BUILDING CONTROL BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.52 pm

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

The Building Control Bill seeks to revise and strengthen the law in respect of building control. This includes:

(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 under the Act.

There are three important new aspects in the Bill which will change the present practice in the building industry. The first concerns the independent checking of structural design plans before the commencement of building works. The second new aspect is in bringing the main contractor and clerks-of-works within the ambit of the law. The third new feature of the Bill is the requirement for mandatory structural inspection of buildings at regular intervals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I moved this Bill before the House in March 1988, in the Sixth Parliament, it was resolved that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee so that the building industry and members of the public would be given an opportunity to make representations. This was to ensure that the Bill meets all our requirements.

The Select Committee received 18 written representations on the Bill from various professional groups, individuals and other groups. These representations made some very pertinent and constructive comments on the Bill. Having studied all the written representations and having heard oral evidence from some representatives, the Select Committee recommended some substantive amendments to the Bill. The proposed amendments and the reasons for these amendments are contained in the Select Committee's Report which was circulated in August 1988 to the House. Before the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill could be heard, Parliament was dissolved and the Bill lapsed. It has therefore become necessary now to present the Bill afresh to Parliament. The new Bill incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee as well as some further improvements by the Ministry. I will now highlight the key features of the Bill, including the changes to the original Bill as a result of the recommendations by the Select Committee.

In the design stage of a building the Bill requires that all structural plans and calculations are checked by an accredited checker who has no professional or financial interests 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. This provision was in the original Bill.

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 construction building works will be 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 records, site records, test reports and other documents on the site for examination or checking by the Building Authority. He is also to carry out various structural tests during the construction stage. This will help prevent incidents like the Cheng Hong Mansion where lapses during construction by the supervisor resulted in the erection of sub-standard and unsafe concrete structures. This provision again was in the original Bill.

The most important change to the Bill as compared to the original Bill is that concerning the role and responsibility of the contractor. It was the general view of the various representors to the Select Committee that contractors play a crucial role in ensuring that a building is built safely and constructed in accordance with the approved building plans and building regulations. As such, it is important that contractors be brought under the ambit of the law. The Select Committee agreed with these representations and several clauses in the Bill have been amended to achieve this.

A new term 'builder' has been inserted in clause 2 of the Bill. The 'builder' as defined, refers to the main contractor who carries out building works for the developer. It excludes sub-contractors. A builder can be a person, a partnership, a company or a body corporate.

A new clause 11 has been included to spell out the duties of the builder. It requires the builder to build in accordance with the requirements of the building regulations and the approved plans of the building. For example, the builder must ensure that the actual concrete strength achieves the designed value and all reinforcement bars are placed in accordance with the approved building plans. Upon the completion of the building works, the builder has also to certify that the building has been built in accordance with the approved plans. The builder must also inform the Building Authority if he ceases to be the builder and the developer must appoint another builder in place of the first builder, and this second builder will then become responsible under the law.

The penalties imposed on the builder for offences under the Bill are similar to those prescribed for the qualified person in respect of analogous offences. Where a convicted builder is a body corporate or partnership, every director or person occupying an executive and managerial position in the organization will be personally guilty, unless he can prove that he has exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Role and Responsibility of Site Supervisors

Role and responsibility of site supervisors is also an important aspect of the Bill. This provision in the Bill before the House is the same as in the original Bill. The new law will make it mandatory to appoint a full-time site supervisor to supervise the construction of structural works of the buildings. The duties of site supervisors are spelt out in clause 10 of the Bill. Supervisors could either be graduate engineers or clerks-of-works. All clerks-of-works will require to be properly trained and certified to carry out their duties and responsibilities. Today there are not enough certified clerks-of-works. Training is being conducted for supervisors to be certified. Therefore we intend to enforce the requirement of proper qualification of clerks-of-works in three years' time, ie, 1992. This will give enough time for CIDB to conduct courses so that all clerks-of-works who are now working in the industry without certification will have an opportunity to attend courses and take the examinations and be certified.

