LAND SURVEYORS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Land Surveyors Act was enacted in 1970 to provide for the registration of land surveyors and to regulate the provision of cadastral survey works in Singapore. Cadastral surveys are surveys to record land boundaries, subdivision lines, buildings and related details. The Act requires surveyors to be registered with the Land Surveyors Board before they are allowed to undertake cadastral surveys. However, the Act does not require surveyors who undertake non-cadastral surveys to be registered.

Non-cadastral surveys include topographical, engineering and hydrographic surveys. These surveys are related to cadastral surveys as they share the same set of survey control points and are invariably related to the parcel boundaries. This is especially so with the introduction of modern equipment using new technology such as global positioning system (GPS) and Information Technology. These two types of surveys are increasingly overlapping in scope. Surveyors carrying out non-cadastral surveys should therefore be conversant with the cadastral survey system and practices. Their surveys will then be consistent with cadastral survey plans, thereby reducing inconsistency and errors.

Sir, as surveyors undertaking non-cadastral surveys currently need not register with the Land Surveyors Board, the Board cannot discipline any non-registered surveyor for any negligence in undertaking non-cadastral survey works. Indeed, the Board cannot take disciplinary action even against registered surveyors for any negligence in undertaking non-cadastral survey works as the Act only regulates cadastral surveys. These errant surveyors can currently continue to undertake even cadastral survey works. Conversely, registered surveyors who are suspended from practice by the Land Surveyors Board can still undertake non-cadastral survey works. This situation is not desirable for the surveying profession.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.17 pm

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): These amendments will also check the undesirable practice of non-cadastral survey works being certified by registered surveyors who have not supervised or been involved in the actual surveys. For example, in April this year, a registered surveyor was sued for an erroneous setting out survey plan signed by him but carried out by a surveying technician operating on his own. Subsequently, two rows of terrace houses up to roof level were demolished. The case was settled out of court. The Land Surveyors Board received a complaint against the registered surveyor but could not act as it was a non-cadastral survey. This case is bad enough. Let us not wait for a major disaster to happen before doing something about it.

For the above reasons, there is a need to amend the Land Surveyors Act to regulate surveyors undertaking non-cadastral survey works. Clause 9 has the effect of requiring surveyors undertaking any survey, whether cadastral or non-cadastral, to be registered as Registered Surveyors and to hold valid practising certificates. This will improve the quality of non-cadastral survey work as all registered surveyors will have to comply with rules made by the Land Surveyors Board for non-cadastral survey work. Besides upgrading professional standards and ensuring accountability of all practising surveyors, thus promoting public interest, this measure will also increase the pool of Registered Surveyors. Sir, indeed, upgrading of skills, especially professional expertise, is a fact of life in Singapore. This happens in other professions too.

Currently, rightly so, surveyors registered under the Act must possess acceptable qualifications specified in the Land Surveyors Rules. They must also pass prescribed examinations conducted by the Land Surveyors Board.

The requirement to register surveyors who undertake non-cadastral surveys will take effect immediately for new entrants to the surveying profession. For practising surveyors who are currently not registered, a 4-year extension will be granted for them to prepare for and pass the prescribed examinations.

Sir, the requirement to upgrade and register will mean adjustment on the part of those affected. Some may not be happy. They include members of the Society of Surveying Technicians. However, they, like their professional counterparts in the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers, should make the effort to upgrade by taking the necessary courses and examinations. That is why the requirement to register will only take effect in four years' time. This is ample time. For those who have demonstrated that they have made the effort but still fail to make the grade within these four years, they can apply to the Minister to extend this grace period for another two years. I will move an amendment to the Bill in the Committee stage on this later. For those surveying technicians who do not have the necessary academic or professional qualification, I understand that Singapore Polytechnic is prepared to conduct a part-time Advanced Diploma course to enable them to obtain the necessary academic qualifications.

