REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE COLLAPSE OF HOTEL NEW WORLD

11.28 am

Mr S. Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Inquiry into the Collapse of Hotel New World was presented to the President on 16th February 1987. The Report has also been circulated to all Members.

The Commission attributes the collapse of the building to its grossly inadequate structural design, its very unsatisfactory construction, the imposition of large loads not allowed for in the design during the building's life-span, and the absence of proper maintenance. After reviewing the present system of building control, the Commission has made ten recommendations on preventive measures. The recommendations relate to the various aspects in the development of a building, namely, design, choice of contractors, construction and maintenance.

For the design stage, the Commission recommends that all structural plans and calculations of a building submitted to the Development and Building Control Division (DBCD) should be independently checked either by DBCD or by PWD's structural engineers or, if the workload is too heavy, by a panel of professional engineers in private practice on a rotation basis.

For the construction stage, five recommendations have been made. These concern (i) the enforcement by DBCD of construction supervision by full-time resident engineers, or clerks-of-works, (ii) the conducting and reporting of various tests during construction, (iii) notification before main structural elements in a building are covered up, (iv) spot checks by DBCD, and (v) changes to plans.

On the maintenance aspect, the Commission recommends a mandatory 5-yearly inspection for all buildings except residential houses.

To enable DBCD to undertake the several new roles identified, the Commission also recommends that its professional staff strength be increased.

On the choice of contractors, the Commission suggests that the system of registration of contractors administered by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) be expanded and that the register of contractors be periodically reviewed.

The Government is grateful to the Commissioners for their effort in establishing the causes of the collapse and in coming up with the recommendations on preventive measures. The recommendations are sound, well-argued and comprehensive, covering as they do all the critical aspects from design to maintenance.

The collapse of Lian Yak Building, which is the name of the building, caused a loss of 33 lives and resulted in much grief and pain. We cannot afford another such disaster. There is, therefore, no doubt in my mind that we have to do all we can to help ensure that professionals and other people involved in the design, construction and maintenance of buildings carry out their duties honestly, properly and responsibly. Additional control measures may be necessary and existing preventive measures in crucial areas may need to be tightened. There must be no compromise on safety.

The recommendations in the Inquiry Report mean administrative time, legal and other implications, and costs. Before we take any steps to change our system, these implications must be carefully studied so as to determine the extent to which the recommendations can and should be implemented, and the actual forms the necessary controls should take. Some countries are practising one or more of the measures recommended, for example, Japan and Hong Kong. It is desirable and prudent that we also obtain an insight into their practices and learn from their experience before embarking to change our own system. What we want and should have is a system that provides an acceptable level of safety at reasonable cost. The system should not cause unnecessary and costly delays in the processing of plans and in construction.

The Ministry of National Development has formed a Working Committee to study the recommendations in detail and to put up specific proposals for implementation. The Working Committee is chaired by the Director-General of Public Works, Dr Tan Swan Beng, who is also the President of the Professional Engineers Board. Mr Lim Soo Ping, who was Secretary to the Commission of Inquiry, has been appointed Secretary to the Working Committee. His knowledge and understanding of the issues gained from the Commission's hearings will provide a continuity of effort. The Committee also comprises the Deputy Director of the Development & Building Control Division, a Senior State Counsel of the Attorney-General's Chambers, and representatives from eight professional groups whose views and inputs are also essential.

I will now ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate the list (Cols. 1315 - 1316) which gives the full composition of the Committee. [Copies of document circulated to hon. Members.] list - COMPOSITION OF THE BUILDING CONTROL WORKING COMMITTEE (Cols. 1315 - 1316)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee will complete its work in five to six months' time. Thereafter, the Government will announce the measures to be taken to enhance building safety.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, may I preface my supplementary questions with a couple of remarks?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Frame it in the form of a question, Mr Ng.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Whilst the Commission of Inquiry is to be commended for the thoroughness in which it set out to conduct the inquiry into the Hotel disaster, at the same time noting that Government was swift to set up the Commission of Inquiry, does it mean that great emphasis was put on the importance that buildings should stand a much longer time? So with these remarks, may I ask the Hon. Minister for the following clarifications.

