BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Objective

The Construction Industry Development Board and the Building Control Division of the Public Works Department will be merged to form a new statutory board on 1st April 1999. The proposed Building and Construction Authority Bill 1999 will provide the required legislative framework for the formation of the new statutory board.

The new statutory board will be called the Building and Construction Authority, BCA. Its mission will be to facilitate the development of a professional and technologically advanced construction industry that is capable of delivering world-class buildings and infrastructure at competitive prices.

Rationale

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now share with this House the rationale behind the Government's decision to merge the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) and the Building Control Division (BCD) to form a new statutory board.

CIDB was formed in 1984 to promote the development of technology and manpower in the construction industry. It has achieved much over the last fifteen years in terms of skill upgrading, quality, productivity and advanced technologies. Skill levels have increased from about 2% in 1984 to 27% in 1998. A comprehensive quality assessment system CONQUAS has been introduced and quality scores have increased steadily since its introduction in 1988. More than 4,000 contractors and suppliers are now registered with CIDB with more than 70 local contractors in the top-most category.

However, in recent years, before the economic downturn, the industry had expanded too rapidly. Productivity has slackened significantly as the industry resorted to short-term unproductive measures. The prevailing economic situation, therefore, allows us a very good opportunity to restructure the industry.

Arising from a fundamental review of the various Government agencies dealing with the construction industry, we came to two conclusions. One, as previously announced, the non-regulatory functions of the Public Works Department should be corporatised. Two, there would be synergy arising from the merging of BCD of the PWD with the present CIDB. Unlike other industries, the construction industry operates within a well-defined regulatory framework - this is necessary because of the strong public interests at stake. While CIDB's development efforts have borne fruit in several areas, its progress has been moderated by the fact that it is not directly involved in the regulatory framework. Putting both the regulatory and the development efforts under one body will allow the new statutory board to co-ordinate the efforts of these two arms better. The new board will be able to leverage on the expertise and experience of both BCD and CIDB, and take an integrated approach towards restructuring the industry.

We have taken the opportunity to make an amendment to allow the new BCA to make new regulations pertaining to the improvement of efficiency and standardisation of design, processes, construction techniques, products and materials. This will pave the way for the BCA to require mandatory minimum buildable scores for new buildings in a few years' time. The objective is to hasten the adoption of more buildable designs which allow the buildings to be built using more productive construction methods. Although CIDB has promoted buildable designs for several years, the adoption of such designs has been slow. The BCA will adopt a two-pronged approach towards buildable design - developmental as well as regulatory. More details will be given separately by the BCA when the details are firmed up. Main Features of the Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now elaborate on the main features of the Bill.

Part I of the Bill gives the short title and interpretation of the Bill. Part II provides for the establishment, incorporation and constitution of the Authority.

Part III addresses the functions and powers of the Authority. In particular, clause 9 of the Bill defines the functions of the Authority. The functions are drawn from those of the current CIDB Act and Building Control Act. Some amendments are made to make them more up-to-date.

The powers of the BCA are laid down in clause 10 of the Bill. Additional powers need to be given to BCA, as compared to CIDB. This is to enable BCA to carry out its functions as both a regulator and a promoter. For example, under clause 10(a), BCA would be able to prescribe the standards for the construction industry in relation to design, processes, construction techniques, products and materials.

The clauses in Parts IV and V of the Bill relate to staff and financial matters. These are based on existing provisions that the current CIDB has to comply with. In particular, clause 13 will provide for the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Authority. Clause 24 will require the accounts, financial statements and auditor's report of the statutory board to be sent to the Auditor-General, Minister and Parliament.

Clauses 25 to 31 of the Bill provide for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees from CIDB and BCD to BCA. Under clause 26, all persons employed immediately before 1st April 1999 by CIDB and BCD shall be transferred to BCA. The terms will be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the officers immediately prior to their transfer. The pension rights of Government employees would also be preserved under clause 27 of the Bill.

Clause 36 provides for the repeal of the Construction Industry Development Board Act. This is necessary as CIDB will cease to exist with the formation of BCA. Clause 36(4)(b) will amend the name of "Building Authority" in the Building Control Act to "Commissioner of Building Control", unless otherwise provided in the Schedule to the Bill. This is to avoid confusion between the name of "Building Authority" and the new Building and Construction Authority. The same clause 36 also repeals the moribund Land Improvement Act, which was enacted in 1901. PWD currently administers sections 10 and 12 of the Land Improvement Act.

