BUILDING CONTROL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, following the recommendations of the Building Control Working Committee, I announced in November last year that new laws and regulations would be enacted to ensure that our buildings are designed, checked, constructed and maintained to safe standards.

This Bill before the House seeks to revise and strengthen the law in respect of building control by:

(a) enhancing the powers of the Building Authority in relation to regulation of building works and safety of buildings;

(b) implementing a system of independent checking of structural plans by accredited checkers;

(c) requiring construction supervision by qualified persons and site supervisors;

(d) requiring certain tests to be carried out under the supervision of a structural engineer;

(e) requiring mandatory inspection of buildings at regular intervals by structural engineers; and

(f) providing for enhanced penalties in respect of offences.

The Bill replaces the existing Building Control Act which will be repealed. In drafting the Bill, we have adopted some of the provisions of similar legislation in UK, Hong Kong and Australia with modifications to suit our particular requirements. Related provisions in our local statutes have also been incorporated in the Bill to expand some of the powers of the Building Authority.

The main provisions in the Bill are those arising from the recommendations of the Building Control Working Committee.

In the design stage, the Bill requires that all structural plans and calculations are checked by an accredited checker, who has no professional or financial interest in the project. This checking of plans will be done before they are submitted to the Building Authority for approval. It includes major renovation works, additions and alterations to buildings. This will ensure that all structural plans and calculations are subjected to a system of independent checks. It will also prevent a situation where the design of the structures is carried out by an unqualified person, such as a draughtsman under the supervision of an irresponsible engineer, as happened in the case of the Hotel New World.

To ensure that there is proper supervision of the construction work, the Bill stipulates that the appointment of a qualified person and site supervisor must be done before a permit to carry out building works is issued. It requires all building works to be supervised by a qualified person and under the continual supervision of a site supervisor. The qualified person is required to maintain proper site records, test reports and other documents at the site for the purpose of check- ing by the Building Authority, and also carry out various structural tests during the construction stage. This will help to prevent incidents like the Cheng Hong Mansion where lapses in site supervision have resulted in the erection of substandard and unsafe concrete structures.

The Bill also requires building owners to engage professional engineers to carry out inspection of their buildings at regular intervals of five years for non-residential buildings and 10 years for residential buildings. This is to ensure that these buildings are maintained to acceptable and safe standards.

The Bill also incorporates other key provisions as follows:

(i) to expressly exempt Government building and building works carried out by the Government for its own use, from the Bill and the Building Regulations;

(ii) to enable qualified persons employed in the Statutory Boards (such as Jurong Town Corporation and the Housing and Development Board) to be authorized to exercise some of the powers and duties of the Building Authority so as to facilitate the approval of plans pertaining to minor modifications and alterations to their premises;

(iii) to replace the term "Certificate of Fitness" with the term "Certificate of Statutory Completion". The term "Certificate of Fitness" is a misnomer which seems to connote that once a building is issued with such a certificate, it is fit in all respects including workmanship and defects;

(iv) to protect the Government and its officers concerned from liability arising from the various functions assumed by the Building Authority.

The Bill represents a crystallization of the efforts of the officers in the Ministry of National Development and the Attorney-General's Chambers. They have tried their best to make sure that various control measures and procedures to be introduced in this Bill are practical, effective and adequate.

The Bill incorporates suggestions made by the Building Control Working Com- mittee which had representatives from the building profession and the construction industry. Nevertheless, even though we have already canvassed the views of the building profession and the construction industry, in order to ensure that the Bill will meet all our requirements, the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. The building industry and members of the public will be given a further opportunity to make representations.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Building Control Bill.

I would just like to make the following general comments. Firstly, the role of the Building Authority during construction. I welcome clause 11 of the Bill which provides for regular tests to be carried out during construction of the structural elements. Previously the Building Authority or BCD had no active role during the construction period. Now with the need for them to do the tests, this role by the Building Authority will provide an extra overlay of safety. The only concern here is that such tests when undertaken must be done expeditiously and the Building Authority should exercise flexibility to ensure that there will be no undue delay.