Permits to carry out Building Works

As a result of the Select Committee's recommendations, the provision on the permits to carry out building works has been amended in clause 7 of the Bill to require the builder as well as the developer and qualified person to be a joint applicant for the permit. The previous practice was to issue such building permits to the developers only. The new practice will ensure that there is proper and distinct assignment of duties and responsibilities between the qualified person, the developer and the builder.

Periodical Inspection of Buildings

The Bill will require mandatory inspection of buildings at regular intervals by structural engineers, ie, every 10 years for residential buildings and every five years for non-residential or commercial buildings. The original Bill did not explicitly make provisions for structural checking of buildings which are both commercial as well as residential components, like condominiums. Clause 26 has been amended to take this into account. Any residential building which does not have more than 10% of its floor area being used for commercial purposes will be subjected to mandatory inspection every 10 years; in other words, such a building will be construed to be a residential building although there are commercial components in such a building. But the commercial component cannot exceed 10% of the floor area.

Independence of Structural Engineer

Clause 28 has also been amended to spell out the duties of the structural engineer carrying out building inspections and the penalty for failing in his duties of inspection. A new clause 29 has been introduced to ensure the independence of the structural engineer appointed to carry out such inspections. It is important that the structural engineer must not have any professional or financial interest in the building to ensure that the performance of his duties is fair, impartial and unprejudiced.

Exemption of Government Buildings from the Bill

Clause 3 in the original Bill was included to make it clear that Government buildings and building works carried out by Government for its own use are not bound by the provisions of the Act. This clause has been deleted now as it is unnecessary to reiterate what is already provided in section 55 of the Interpretation Act. However, I would like to emphasize that Government buildings will still have to be subject to the structural, health and safety provisions of the Building Control Regulations. For example, on the requirement of independent checking of structural designs, the PWD has instituted a system of internal checking of structural designs. Structural designs undertaken by one division are checked by structural engineers of another division. Designs undertaken by statutory bodies, which are exempted from submission of building plans to the Building Control Division, will have similar internal checking system. The Building Control Division (BCD) will conduct an annual audit on such statutory boards to ensure that the Building Control Regulations are complied with.

Additional Amendments

Subsequent to the Select Committee Report, some additional amendments were introduced as a result of a review of the draft Building Control Regulations. There will be regulations made under the Act. When we drafted the Regulations, we found that some parts of the Bill had to be amended to make sure that the draft Regulations do not exceed the ambit of the Building Control Bill.

Revocation of Permit to Carry out Building Works

To protect public safety during the construction phase, the new sub-clause 7(3) has been inserted to empower the Building Authority to revoke the permit to carry out building works if it is deemed to endanger public safety or to cause damage or adversely affect the structural stability of surrounding buildings. Powers to Take Samples

We have also amended clause 34 to empower the Building Authority to take, without compensation, reasonable samples of building materials for analysis in ascertaining whether there has been a contravention of the Act or of the Building Regulations.

Exclusion of temporary Buildings and Minor Building Works

The new clause 4 in the Bill has been inserted to specifically exclude temporary buildings and minor building works specified in the Schedule from the requirement of building plan approvals and permits to carry out building works. We would not insist that every type of building work will require submission of building plans and application to commence building works. Minor works can proceed without such a procedure. These minor building works include internal lightweight partitions, stall or shed of lightweight construction, simple awning, low boundary walls, minor replacement works of floor, ceilings, and so on. These are very minor works which do not have a significant impact on the structural integrity of a building.

Need for Immediate Supervision

The Bill requires all structural works to be executed under the full-time supervision of a qualified person or the site supervisor. However, for minor building works, there is a need for "immediate supervision" or, in the language of the construction industry, "standing supervision" only for the critical structural works. In other words, for minor building works it is not necessary to have a full-time supervisor for all the works that have to be carried out. It is only necessary for the very significant and critical structural works. Clause 8(1) has therefore been amended to require that critical structural works such as concreting, piling or pre-stressing are carried out under the immediate supervision of a qualified person or a site supervisor.

