MEASURES TO ENHANCE STRUCTURAL SAFETY OF BUILDINGS

Mr S. Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in May this year, I announced in Parliament that a Working Committee comprising Government and private sector representatives had been set under the chairmanship of the Director-General of Public Works, who is also the President of the Professional Engineers Board, to look into the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of the Hotel New World. The Committee has finished its study and has submitted its recommendations to the Government. A copy of the Committee's Report has been circulated to Members.

In the course of its work, the Committee visited Hong Kong, Japan, the United Kingdom and West Germany to study their building control systems and practices which are similar or relevant to the recommendations made by the Commission.

The views and recommendations of the Working Committee cover five main areas, ie:

(i) checking of structural design;

(ii) control during construction stage;

(iii) maintenance of buildings;

(iv) registration of contractors; and

(v) DBCD's legislation and staffing requirements.

The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Working Committee with very slight modifications and will proceed to implement them. I will now comment on each of the recommendations.

(1) Checking of Structural Designs

On the checking of structural design, the Government agrees with the view that structural plans and calculations should be independently checked. We will implement a checking system proposed by the Working Committee under which DBCD will accredit registered professional engineers as checkers. Under the system, the developer will engage an accredited checker, who must be from a different firm from the designer, to check the structural design. The checker will submit an independent set of calculations and analyses to DBCD. DBCD will also carry out its own selective checking to make sure that the system is effective.

The proposed checking system by accredited checkers has several advantages:

Firstly, checking can be done in stages as each structural sub-system is designed. Consultations between the checker and designer can proceed expeditiously at every stage.

Secondly, fees paid to the checker by the developer can be based on actual work performed by the checker.

Thirdly, independence is ensured by requiring the designer and checker to be from different firms and by DBCD's own selective checking.

The Committee estimated that the proposed checking system would cost developers a marginal increase of 0.11% to the total construction cost or 1.6% to the total consultancy cost for a building project. To give Members some idea of what this would represent, if we take a workload equivalent to 70% of the annual value of building projects approved by DBCD during the period from 1982 to 1986, the checking work will represent $6.5 million annually in fees to private consultants.

(2) Construction Supervision

On construction supervision, the Government agrees that DBCD should enforce proper supervision by full-time qualified persons at the construction sites. For major projects costing $10 million and above, resident engineers will have to be engaged. A full-time clerk-of-works will be required for minor projects costing less than $10 million. However, only "standing supervision" by clerk-of-works during concreting and piling will be required for conventional residential projects costing $2 million and below. Clerks-of-works will have to be formally qualified with at least a Polytechnic Diploma or equivalent. However, in order not to affect the livelihood of the many clerks-of-works who have no formal qualifications and who are currently working in the industry, we will not impose this requirement for three years. Within three years, these people should upgrade themselves. The Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) will organize a 6-month National Construction Supervisors' Course for these unqualified clerks-of-works.

Other control measures to be introduced during the construction stage include:

(i) various tests to be carried out under the supervision of the professional engineers;

(ii) laboratory tests to be conducted by SISIR's accredited laboratories;

(iii) test results, schedule and record of supervision of the main structural elements to be maintained at the site office for DBCD's inspection and information;

(iv) quarterly reports to be submitted to DBCD;

(v) spot checks of construction sites by DBCD; and

(vi) major structural amendments during construction to be submitted for DBCD's approval.

(3) Maintenance of Buildings

On the maintenance of buildings, mandatory inspections by professional engineeers will be required for non-residential buildings at 5-yearly intervals. The frequency of inspection will be reviewed 5-10 years after impl ementation with a view to reducing it. Residential apartments and condominiums will be inspected once every 10 years. Private residential houses will be exempted from such mandatory inspection.

(4) Registration of Contractors

The purpose of the CIDB Registry of Contractors is to serve the needs of Government. Such a system of compulsory registration was introduced to ensure that only bona fide tenderers with the ability to provide a satisfactory level of supplies and services could participate in Government tenders. Therefore, it is inappropriate for CIDB to register and, in the process, to grade contractors for the purpose of private sector projects. It should be up to the private sector developers to make their own assessment on the contractors for their projects. Developes could, if they wish, also pick from amongst those registered with CIDB. However, users of the registry should note that the registration system by itself does not guarantee the quality and performance of the registered contractors. On the contractors' side, they can, in practice, also register with CIDB even if they do only private sector projects.

(5) Legislation and Staffing Requirements

New legislation will be introduced to enable DBCD to perform the new functions. DBCD will expand its professional staff strength to cope with its enhanced role in the design, construction and maintenance of buildings. The responsibility of the Building Authority will be transferred from the Deputy Director of DBCD to the Director-General of Public Works, who is in a better position to marshall the necessary technical resources within PWD when required.