The Schedule to the Bill provides for the necessary consequential amendments to some of the existing legislation. Amendments will be made to the Foreshores Act to transfer some of the functions presently under PWD to URA. References made to the "Building Authority" and "Deputy Director-General of Public Works" in the Railways Act will be amended to that of the "Land Transport Authority". The Sand and Granite Quarries Act will also be amended to allow statutory board officers to administer the relevant portions of the Act.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the construction industry will always remain an important component of the economy. The present respite from the heady days of past years allows us to refocus our efforts to upgrade the construction industry. It is thus timely that the Building and Construction Authority be established to look into strengthening Singapore's long-term competitiveness in the construction industry.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Building and Construction Authority Bill which basically merges the regulatory functions of the PWD, which are currently under the Building Control Division (BCD), and the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), under a new statutory board. I fully agree that with this merger it will yield greater synergy and cost-effectiveness as both deal with the design and construction stage of property development. I have been in dialogue with industry practitioners regarding the above Bill. Although they support the establishment of the BCA, they have expressed certain concerns that I would like to bring up to the attention of the Minister.

Currently, the function of the BCD is regulatory in nature. It coordinates the technical departments such as the URA, FSB, ENV, LTA, National Parks, and so on, during the building/planning process. The CIDB's functions, however, are more promotional in nature. After the merger, the industry has expressed concern that the BCA might focus too much on regulation rather than promotion. So they hope that the BCA would continue with this promotional functions as before, as the name "Authority" may perhaps change the mindset of the civil servants.

The promotional functions and efforts of the old CIDB have been much appreciated by the building industry in helping to lift the standard of construction. The continuation of this role under BCA, I am sure, will benefit all players in the industry. Presently, architects and engineers still have to get approval for building plans from a number of Government bodies, although the BCD coordinates many of these functions. It is hoped that more of these functions can now be centralsied under the BCA to provide a one-stop shop for the convenience of industry practitioners.

One of the functions of the new BCA, which is clearly stated under clause 9(1)(d), is "to promote good procurement methods and practices in the construction industry and advise and assist the Government in the procurement of construction works and services". According to industry feedback, today, frequently different Government agencies adopt different procurement methods and they are considered inequitable with the practice of the industry. With the passage of this new Bill, the industry would like to see the BCA standardise such procurement methods and disseminate to all Government bodies for compliance. In reviewing such procurement methods, special consideration should also be given to promote the local professionals and the local building industry.

I am also given to understand that, currently, PWD has established several panels of private consultants for the purpose of undertaking public sector projects. As such, projects that PWD can farm out are given to these private consultants on the panels. With the corporatisation of PWD, it is recommended that the proposed BCA take over this role of managing these panels so as to create a more level playing field for all in the industry.

With greater synergy and cost effectiveness, as pointed out by the Minister in the formation of the new BCA, the industry would also like to see lower fees for the processing of all kinds of applications by the industry practitioners. I understand that the Board of Architects right now has representation by three to four architects from the PWD. With the corporatisation of the PWD, the Minister may want to look again more closely into the composition of the Board of Architects to give it a better representation from the private sector.

I share the concerns of many of these points brought up by the industry. Some of these concerns may be unfounded. If they are, there is obviously a perception and communication gap between the Ministry and the industry. Perhaps, a better communication programme could be instituted to bridge this gap.

In conclusion, let me say that I believe that the merger of the regulatory functions under BCD and the promotion of functions under CIDB into the BCA is a move in the right direction. The public and the building industry practitioners welcome the initiative. However, I hope the Minister will take the feedback of industry practitioners into consideration during this exercise.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The establishment of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is indeed a step towards integrating the functions of various authorities presently responsible for the construction industry. As I have mentioned before, we need a one-stop centre, be it a Construction Ministry or statutory board to spearhead the construction industry into the next millennium.

The construction industry is a complex industry that involves many statutory boards and industries. To upgrade the industry, we need to adopt an integrated approach to facilitate its development and expansion. Although the Bill integrates the functions of the Building Control Division and the Construction Industry Development Board, it lacks the integration needed to improve on productivity, quality, professionalism and competitiveness of the construction industry.