The other amendments to the Bill are consequential amendments and amendments of a technical or drafting nature. Building Control Regulations

Regulations will be promulgated to put into effect the new control measures introduced in the Bill. The new Regulations have been drafted and sent to professional bodies for their comments before they are completed.

This Building Control Bill, together with the new Building Control Regulations, when enacted, would be a very complete and comprehensive piece of legislation to ensure the structural safety of buildings in Singapore.

Implementation

The Building Control Division is ready to implement the Act when it is passed. The BCD has shortlisted more than 60 accredited checkers to whom building plans could be sent for checking. A list of buildings has also been drawn up for maintenance checks over the next two years. Internally, the BCD has built up a strong team of structural engineers to carry out structural checking during design and construction and to conduct structural inspection of buildings. So the delay in the passage of this Bill has given an opportunity to the BCD to prepare itself for immediate implementation of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation to the many people who have contributed to the preparation and drafting of this legislation.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, following the collapse of the Hotel New World and other buildings with problems of structural defects, the general public have become very concerned about the safety of buildings. Dangerous buildings not only threaten the safety of life but also cause the loss of life-long savings of purchasers which would be a very heavy blow to them. The passing of this Bill is very timely as it will ensure the safety of future buildings as well as enhance the confidence of purchasers.

The Bill clearly spells out the duties and obligations of the developer, the builder and the professionals respectively and the penalties they may face. The professionals are subjected to double control. Should they commit any offence under the Act, they will be punished under it. Moreover, the Professional Engineers Board and the Board of Architects will also take appropriate disciplinary procedures against them according to the severity of the case. Lighter offences could be suspension of practice for one or two years and heavier offences could even be a life-ban from practice.

On the other hand, any errant builder, clerk-of-works and site supervisor would merely be fined a sum of money as penalty. To big builders, a $50,000 fine is a small sum compared with a project costing tens of millions of dollars. To them, such a fine may not have a deterrent effect. If the Building Control Authority would blacklist those habitually errant builders, clerks-of-works and supervisors and suspend them from practice for a definite period under this Bill, I feel this would be more effective than monetary fines and would also ensure the safety of buildings and protect public interest.

Take local concrete buildings for example. The building materials are generally mixed by suppliers before delivery to the building worksite. Besides the correct planning by the structural engineer and the correct execution of work by the builder, the safety of a building depends more importantly on the correct standard and quality of materials. Under the Bill, the responsibility for the right quality and standard of materials rests on the builder while no mention is made of the supplier of materials. Should a supplier be irresponsible and supplies sub-standard or below quality materials, such as a higher water content, wrong timing after adding water, or wrong quantity of cement, and so on, the usual penalty is to reject such materials at the worksite, there being no other more severe penalty. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are other Acts which can effectively be applied to prevent those irresponsible suppliers from such wrongdoings?

I would like to point out a possibility. When there is a serious shortage of materials, lack of plain water, not enough supply of sand and granite, adventurous and irresponsible suppliers might be tempted to substitute sea water for plain water, sea-sand for granite-sand, whose concrete mixing components might meet the stipulated standard proportions. But because of the corrosive nature of the saline components, the life of a structure would therefore be greatly shortened, and a firm and solid building structure would after a period of time become a dangerous building. We have to take preventive measures against such happenings.

For the Bill to be effective, the independence of the professionals plays a key and fundamental role. At present, in the United States and Japan, there is a popular building construction practice called "turnkey project". The method of operation is for the designer and the builder to join up together to tender for a project from the developer and carry out the designing and construction work. I understand that some local building projects have been completed under this "turnkey project" method. One result of this "turnkey project" operation is that the professional independence of the designer may perhaps diminish gradually under the pressure of his financially powerful partner of the same company. If the Building Control Authority would allow the "turnkey project" system to be put into practice, for the sake of the interest of the public all relevant authorities or organizations should formulate strict regulations to ensure the professional independence of building professionals.