Finally, I would like to add that although the aforesaid measures as recommended are aimed primarily at buildings in the private sector, they would also be applied to public sector buildings, where these measures are applicable. Statutory boards with in-house design expertise will be required to institute proper internal checking systems, ie, all structural plans and calculations must be certified by two qualified engineers, one as the designer and the other as the checker. This internal checking system is currently being practised by PWD as the Government Engineering Authority and responsible for all Government buildings as well as the HDB as the Public Housing Authority. The Building Authority would carry out selective checking to audit the internal checking systems of PWD and the statutory boards.

The above measures will be implemented in phases in the coming months as and when the required procedures, legislation and manpower are in place.

The Government is grateful to the Building Control Working Committee for their effort in coming out with the above practical preventive measures to enhance structural safety of our buildings.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whilst my Government Parliamentary Committee did not have the opportunity to study the Report of the Working Committee, nevertheless we are giving it a general support, and therefore we would like to pose some questions to the Hon. Minister. First, what are the main problems his Ministry will face in implementing the proposals as stated in the Report? And which are the measures likely to be introduced first?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all the recommendations of the Committee can be implemented. There are no big problems. The problems really arise from the rate at which they can be implemented. As I have already mentioned in my statement, it depends upon how quickly we can introduce the procedures, legislation and recruit the manpower. Some of the measures obviously require amendments to existing legislation, the Building Control Act, for example. These could take a little longer because we have to draft the amendments, present them to Parliament, debate and pass the amended legislation in Parliament. We would also take some time to recruit the necessary engineers and supporting staff to implement the measures.

The DBCD has already prepared the groundwork on the accreditation of checkers. In this, it will be working very closely with the professional bodies in Singapore. Applications for accreditation of checkers will soon be invited by DBCD and these applications will be evaluated by a selection panel comprising eminent engineers from both the public as well as the private sector. Design checks can be implemented once the accredited checkers are selected. Even though the legislation may not be in place, once we announce the list of accredited checkers, I am sure developers would want to use them. I want to emphasize that developers should not take these measures as measures just to comply with Government requirements. These measures are to protect them and the public. Therefore, even before the legislation is in place which will force them to use checkers, they should start using them to protect themselves and the potential buyers.

Procedures for tests during construction and spot checks of construction sites will also be implemented shortly and the targetted date is January 1988.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, the responsibility of the Building Authority will be transferred from the Deputy Director of DBCD to the Director-General of Public Works. I think the Minister stated that the Director-General is in a better position to marshall the necessary technical resources within PWD. In this respect, does the Minister not envisage a problem during the transitional period when the Building Authority is transferred to the Director-General of Public Works?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not expect any special problems. The Deputy Director who is now the Building Authority as defined in the law actually is one of the Deputy Directors working under the Director-General of Public Works. But there are other Deputies who are responsible for other aspects of public works and their resources and their expertise can be used. If the Director-General is the Building Authority as defined in the law, then he can call upon any one of the Deputies to participate in the evaluation of projects or in the implementation of the Act.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I would like to ask some questions on construction supervision.

Will this 6-month National Construction Supervisors Course which the CIDB is organizing provide sufficient training for clerks-of-works to enable them to competently supervise construction works? And is this course considered equivalent to the Polytechnic diploma? Another question is whether CIDB will want the clerks-of-works to be registered with them, or at least ask developers to register their clerks-of-works with the Board?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the course that will be organized, ie, the National Construction Supervisors Course, is an upgrading course for those who are already engaged in the industry. Applicants must have had sufficient experience, at least two years' minimum experience in the industry, before they can take this course. In other words, it is not a course for newcomers but for those who already have some practical experience.

The course, as drafted by the CIDB, should meet the requirements of any competent clerk-of-works. It consists of four modules which will cover all the fundamental requirements that the clerk-of-works should have to do his job properly. The curriculum was planned with major inputs from the construction industry as well as from the professional bodies and the Polytechnics. Depending upon the background, how much education he has had and how much experience, the course can be completed within a period of six to 12 months. The course will be held in the evenings. So it will not interfere with the work of the clerk-of works.

Of course, there are some who already have some qualifications which may not be directly relevant but some part of their courses may be relevant. For such people, there will be exemptions from certain parts of the course. We are convinced that the course will be sufficient to make the clerks-of-works competent in their job.

As to the question of registration of clerks-of-works, this matter was dealt with by the Working Committee, and I think they quite rightly came to the conclusion that there should not be a separate board of registration for clerks-of-works. It is a question of how far down the line we want to go. The consultant engineer in charge of the job is the one who is responsible, and it is up to him to employ competent people to execute the work. In any architect's firm or in any professional engineer's firm, the consultant engineer cannot say, "Well, somebody else did the job, therefore, I am not responsible." In the same way, in this case of clerks-of-works the engineer cannot disclaim responsibility. It is up to the consultant engineer to make sure, whether he employs a resident engineer or a clerk-of-works in the job, that such people are competent and carry out the job competently.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister some questions with regard to the registration of contractors. What is the Committee's recommendation on registration of contractors and the basis of this recommendation. Secondly, would the Government encourage all contractors to register with the CIDB even though they are only doing private sector projects? Thirdly, has the contractors' association's view been sought on the registration of contractors?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned in my Statement that the Working Committee looked at this recommendation which has been made by the Commission of Inquiry and they came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to register contractors.