Next, I turn to the question of qualified Clerk-of-Works or site supervisors. Here I am concerned for the older Clerk-of-Works who have been on the job for many years and who may have practical skills and experience but may not have the necessary paper qualifications. I understand that the CIDB will be organizing or is organizing courses for unqualified Clerk-of-Works. But for age and other reasons, some of them may not be able to attend these courses. I feel that special efforts should be made to assist them to get the necessary qualifications so that they will not lose their jobs.

I turn now to the registration of contractors for private sector projects. The Bill does not provide for any provision for checks and registration of contractors for private sector projects. While the Bill now provides for a tighter check during the design and construction stages of the building and the use of qualified personnel for this purpose, there is nothing to check on contractors, some of whom may be unscrupulous. The professionals and site supervisors cannot be on the site for 24 hours and this may give some scope for unscrupulous contractors to take advantage of the situation. So perhaps there should be a system where contractors for private sector projects are asked to register with the Building Authority or the CIDB. And there must be some form of control on these contractors so as to protect purchasers of the buildings as well as office units high-rise commercial buildings and apartments.

Finally, Sir, our construction workers here are mainly foreigners and there is a need to develop a pool of skilled local construction workers. I would suggest that the Building Authority, together with the CIDB, look at this issue and work out a plan whereby we can ensure a pool of skilled local construction workers in our building industry.

Sir, this Bill will help ensure that highest standards are observed by all involved in the building and construction industry. I understand that in working out this Bill the experiences of the construction trade in many countries such as Australia, England and Hong Kong were studied and many good features found there have been incorporated in the Bill. I also welcome the committal of this Bill to a Select Committee as this will provide a further opportunity, as the Minister stated, for those involved to give their views and inputs.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GPC for National Development supports in general the Building Control Bill 1988. This Bill incorporates the recommendations of the Working Committee appointed to consider the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of the Hotel New World. We are of the view that this is an important Bill as it is a matter of great public interest. The people of Singapore will not easily forget the disaster that brings us here today for the Second Reading of this Bill. We trust that the Government also shares our view.

But, Sir, we shall not go into the details of the proposed legislative amendments at this point. The Select Committee will deliberate and examine the proposed legislative amendments in extensive detail later.

However, Sir, whilst the GPC for National Development and Housing supports the Bill in general, there are several areas of concern which we feel should be discussed, namely:

(1) adequate manpower resources;

(2) implementation of the new requirements and procedures;

(3) maintenance and checking of completed high-rise buildings;

(4) exemption of Government buildings; and

(5) the Certificate of Statutory Completion replacing the Certificate of Fitness for occupation.

1. Adequate Manpower Resources

First, in his statement in Parliament on 9th November 1987, the Minister for National Development and Foreign Affairs said that the Government would implement a checking system by accredited professional engineers. However, the Minister did not specify the criteria by which the proposed list or register of accredited engineers is to be drawn up and by whom. Will the Minister kindly elaborate?

Secondly, we support the requirement of proper supervision by full-time qualified persons at construction sites. However, do we have sufficient well-trained and qualified site supervisors to go round? What are the training programmes available? What happens when the exigency of the situation demands that work on the construction site be carried on beyond normal working hours, perhaps even round the clock? While construction workers can be spread out by introducing working shifts, what about the site supervisors? Surely they cannot be expected to be present at the site 24 hours a day. Can the Minister assure the House that this situation will be adequately covered by the proposed Bill?

We agree that the requirement of keeping records of the progress of contruction is good. Nevertheless, the Building Authority still has to counter-check by conducting spot checks of construction sites to ensure that building regulations are complied with. We are concerned as to whether the Building Authority can perform its role efficiently. Can the Minister also assure the House that the Building Authority has adequate qualified and reliable manpower resources to carry out its responsibilitiess?

2. Implementation of the new requirements and procedures

Sir, we are aware of the delicate balance between ensuring proper control and creating excessive red tape. However, in the zeal to ensure proper control, we should not impose so many cumbersome and complex requirements, procedures, rules and regulations so as to cause unnecessary delays in obtaining approval to building plans. The last thing we want is to discourage development enterprise, especially when we want to give the construction industry a boost. Can the Minister give us an indication whether it will take longer to obtain approval to building plans when the new regulations are implemented? If so, what changes are being considered to assist the Building Authority to cut down the extra time needed to allow for compliance with the new regulations?