The Bill also provides for the inspection of private apartment builiding every ten years by a qualified structural engineer to ensure the safety of the building. I would like to ask the Minister whether the HDB flats are also required to be inspected once every ten years, if so, by which organization or authority.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion. 2.19 pm

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill fulfills a very urgent and real need and we in the Workers' Party fully support it. We also applaud the Government for replacing the old law with the new proposed Building Control Act. If this Bill had been enacted earlier, probably it might well have averted the tragedy of the collapse of Hotel New World with loss of so many lives. Now we hear that other than Cheng Hong Mansion there are also quite a number of structural defects in many buildings which have not yet been publicly made known. Because of our limited land area, high-rise buildings are inevitable. And it is very important that public safety must be ensured. After all, we know that many people come along to Singapore, many people stay inside these buildings, many people work inside these buildings including our Ministers nowadays. Therefore, I think their safety is important for all of us.

The putting up of high-rise buildings is a very complex process and many people are involved. I am very glad that the Minister has already indicated the responsibility in the various stages that he has just mentioned. At any stage in the construction, the urge to minimize cost and maximize the margin of profits on the part of a developer or contractor is great. Any dereliction of duty or negligence on the part of those responsible for the planning, structural design or construction supervision could lead to the most serious consequences for the safety of the public. And the new provisions for the supervision of the building, mandatory inspection and tests as well as checking in clauses 8 to 12 and 15 to 17 are absolutely essential.

However, there are one or two aspects of the Bill which the Government could well look into, in spite of all the explanations that I have heard, and perhaps further improved on, if not today, at least sometime in the future. Originally, the Bill was supposed to affect only private buildings. I learn from the Minister that PWD and other Government buildings will also be checked. This is imperative because one can never tell when defective work creeps in. Now I also see that the contractor's responsibility has been somewhat defined, though not very clearly. But what about the developer? There are owner developers, as in the case of the Hotel New World, who could cause some trouble as regards safety of high-rise buildings. Therefore, the responsibility of the owner developer has also to be clearly defined and apportioned, if possible.

The point on which I want to stress today and which has already been touched upon a little while ago is that many high-rise buildings cost tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, vast sums of money. And defective works, especially those that involve the key structural elements, could easily affect the safety of the buildings and cause disasters leading to great loss of life and property. These are very serious crimes, unlike ordinary theft or being an illegal immigrant worker or even a bookie or touting. The penalty of a maximum of $50,000 fine is really laughable. It is chicken-feed for people who deal in millions.

If it is proposed that any person who organizes or assists in organizing any assembly or procession a very minor offence can be liable to a fine of $10,000, I see no reason why such a serious crime in construction works should be liable to a fine of only a paltry $50,000. I propose that the fine to be imposed on persons responsible for construction defects in high-rise buildings be increased, at least five- or six-fold plus prison terms, if necessary. A small fine would only encourage defective works.

Indeed, Sir, I would support the suggestion given in the Select Cmmittee that the penalty be related to the size and value of the project. In this instance, the punishment should be made to fit the crime.

Finally, I must also stress that the human factor be not overlooked. Those who are responsible for the supervision, checking and testing of construction works in high-rise buildings, to my mind, should be paid adequately. I understand many of them have big complaints that they are not being paid adequatgely. Perhaps the Government could help indicate to those people involved in the construction industry that this matter is intimately related to and connected with the slogan "Safety First" in high-rise buildings.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I also rise in support of this Bill. I have only one or two queries to make. Apparently there is a heavy shortage of site supervisors and the Government is taking steps to train these people. I am just wondering in the past who have been supervising our massive building jobs all this while. No wonder we had the collapse of the Hotel New World!

Sir, under a new amendment for minor works as listed in the Schedule, I notice that under paragraph 2 (f) any dog kennel not exceeding an area of 5 square metres need not have a licence. Sir, you will remember that the former Minister for National Development said that he did not trust me even to build a dog kennel! I had to apply for a licence then if I wanted to. But now I need not. So I can just go ahead and build one.

Mr Chandra Das: Upgraded.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, on a more serious note, you are aware that I am the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council. I would just like to know what are the liabilities of the town council in relation to this new Act. I notice that under the definition of "occupier", the town council is caught by this definition which says:

'"occupier", in relation to any building, means the person in occupation of the building or having the charge, management or control thereof, ...' We are in charge. The Potong Pasir Town Council is in charge, it manages and control Potong Pasir Town.