One major setback is the lack of power given to the Building and Construction Authority to exercise development, environment and fire safety control over the development of buildings and infrastructure works. A one-stop centre that encompasses all these functions would provide better coordination and accountability which should further increase the efficiency of development and construction works.

Sir, let me discuss the details of the Bill.

Functions of Authority

Although clause 9 has laid out many functions of BCA, there is no mention of any effort to promote the use of information technology, innovative and efficient design and environmental protection to improve the construction industry. Information technology and environmental protection are key concerns affecting the construction industry of many developed countries, such as Japan, USA and UK. Thus, it is essential for BCA to address these issues which have direct impact on the development of the construction industry.

Clause 9(1) also does not include the function to regulate and enforce building regulations and Acts in the industry. As a building authority, BCA must ensure the compliance of building regulations and Acts and take enforcement actions to ensure that buildings and infrastructure works are properly constructed for safe occupancy and usage.

Clause 9(1)(c) has apparently omitted the need to encourage standardisation and improvement of information in the construction industry. At present, there is a lack of standardisation of information in the industry. This has resulted in wastages, abortive works and disputes among parties involved in construction and development works. The recent court case on the definition of "built-up" and "built-in" areas is an example of the lack of understanding among players in the industry. To improve productivity, BCA should implement standardisation of information in the industry.

Clause 9(1)(e) allows BCA to provide consultancy and advisory services related to the construction industry. As a regulatory authority, there may be potential conflict of interest for BCA to provide such services especially for private sector projects.

Clause 9(1)(j) also specifies that BCA will promote and carry out research for the development and improvement of the construction industry. While it is appropriate for BCA to promote research, research work should be carried out by our universities and other research institutions. Both NUS and NTU are equipped with research facilities and resources, which can undertake multi-disciplinary research. Thus, BCA should avoid duplication of effort and wasting of resources in this area.

Powers of Authority

Clause 10(a) mentions that BCA may prescribe standards for the construction industry in relation to design, process, construction techniques, products and materials. Presently, the Productivity and Standards Board prescribes all standards and codes of practice for the construction industry. May I clarify with the Minister whether this function will be transferred from PSB to BCA? If so, there must be provisions in the Bill for the transfer of authority, property, assets and liabilities from PSB to BCA.

Clause 10(e) highlights that BCA can conduct tests and award diplomas and certificates of proficiency. I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Authority to award diplomas. This may cause confusion among employers in the construction industry with regard to the recognition of such diplomas. I would like to suggest that diploma training should be channelled to the respective polytechnics so as to avoid duplication of resources.

Clause 10(i) states that BCA can enter into a partnership or an arrangement for the sharing of profits. May I ask the Minister under what circumstances can such partnerships or arrangements take place and who are the likely partners?

Finally, to upgrade the construction industry, there is an urgent need to control the quality of participants in the industry. The BCA should be empowered to issue licences to practitioners and firms in the industry. It should provide a one-stop centre for the issuance of licences so that quality control can be centralised. Stringent control should be exercised to register and license construction firms and practitioners. Presently, we have registered or licensed architects, engineers, plumbers, electricians, safety officers and cable detectors. We should take further measures to consider licensing the other professionals involved in the construction industry, namely, builders, quantity surveyors, project managers and property managers so as to raise the level of professionalism in the industry as a whole.

I hope that the Building and Construction Authority can play a leading role to improve the quality and productivity of the construction industry.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chuang Shaw Peng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill.

The establishment of the new Building and Construction Authority comprising the current CIDB and BCD of PWD should be welcomed as good news to the construction industry. As mentioned by the Minister, up to now, CIDB and BCD perform their roles quite independently. CIDB will deal with all the promotional and developmental aspects of construction industry at the downstream of the value chain. They handle the registration of contractors, training and certification of workers, promote new materials and processes. BCD, on the other hand, regulates and controls the building works at the upstream and they deal with the developers, architects and planners. Today, the coordination between these two entities can be said to be minimal. Often, if one entity wanted to do, it may not achieve the cooperation of the other. This has resulted, as the Minister mentioned earlier, in a delay in implementing measures to help promote the overall well-being of the industry.

