PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.02 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."

Under the Professional Engineers Act, 1970, University of Singapore graduates must have two years' practical experience for registration as professional engineers. However, corporate members of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore, and other professional bodies approved by the Professional Engineers Board are automatically entitled to registration. The Bill removes the discriminatory provisions and provides that the following persons will be entitled to registration as professional engineers:

(a) any person holding the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering from the University of Singapore or the Professional Diploma in Engineering from the Singapore Polytechnic;

(b) any person holding any other degree, diploma or qualification which the Minister may, after consultation with the Board, approve for registration;

(c) any person who satisfies the Board that he is otherwise qualified by having proper and recognised training in engineering and who passes such examinations as the Minister may, in consultation with the Board, require.

To maintain high standards, all persons must have had at least two years' practical experience in engineering work at professional level after qualifying and must pass a professional practice examination. However, the Minister may, after consultation with the Board, exempt any person from these requirements.

The Bill also provides that a person is entitled to registration as a professional engineer if, immediately before the date of commencement of the Professional Engineers (Amendment) Act, 1977, he is a registered professional engineer and his registration has not been cancelled.

The Act empowers the Professional Engineers Board to cancel the registration of a professional engineer or suspend him from practice under certain circumstances. The Bill seeks to give the Board additional powers to impose a penalty not exceeding $1,000 on a professional engineer or censure him where the Board is of the opinion that no cause of sufficient gravity exists to impose the penalty of cancellation or suspension.

Sir, I beg to move.

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]

4.07 p.m.

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

Clause 3 -

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stands part of the Bill."

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 3(c), it is proposed to provide the imposition of a fine not exceeding $1,000. Why is the ceiling set at $1,0007 In view of the fact that engineers engaged in building projects take a fee of 2 1/2% of the total cost, that is, they seem to make a lot of money, would the Minister consider increasing this ceiling of $1,000 to something more worthy of engineers?

Dr Tan Eng Liang: Sir, I really do not know how the level of $1,000 is arrived at. But as the existing Act does not provide for such penalty, I think the existing Board have felt the need and have recommended that the penalty of a maximum fine of $1,000 would be sufficient deterrent to an engineer. I really do not know whether the Member's comment that $1,000 is too lenient will be acceptable to the Professional Engineers Board.

The Minister for National Development and Communications (Mr Lim Kim San): Sir, I think the fact that he has been fined matters more to the engineer than the quantum of his fine. Being penalised for breaking professional practice and/or etiquette will be a deterrent and the engineer will certainly exercise more care in the future in carrying out his responsibility. To an erring professional the fact of having been fined is more detrimental to his career than the quantum of the fine.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, for offences like littering, we fine people $500, for offences like traffic violation, at least $50; for a motorist violating the Pedestrian Crossing Rules, $1,000 or thereabouts. For professionals, therefore, I am sure we need to impose a fine more worthy of them, i.e. more than $1,000 because professionals should have a higher sense of duty and responsibility.

Mr Lim Kim San: Quite correct. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think what motivates the legislature to limit it to $1,000 is that the mere fact that he has been fined as a professional puts a stigma on him. This will cost him more in monetary loss than it would have been for a layman. I think this is the rationale behind it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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