Sir, under Miscellaneous, clause 32 says:

'Where an offence under this Act or the building regulations has been committed by a body corporate ... any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, manager, partner, secretary or other similar officer ... purporting to act in any such capacity, shall also be guilty ...' The town council is a body corporate under the Town Councils Act 1988. But as I look at clause 33 which is the next clause, there seems to be a contradiction. It says:

'No liability shall lie against the Government or any public officer by reason of the fact that any building works are carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Act ...' Under the Town Councils Act, officers of the town councils are designated public officers. So are we liable? Perhaps the Minister could clarify.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I want to thank all the Members for supporting this Bill. They made some useful points to which I would like to respond. The first point I want to make, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that while this Bill and the Government bodies involved in implementing the provisions of the Bill have an important role to play, there are other parties involved who must also exercise their own responsibility in order to ensure that our buildings are built safe. Other parties involved are what we call qualified persons, the architects, the engineers, and the professionals.

Another very important party involved here is the buyer. The one reason why we have not had as good buildings as we should have is because buyers have not been discriminating. They never ask: who is the builder, who is the architect, who is the developer? During the boom years people were just interested in putting a deposit to book a flat or an office space in the hope that they could turn around in three or six months and sell it for more than what they paid for it. This is the reason why during the boom years many buildings were built, I would say, not structurally unsafe, they are structurally sound but with many defects which caused complaints from occupants as well as subsequent buyers. So all parties must play their role.

This Bill will ensure that the plans are properly drawn up, the building is properly constructed and the people who build it will be responsible and that the building after it is built is maintained by regular periodic inspection; in the case of commercial buildings every five years, and in the case of non-commercial buildings, residential buildings, every 10 years. But I must emphasize that buyers must exercise their part of the responsibility.

A number of points have been made that the penalties under the Act are not sufficiently harsh. The penalties for poor construction which result in danger or damage to the structure of a building can be attributed to the qualified person, that is the architect or engineer, the builder or the developer in most cases, either the qualified person or the builder. The penalties stipulated in the Act, $50,000, $10,000 and so on, basically apply to actions that they have taken which do not comply with the Act. It does not necessarily mean that such non-compliance will immediately result in a danger to the structural safety of a building. But we must enforce the procedures and make people take these procedures seriously, which is why we have those provisions. But if a structure collapses because of criminal negligence on the part of any of the parties involved, there are of course other recourses, and I think the Member for Potong Pasir knows this.

In the case of a qualified person,the architect or engineer, he is liable not just during the period of construction and until the construction is completed. He is liable virtually for life, as long as he is practising. And if we can prove that he was criminally negligent in the manner in which he carried out his responsibility, then the professional body concerned will be able to strike him off. In other words, he will not be able to practise his profession anymore. And that is a very serious deterrent.

In the case of a builder and developer it is a little more difficult to take up the suggestion that they should be barred from further participation in the industry. Because these are corporations. They are not natural persons, not individuals, and they can always close down one firm and start another. But what we ought to do and I will ask the CIDB to do this is to ask for particulars of directors and key officials of all developers and make this available publicly. Then when a particular developer has carried out works which result in, say, a poor structure or a structure that is a danger to the occupants or to those living around that building, then we ought to publicize those involved by name, so that even if they turn up under the guise of another company, people will know who are those involved in the operation.

A point was made that turn-key projects will undermine the independence of the professionals. We do not have many turn-key projects. In fact, in Singapore the practice is still to separate the developer, builder and the professionals. But there are, as Dr Lee has pointed out, developers who are also builders. And I would agree entirely that we ought to be specially careful about such developers. In fact, in the case of residential buildings, developers have to get permission to sell their buildings to the public. They have to obtain a special licence to do so. My own approach would be that where the developer is also a builder we would not allow him to sell until the whole building is completed, so that the buyer can see what he is buying. This will, of course, cut down the extent to which the developer-builder, because he plays both roles, compromises standards as well as quality.