Now, with the merger to form one single entity under one Chairman and one Board of Directors, I can envisage that the merged entity would be a more effective one. On one hand, CIDB would be able, with the regulatory power of BCD, to move upstream to enforce the promotional measures that it previously found powerless to impose. On the other hand, BCD now would be able to better exercise the building control and approval of plans with a good knowledge of the latest construction methods, equipment and availability of skilled workers. This integrated approach will help to accelerate the process of skills upgrading and reduction on its dependence on foreign workers.

May I digress now to speak on the status of the construction industry today. There are currently more than 200,000 foreign construction workers. Our indigenous pool of workers in the industry is very small. It is around 30,000. The foreign workers, whether they are skilled or not, have come and gone. While they are here, we train them from unskilled to semi-skilled, to skilled and to be trade-certified, and all these cost a lot of money. At the same time, the quality of our construction also suffers.

Sir, at first glance, we seem to have an advantage by having cheap labour. But if we add up all the costs, like training cost, defect cost, time cost and social cost, I think the total cost is probably higher. This helps to explain partially why we have a higher construction cost and yet our quality is not commensurate with the cost.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at this point, I would like to commend the Minister for boldly introducing the new functions of the authority that would give the industry a quantum leap in the overall efficiency. The new Bill places a lot of emphasis on the promotion and development of advanced methods of construction. In particular, as part of the consequential amendments to the Building Control Act, the Bill states that it will introduce measures to improve the efficiency and standardisation in the construction industry relating to design processes, construction techniques, products and materials.

As Members of this House would know, Singapore inherited the construction system from the British. All along, we have practised what the British did 20 or 30 years ago. Typically, for a development project, the property developer's main concern was maximisation or short-term gain by asking the architect to deliver the maximum saleable or lettable area in the shortest possible time without regard for ease of construction. Then the structural engineers are called in after the architects and developers have more or less finalised the concept plan and they are asked to come out, in the shortest possible time, with a structural design, again, without regard to buildability. So by the time the project is tendered out, the basic architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical designs are all firmed up. The contractor who wins the bid would have no input whatsoever to the entire design process. But the contractor is usually the best guy to know which method of construction is the best. So the process we have would not allow the contractor to exploit his expertise. And if we continue with this practice, our construction industry will continue to be burdened with labour intensive and inefficient construction processes. We are lucky that the CIDB has introduced the buildability concept a few years ago to address this problem.

Let me elaborate a little bit on buildability. In layman's terms, it can be said to be the ease with which the construction product can be made and it is computed with a formula giving different weightages to various construction methods, materials usage and standardisation of dimensions. A high buildable score for a project indicates that the project is less labour-intensive and more efficient.

To-date, some Government departments, such as HDB, Mindef, PWD, etc, have used the score to gauge if their projects have been designed for efficient construction. And two foreign countries, that is, Denmark and South Korea, have even legislated part of the buildability, ie, the standardisation part, to promote productivity and efficiency. Within the Singapore Government departments and statutory boards, the implementation has been quite successful. Many public projects have attained high productivity with competitive cost. These departments have found relative ease in implementing this concept because they could control the entire process of construction, ie, from conceptualisation to final execution. But in the private sector, the scenario is quite different. I think this is why this Bill has to provide for legislation of buildability.

In the private sector, possibly owing to unfamiliarity or fear of loss of creativity or fear of high cost, this concept of buildability has not been readily embraced, notwithstanding that it has been successful in the public sector. As a result, the labour productivity of private projects tends to be low and it pulls down the national average year after year. I personally do not believe high buildability is associated with monotonous and stereotype designs. On the contrary, many buildings, whether they are local or overseas, have attained a very high standard of aesthetics.

In advanced countries such as USA or Australia, all doors and windows are mass produced in standard dimensions. Designers of buildings simply buy them from the shelf or from mail order, and nowadays from the Internet. In Singapore, there is no standardisation of windows and doors. All have to be tailor-made. And similarly, the room sizes in Singapore are dimensioned in such a way that there is always a lot of tile cutting at the edges. All these practices cause wastages and poor workmanship.