The registry of contractors now maintained by the CIDB is for Government as a consumer of supplies and services, and contractors are assessed according to the kinds of work they can do. When Government wants to call for tenders, they use this list. Private developers have to make their own assessment. Of course, they can select from the list that the Government uses on the basis that such contractors already have passed through the scrutiny of Government. There are contractors who do basically priva sector work. If they want to be registered, of course they can apply and provide all the details. In other words, they will be applying as though they want to bid for Government tenders, and if they pass the scrutiny of the relevant authorities, they will be listed, and even though they do not bid for Government tenders, they would have at least passed the scrutiny for Government jobs and the private sector can always use such contractors.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, just a clarification on the answer on the National Construction Supervisor's Course. Will the qualification of those unqualified clerks-of-works who have attended this course be considered at par or equivalent to the Polytechnic diploma?

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, but it does not mean in all respects. That is why I started off the answer by saying that in respect of this job that we have for them, it will be considered as equivalent.

Dr Vasoo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to raise a few questions related to maintenance?

Could the Minister explain why residential buildings are inspected once in ten years whereas non-residential buildings are inspected once in five years? The second question is, why are private residential apartments or houses exempted from inspection, and will the inspection of buildings be extended to public housing blocks of flats?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have exempted the private residential houses because most of these are not more than two storeys high and are individual properties. I think owners can be expected to look after their properties. If there are any cracks, I am sure they will take immediate action to get somebody to look into the cracks. The use of the building is also not likely to change and it is also unlikely that the owner will make structural changes which will endanger his life. The responsibility, of course, must rest basically with the owner-occupants in the case of residential properties. If they detect any cracks, I am sure that they will seek the necessary advice.

In the case of commercial buildings, it is quite different. They are rented out usually and very often changes or structural changes take place - partitions are removed, partitions are put in, and there is not the same close scrutiny and sense of ownership. That is why we have accepted the recommendation that these buildings should be inspected once in five years.

In the case of residential apartments and condominiums which are highrise, the recommendation is that they should be inspected once in ten years. Most of these apartments are occupied by the owners. Of course, some are rented. And even where they are rented, they are not on very long leases, maybe two or three years. The owner then has an opportunity to go back, inspect, refurnish or restore the place before he rents it out again. So there is constant supervision by the owner of his property, and the owner can be expected to act responsibly. The occurrence of alterations and additions affecting structures is also less likely to take place in the case of residential premises as compared to commercial premises. Moreover, condominiums are required by law to be managed by management corporations.

The proposal for maintenance, I must emphasise, is only an interim proposal. We are not certain yet whether it is necessary over the long term to insist on five-yearly inspections. We have to run the system for five to ten years and make the necessary adjustments.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to the need to have accredited professional engineers. I see that all engineers, if they are professional engineers, would be certified by the Board. So why is there a need to have two standards of engineers, one accredited and the other non-accredited?

Mr Dhanabalan: To be registered as an engineer, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all that one needs to have is, I think, a degree and a minimum of working experience and you can start designing structures. For those who are going to check, the approach is that such engineers should have had at least ten years' experience because they are going to check on the work done by others and they should not be people who have just been registered to practice as engineers. There is therefore a need need to separate the requirements for checkers from those who design. The system that is recommended is actually taken from the practice in Germany where not all engineers are selected as checkers. Checkers are those who fulfill certain minimum requirements which are higher than those required for just normal engineers who do designs. We do not want a fresh graduate who has just been registered as an engineer to be checking the work of another fresh graduate. I do not think we will get any better work done.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister a couple of questions concerning the proposed checking system for structural designs, plans and calculations? The first question is, will it bring about any difficulties to the developers other than the slight increase in cost he mentioned earlier? Secondly, will it cause any delay in the approval of the building plans?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it should not cause any delay since the checkers will be also from the private sector, as I mentioned in my Statement. The checking can take place from the very first design of the building. It is not necessary for the whole building to be designed and the full set of drawings be submitted to the DBCD for checking and, if there are changes to be made or if there are errors, then the whole set has to be re-prepared. Under the system proposed, the checker can work with the designer right from the very beginning, and as the building is designed at every stage the checking can be done. So I think it should not lead to any delay.

In the case of those particular designs on which DBCD chooses to do a counter-check, there could be a small delay. But even then I do not expect it to be a serious delay.

Dr Vasoo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister forgot to answer my last question, ie, whether the maintenance inspection will be extended to public housing as well as URA and JTC buildings too?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is already a very elaborate and extensive system of checking of HDB, JTC and URA buildings, and that system will continue.