Since he has mentioned just now that the Working Committee will take five to six months to complete its work, may we know what plans does the Government have on safety or preventive measures to be taken in the interim period? Second, since the safety of lives is of utmost importance, would the Government be prepared to absorb any additional cost to private developers arising from whatever measures that may be implemented as a result of the Working Committee's report?

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: You are not the Minister. How can you say the answer is no?

Third, could the Hon. Minister enlighten the House as to why structural plans are not checked as it is done, I am told, in some other countries like Hong Kong and Japan? And fourthly, since Chapter 11 of the Report questions the practice of not checking structural plans, may I ask why DBCD only checks architectural plans and not structural plans?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol wants to know what interim measures will be taken while the Committee is considering what recommendations should be implemented. Between now and the time when the Working Committee make its recommendations and the recommendations are implemented, owners of existing buildings should satisfy themselves by engaging professional engineers to check on their buildings to ensure that they are structurally sound if they have any reason to believe that their buildings are not structurally sound. Buildings do not just collapse overnight. There are many signs if they are structurally unsound. Even in the case of the Hotel New World, there were many many signs that the building was not sound but these signs were ignored. So if owners have reason to believe that something is wrong with their building, they should not hesitate to engage professional engineers to carry out thorough structural checks.

For buildings that were designed by the engineer and architect involved in the Hotel New World building or, as I said, the Lian Yak Building, which is the real name of the building, DBCD has already advised these owners to have their buildings checked by professional engineers. For new buildings and those that are at design stage, DBCD will continue to hold the professionals responsible for the structural drawings and calculations that they submit to the Government. If owners of existing buildings and those who are planning new buildings follow these procedures, I think there should be no cause for alarm.

The second point that the Member raised was the question of who would pay for all these additional costs of checking and ensuring that the buildings are sound, and whether the Government will bear such additional costs. The Government is concerned with the impact of new procedures and measures that may be introduced on the cost of buildings. But safety of a building is not just the concern of the Government; it is in the interests of everybody. Measures which are introduced are not measures intended to safeguard the Government. They are intended to safeguard owners and occupiers of buildings. The burden of such costs, therefore, should not be borne by Government and cannot be attributed to Government. Government will implement whatever measures that are needed as efficiently as possible in order to keep costs to the minimum. However, private developers must be prepared to shoulder any additional costs necessary. It is their responsibility to build buildings which are safe and sound for sale or for occupation.

The Member also raised two other points about the checking of structural plans and architectural plans. He asked why structural plans are not checked. The checking of structural plans by building authorities is not, in fact, a universal practice. It varies from country to country, from city to city, and from municipality to municipality. In the United States, for example, some States check, others do not. In the City of New York which has some of the tallest buildings in the world, I understand that structural plans are not checked by the government authority. The building authority relies on the professional engineers for safe structural designs. So, as I said, conditions vary. In some cases, the local conditions determine the practice of the authority. For example, in Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan, because of their geological conditions and because they are also subject to typhoons, they follow a different practice and they do check the structural plans and drawings. But even in the case of Japan and Taiwan, I am told that checking is only for buildings above a certain height. So it is not for all buildings.

Our own system in Singapore has evolved over a period of time to suit local needs. In fact, we have made changes over the years to our own laws that govern structural plans and the submission of structural plans to the Government. In 1970, for example, the Professional Engineers Act came into effect to regulate professional practice. And in 1973, the Building Control Act was legislated which laid down the details and procedures for the submission of plans and how they should be drawn up. In 1979, the Building Control Regulations were updated and new sets of regulations came into effect to provide better control over the design and over the construction practices in the industry and also to ensure structural stability. These Regulations are constantly under review.