In other industries, standardisation has proved to be a good way to make things buildable and the most notable examples are in the auto industry. Nowadays, most cars use interchangeable parts. Car manufacturers also try to build cars with as few platforms as possible. Just recently, Ford Motors launched three distinctly different models, namely, the sports car, Firebird, the American saloon, the Lincoln, and the luxurious Jaguar S. All of them have the same chassis and all these three models are aesthetically appealing, even though they share a lot of common parts. This leads us to believe that, through concerted effort, both aesthetics and buildability can be achieved in the construction industry. BCA, with its regulatory power, should now be able to implement these measures.

In this Bill, I note that the authority would have a new function, and that is, to raise the professionalism and capability of firms in the construction industry. On this point, I have several comments. First, it is easier said than done to raise professionalism in our industry. It is a known fact that in the construction industry, some clerks-of-works and resident engineers do not quite practise their professionalism. They would deliberately delay the progress of a project for their own benefit. CIDB has, not too long ago, conducted a survey and found some shocking results, ie, the delays caused by clerks-of-works and the resident engineers have resulted in 2-3% wastage in our annual turnover. If we take $20 billion as our national annual turnover, that means we have lost one centre for the performing arts each year. This lack of professionalism by the site supervisory staff has been highlighted time after time but the problem has never been eradicated and I hope the new authority, with its enhanced power, can find a way to resolve this perennial problem. One possibility would be the registration of clerks-of-works.

The second comment I have is that the construction industry needs badly a fair and equitable contract. The current form of contract tends to be one-sided, biased towards protecting the developers and consultants excessively. One example of their catch-all clauses is "unless otherwise expressly provided, the contract sum and contractor's rates and processing in the rates shall be inclusive of all ancillary and other works and expenditure, whether separately or specifically mentioned or described in the contract or not, which are indispensably necessary to carry out and bring to completion the works described in the contract or may contingently become necessary to overcome difficulties before completion." Another example is that the information given is only a guide. The party providing the information holds no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. These examples illustrate that the contract itself protects some parties excessively, so much so that they need not be professional in their conduct. So, in the promotion of professionalism, I believe BCA should ensure that all contracting parties have equitably distributed responsibilities and liabilities.

The third comment I have is related to the promotion of capability of firms in construction and I am glad that the new authority recognises the need to do so. I believe that this cannot be achieved without looking at the wider and higher Government policy on whether we would accept unfair trading practices of dumping in our country. I have touched on this topic in the debate on the Report of the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness last November. Our construction industry is a fairly small one. Some of the largest firms in the world individually have an annual turnover in dollar terms more than our entire industry. Therefore, it is very easy for them to practise marginal pricing or dumping to gain a market share and to deprive local firms from getting the necessary track records which are essential for players in the construction industry to continue bidding and expanding. Some foreign firms are even registered as subsidiaries with limited liability and they sublet the whole work so as to pass down the losses to the local subcontractors and suppliers. On the surface, the developers, be they the Government or private, get a better price for their product. But the parties they subsidise are not necessarily the foreign party but also the numerous local suppliers and subcontractors. In view of this, I urge the new authority, while trying to raise the capability of firms and to promote good procurement methods for the Government, to explore beyond the current procurement policies to curb the malpractices. If not, things that had happened in the last 15 years would continue to happen, and some of these functions of the new authority would not be substantially fulfilled.

The last area I wish to comment on is to ask the Minister whether he would empower the BCA to be the final authority on matters relating to the construction industry. In the past one week, we read a lot in the newspapers about the dispute over the definition of "built-up" and "built-in" area. Should we leave it to the Court or the industry to sort it out? Or should BCA come up with a definition once and for all? I am sure that the developers and consumers alike would be keen to know the outcome.

There are also occasions whereby there are discrepancies between BCD and some other authorities. For example, the issue of landfill. BCD has certain restrictions but the Ministry of the Environment would usually like the land to be filled up. These are contradictory rules. If no one can prevail, the process of sorting out can take a long time and can be very costly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now that BCA is about to be formed, I wish the Minister could get BCA to standardise all submission requirements and procedures for everybody in the country. At present, for example, some parties are still allowed to carry out work without obtaining a permit to commence work. For a small nation like ours, we should be in a better position to standardise all procedures to avoid confusion.