The Minister had in his statement on 9th November in this House mentioned that the proposed checking system would cost developers an estimated 0.11% increase to the total construction cost or 1.6% to the total consultancy cost for a building project. We are concerned about this increase. We understand that the developers can pass off such an increase to the buyers or tenants. Has the Minister considered ways by which such increase can be avoided or made minimal? Although one can argue that these new regulations are ultimately for the good of the buyers and tenants, we must remember that it is the developer's responsibility in the first place to erect structurally sound buildings. We are of the view that it is unfair for buyers and tenants to have to bear in full the increase in the developer's costs in providing what they are entitled to.

3. Maintenance in checking of completed high-rise buildings

Sir, we commend the move to subject high-rise commercial and residential buildings to periodic maintenance checks to ensure that these buildings are structurally safe and fit for occupation. However, we are concerned whether the Building Authority can conduct the periodic checks efficiently. It is no use having such a regulation without the manpower to implement it. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Building Authority proposes to cope with this monumental task? Indeed, it will be no mean feat to complete the checking of all the completed high-rise buildings in Singapore just once, let alone periodically.

Sir, today, most Singaporeans work or live in high-rise buildings. For some, it is both. Besides the Cheng Hong Mansion which was mentioned earlier by the Minister, which was discovered to be structurally unsafe last year, what other buildings have also been found unsafe? What steps the Government will be taking to instil confidence in the people? We are talking about people who have put in their life-long savings into a flat only to find that the building, of which their flat is a part, is declared structurally unsound. We understand that for these people, to seek legal redress means a long drawn and expensive affair and the results usually leave much to be desired. By the time the defect is discovered, the developers may have been wound up and the architects and engineers difficult to trace. Therefore, we would like to pose a question to the Minister. What recourse would the people affected have then? We are aware that this may be outside the ambit of the Building Control Bill but we urge the Government to look into this problem now.

4. Exemption of Government buildings

Sir, we note that Government buildings will be exempted from the provisions of the Building Control Bill. The Minister said just now that the PWD has its own internal checking system for Government buildings and that the statutory boards will be required to institute proper internal checking systems. However, the Minister was not succinct as to what "proper internal checking systems" were. Would he like to elaborate? What is it about these internal checking systems that make it unnecessary for Government buildings to undergo the stringent requirements of the Building Control Bill?

5. Certificate of Statutory Completion

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain the significance of renaming the Certificate of Fitness to that of Certificate of Statutory Completion. Once a Certificate of Statutory Completion has been issued by the Building Authority, the question is: are the architects and engineers discharged from liability for structural defects that may surface later? Can the Minister also tell us how much confidence such a certificate is expected to give buyers?

We are concerned with how the Government fits into the picture. We are of the view that the Building Authority's role in maintaining control over construction and of certifying that buildings are fit for occupation should be examined further. At the end of the day, the Building Authority certifies that the building is fit for occupation. Yet, the Building Authority is never liable should defects be found later. Could the Minister look into this and give us an explanation?

We note that the Bill seeks to introduce a number of penalties for errant developers, etc. However, as mentioned earlier, who is to bear responsibility if defects are discovered only years later and the developers, architects and engineers concerned are nowhere to be found. Has the Minister considered setting up a common fund or imposing some sort of compulsory insurance or other methods for dealing with this problem?

Before concluding, I would like to comment in passing that the Bill is silent on poor workmanship. While this may be more relevant to the Housing Developers Control Act, the layman may not be able to distinguish between structural defects and poor workmanship. Indeed, the latter may seem more important as it is visible. Although poor workmanship may not be the basis of structural defects, it may contribute to it. Will the Minister consider looking into this lacuna in the law as well? In our view, buildings should be built to last as long as required. I recall that the National Theatre did not last very long. I know that this building was designed by professionals in the private sector. It is important to assure the people that the high-rise buildings they live in and work in are safe. Therefore, we welcome the committal of this Bill to a Select Committee. This Bill affects not only developers, building contractors, architects and professional engineers but also the general public. We hope that the public will come forward to give their views and suggestions so that together we can strive to keep our high-rise buildings safe to work in and live in.

In conclusion, Sir, we reiterate that we generally support the Building Control Bill 1988. We have not discussed the Bill in detail as we leave the thrashing of the finer details to the Select Committee appointed to undertake the task.