We cannot and do not claim to have a foolproof system. No country can. Structural failures do happen even under the best system. There have been cases of major structural failures involving the loss of many lives in other countries which have also very stringent procedures, for example, the United States and the United Kingdom. I am sure Members must be aware of some of these disasters. No system can completely eliminate failures which are due to human acts or omissions. The case of the Hotel New World is the only major disaster that we have had in peace-time in our history. The incident is an extreme one where failure resulted from a combination of grossly unprofessional practice, poor construction, poor maintenance, complete disregard for the signs of poor structural condition in the building and everything that could go wrong due to human failings went wrong in the Hotel New World.

Should we have started checking the plans earlier just because other countries check their plans? I think we have to be careful. If we had done so, where should we draw the line on the level of scrutiny that we should have? Should we now plunge in and implement all the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry? Here again, I think we should be prudent, careful, before we implement all the recommendations. The recommendations, of course, provide a valuable basis but we must take into account the views and opinions of those practitioners, those who are actually involved in the building industry, before we implement or introduce new measures. Developers and other Singaporeans will have to bear an unnecessarily high cost if we just blindly implement all the recommendations of the Commission. Therefore, we have set up this Working Committee in order to identify and establish which recommendations can be implemented and how they should be implemented. As I said in my statement, we want to try and ensure maximum safety at a reasonable cost.

The Member drew attention to Chapter 11 of the Commission's Report where the Commission made some comments on the present practice of not checking the structural plans which are submitted to DBCD. He wanted to know why only architectural plans are checked but not structural plans. Whether structural plans should have been checked or not is subject to legal interpretation. As I said, it is not a universal practice. Why does DBCD check only architectural plans and not the structural plans? First of all, the standards and specifications for structural plans are clearly spelt out in detail in the regulations under the Building Control (Construction) Regulations. All structural submissions must comply very strictly with these regulations. There is no question of any waiver or modification. If a load has to be carried, it must have a sufficient number of columns to carry that load and there is no question of saying something less will do. So the DBCD, in fact, does not have to check the plans because the regulations are clear and the structural engineers are expected to follow these regulations. The DBCD will not entertain any request for waiver or amendment or relaxation of these regulations, as there can be no compromise on structural safety. It is for these reasons that the practice so far has been not to check the structural plans.

But in the case of architectural plans, the regulations cannot be so clear as to cover every possible event or every possible variation of use and the conditions of the site. Building regulations for architectural plans touch merely on space, lighting and ventilation, and they do not cover all aspects of the building. Many architectural aspects of a building are determined by use as well as by the site conditions. For example, if a building is in a particular site, near a major drain, then the Drainage Department may have a say in what the setback should be. Or the Fire Department may want to have a special say, and the Ministry of the Environment similarly. So these special requirements cannot be laid down in detail, and therefore the architectural plans are checked against the specifics of the use as well as of the site.

In addition, unlike structural plans, in the case of architectural plans, DBCD will allow a waiver or relaxation of certain building regulations. These may be determined by, as I said, the nature of the site or for some other technical grounds. For example, although for architectural plans the rules or regulations require certain setback from the boundary, a particular site may be such that to insist rigidly on such a setback will be not equitable or reasonable. Therefore, a certain relaxation is allowed. So a waiver is granted for such cases.

Another example would be ventilation. If a factory is involved in the production of goods which have to be completely kept free from dust, then of course the architectural plans will not provide for windows. And these normal ventilation requirements or light requirements may have to be waived. So these waivers are given depending upon the particular circumstances of the case. And that is why architectural plans are checked but structural plans, as I mentioned just now, are not subject to such waivers and relaxation.

Notwithstanding what I have just stated, the Working Committee will study very closely the reservations of the Commission of Inquiry with regard to the non-checking of structural plans and, if necessary, the present practice will be changed and the laws required for the changes will be presented to Parliament.