Lastly, I would like to suggest to the Minister that for optimum running of this authority, the appointed Chairman should not be currently involved in a statutory board or organisation whose major interest is in the area of property development or construction. Yet, he should have a good knowledge and understanding of the industry. The Board of Directors, which can have up to 12 members, should not just comprise those practising professionals and contractors. It should include other disciplines such as sociologists, manufacturers, bankers, representatives from consumers, to get a broad and balanced representation for such a complex industry. It would definitely be in the best interest of all people in this country to see a progressive, vibrant and efficient construction industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: First, let me thank Members for their inputs and support of the Bill. We try in this creation of a new statutory board to undertake both the regulatory and promotion functions in a balanced manner. I thank them for their high aspirations of what the authority would do, but I must dampen all expectations. We are not intending this statutory board to undertake the centralisation of all regulatory functions over the construction industry. There are many other functions undertaken by other Ministries, whether it is the Fire Safety Bureau or the Ministry of the Environment. There are so many other technical specialities. It is not the intention of the BCA to be responsible for every speciality under regulation. What the BCA would continue to do is to coordinate the requirements of the various agencies and, where there are conflicts, try to get the government agencies to resolve these conflicts expeditiously. That I pledge the BCA would continue its functions.

We have gone through this debate on whether we should centralise with a one-stop service or we should decentralise. This is a never ending debate. If I centralise, you will accuse me of being too powerful and too dogmatic, a dictator over the construction industry, and that was what happened in 1986 when we decentralised. Now that we decentralise, you say, "You are not helping us enough. Can you now undertake all the functions together?" I think we stay with the present arrangement. It has worked quite well. BCA will continue to help, coordinate the requirements and if you find conflicting requirements, we will lend our strength to get the agencies to sort out the conflicting requirements.

On procurement methods, we have tried to standardise the contract at least in the public sector. It is not possible to standardise the contract in the private sector because it is among contracting parties. It is between you and the other party.

On private consultant panels, this will continue to be administered by BCA once PWD is corporatised. PWD would be a private consultant, just like any private consultant in the market. The body administering the private consultant panels for the Government would be transferred to BCA.

Let me take the other issues raised by Dr Teo. I think the role of the BCA would also be to promote information technology, environmental protection, etc. This comes under the catch-all term of advanced technologies. Many of the issues that Dr Teo has raised about safety and structural requirements are covered under the Building Control Act. So the aim of this Bill is not to replace the Building Control Act.

I endorse the comments of both Mr Chuang and Dr Teo about standardisation. One of the key features in this Bill is to put in place the legislation for buildability in two to three years' time. To be fair to the construction industry, we ought to give all the players advance notice that this is how we would want to take the industry, and we want to set certain buildability scores as the requirement to be legislated. The industry has been given due notice and we will put the legislation to have buildability scores and the methods in place over the next two to three years. In this, we will work with the industry. This is in line with Mr Lew Syn Pau's point about better communication within the construction industry.

There is no conflict with the research. BCA will promote research in conjunction with NSTB and PSB. The research itself will be done by the universities or other agencies. There is no intention for BCA to be directly involved in the construction research.

As for awarding of diplomas, we have the Construction Industry Training Centre (CITC) under the current CIDB. They are upgrading their courses and working with the various polytechnics. They will be in a position to award certain specialised diplomas for certain specific skills in the construction industry. So again there is no overlap with the polytechnics.

Dr Teo also asked under what circumstances would BCA go into partnership for profit, etc. This is in a very confined area. For example, the old CIDB undertakes the construction exhibition every year and this is a private construction exhibition which involves a private contract and they do make profits. This is to enable them to continue to do such joint ventures.

I have listened to Mr Chuang's very passionate comments about using buildability and to raise the professional standards. I fully agree with his comments. It is part of the mission of the BCA to raise the professional standards of the industry. We have tried to encourage the use of design-and-build so that consultants and contractors get together early to design and build something that is buildable and aesthetic and competitively priced. Over time, the use of design-and-build has taken on in the industry but we will continue to promote this method of construction.

Overall, I would like to thank the Members for their inputs. We thank Members for the confidence that BCA would try to do all things for all people. We will try our best but, as Members realise, the construction industry is a very complex industry. It involves many, many players and I am sure we will have to do a better coordination job overall.

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 Lim Hng Kiang].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: In page i to leave out "1998" where it occurs in the 2 lines above the line "Arrangement of Sections" and to insert "1999". This will be done.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: In page 1, line 5, the citation year "1998" will be changed to "1999". This will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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