control relating to the subject matter of the investigation or hearing. (2) Every person who without lawful excuse refuses or fails to attend and give evidence when required to do so by the Investigation Committee or the Board or to answer truly and fully any question put to him by a member of the Investigation Committee or the Board or to produce to the Committee or the Board any book, document or paper required of him, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.".- [Dr Tan Eng Liang].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

Sir, in order to effectively conduct an investigation or hold an inquiry into any complaint against a registered architect, the Investigation Committee or the Board, as the case may be, is empowered to examine persons on oath and to require the attendance of witnesses and the .production of documents. Failure to comply with the Board's or Committee's requirement without lawful excuse is made punishable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: This new clause will be inserted immediately after clause 20.

Amendments will also be made to the numbering of clauses consequent on the addition of the new clause.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.