But in countries which practise the system of turn-key projects, like Japan, they have been able to maintain standards both of finishes as well as of structural safety. I would not rule out the emergence of this type of activity in Singapore where a developer wants to have a building constructed and he does not want to employ an architect. He may employ a firm to do a turn-key project and the firm would design the building, build the building according to the developers requirements. I would not rule out such an approach because countries which do have this approach seem to have enough regulations to ensure that safety and quality are not compromised. But it is still not the major practice in Singapore and, if my understanding is correct, the professional has to be quite separate from the builder.

A point was made that such turn-key building should be regularly inspected. As I mentioned, under the law, all buildings regardless of how they are built by a developer-builder or turn-key or any other method will have to be regularly inspected, and in the case of residential buildings, once in 10 years. The only buildings that are exempted are terrace houses, bungalows and other similar single storey structures. But even a single storey structure like a commercial building, a warehouse, will have to be inspected every five years. So there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that buildings are regularly inspected and the inspection procedure is such that if there is anything wrong with the building and it becomes apparent that structures are cracking, then the Building Authority can take action.

Having said what I said about penalties, I am certainly prepared to look further into this. As Dr Lee has suggested, perhaps we should increase the penalty to make it proportionate to the size of the job. Well, that is one way of doing it. This can be considered in future.

The question regarding Town Councils. I think there is a misunderstanding. I will have to get, of course, legal opinion on this. But the town council is not the occupier. The town council carries out work as an agent to maintain the buildings. It is not an occupier. The occupier is one who rents and occupies the building. So we differentiate between the owner and the occupier. That is why the whole Bill covers owners and occupiers in the sense that someone who is in occupation of a building, if he discovers something is wrong and he asks the owner to do it, and if the owner does not, he can do it and charge the owner. Or if the owner can show that he was not aware that the occupier was doing things although he had exercised due diligence, then he will be free from liability. It is that kind of situation that is envisaged under the Bill. But if the town council rents a building from the HDB for its own offices, then it is an occupier of that building. But it is not an occupier of the estate as a whole. It is just merely an agent carrying out the function of maintaining and making sure that the place is clean, the rubbish is collected, the place is painted periodically and so on. It is not an occupier under the terms of this Act. If it is not clear, I am prepared to make it clear. That is certainly not the intention. A town council is only an occupier under the terms of the Act if it happens to rent the place. The town council is not an occupier of the other areas. Regarding Sections 32 and 33, as far as the town councils are concerned, in their function as an agent to maintain the estate, this Bill does not cover them. But if somebody in the town, a flat owner, wants to make amendments to his flat, say, he wants to knock down a wall or do something, it is not the town council that has to deal with that. It is the owner, the HDB, the lessor, which will have to deal with that matter because HDB is the lessor of the building. I hope that point is clear. If he wants an assurance that the town council is not covered within the ambit of the Act in the sense that he means, I am prepared to give that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I rise to get further clarifications. Sir, perhaps what the Minister has said is the intention of his Ministry. But unfortunately, in this legislation the words do not preclude the town council, because it is very clear. If you interpret the ordinary meaning of this definition section of "occupier", the town council would be caught. "Occupier" in relation to any building means the person in occupation of the building or having the charge, management or control thereof. We are caught. Sir, I do not know. Maybe it needs an amendment to that effect, or an additional section to say that town councils are precluded from this Act.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think such an amendment is needed. I think you have got to read the Act and take these words in the context of the Act. I do not see how a town council can be considered to be the occupier or in control of the area in the sense that a tenant is. Just because we use the term that the town councils manage an estate, it does not mean that it has this meaning. I do not think so.

Mr Chiam See Tong: How do you interpret laws? It is the ordinary and general meaning of the words.

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, within the context of the law. Here, it must be within the context of this particular law. I am not a lawyer and I am sure that well, my colleague is not here but there are other Members here who can bear me out. But because we use the term that town councils manage an estate, it does not mean that they are managers in the sense that is meant here. They are not occupiers either. But I can give you this assurance that town councils are not involved in this Bill. But if the town council rents premises from the HDB, then of course that is a different position.

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. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].

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