Sir, the other main amendment is to provide for the registration of field assistants, renamed assistant surveyors, under the Act. They are also called Surveying Technicians in the industry. In practice, field assistants making field measurements in cadastral surveys have been registered since 1972. This Bill makes registration and the Board's approval before a registered surveyor can employ an assistant surveyor to undertake both cadastral and non-cadastral work a requirement.

Field assistants are employed by registered surveyors to enter land and buildings, to demarcate property boundaries and to make and record field measurements. Such field data are used in survey computation and plan drawings by office staff. As field data are the primary data source of any survey work, field assistants should possess prescribed qualifications and be registered under the Land Surveyors Act. Like the earlier amendment, this will improve the quality of survey services in Singapore.

Currently, about 40 out of 400 field assistants provide surveying services on their own account, independently of any firm of registered surveyors. As an effect of the Bill is to require all forms of survey to be conducted by or under the supervision or direction of a registered surveyor, some of them may be concerned that their firms would be phased out.

Sir, MinLaw has taken time to carefully consider this concern. Here, an important point to note is that the Act will not take effect immediately, but only after four years. As I had mentioned earlier, during this time, field assistants who want to practise on their own after the transition period should upgrade themselves professionally by taking the part-time Advanced Diploma course at the Singapore Polytechnic. I understand that the Land Surveyors Board had asked Singapore Polytechnic to run this course for interested field assistants. It will take about three years to obtain the necessary qualification for registration. On top of that, as I mentioned earlier, anyone who despite good efforts fails to pass the prescribed examinations can apply to the Minister for an extension of up to two years.

Sir, the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers has been consulted on these amendments and supports them. Major users of non-cadastral surveys such as MINDEF, HDB and JTC also support the amendments.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

This amendment brings the practice of land surveyors in line with all the other professionals like the architects and engineers. In the past, architects and engineers used to have two different classes. They used to have Class 2 registered architects who consist primarily of those who have worked in the profession mainly as draughtsmen for many years. They have not gone through any formal training but have gained sufficient knowledge and experience to undertake simple architectural work. At that time, building projects were relatively small and simple. But as Singapore progresses and becomes a global city, building projects become larger, in terms of size as well as complexity. The demand and standard of architectural works have also become higher and higher. As a result, this class of architects has slowly been phased out and the registration for architects is now only confined to architects who are graduates from accredited universities with sufficient experience and have passed a professional practice examination. Therefore, it is timely for the land surveyors, whether they do title survey or non-title survey, to be subject to the same regulatory standard.

As building projects become more and more complex, the skills and experience of surveyors doing non-cadastral surveys are just as demanding, if not more than cadastral surveys, because of the magnitude of the project size. For example, a mistake in the setting out of a building, whether in the siting or, more critically, in the dimension, will create serious legal and financial consequences. The mistake, quoted by the Minister of State, on the erroneous survey of the two rows of terrace houses will be pale in comparison to the mistake made on a high-rise multi-million dollar project. The amount of money involved would be enormous.

It is argued that, in cases like this, there is recourse for the aggrieved party to turn to common law. However, apart from the legal dispute, there is also the question of professional liability and accountability for negligence. Therefore, it is important that all practising surveyors be governed by a regulatory board that oversees these practitioners, similar to that of the architects and engineers. Like any other such changes, there will be people who would be affected in the transition. I am glad that the Minister of State is moving an amendment to allow those who are caught, ie, those without sufficient qualification, to seek an opportunity to upgrade themselves so that they can be qualified for registration. The present surveying course in the university will only require four years to complete. Therefore, I believe that those experienced practitioners in the present surveying firms would have the necessary experience and skills to upgrade themselves and be able to pass the prescribed examination after attending the three-year part-time courses in the Singapore Polytechnic.

I am also glad that the Singapore Polytechnic has provided this part-time Advanced Diploma course to cater to these surveyors. However, despite the Minister of State's explanation, I am still not convinced by the provision in clause 16A that assistant surveyors must be approved by the Board before they are being employed. As registered architects and engineers assume full responsibility for all their undertakings, whether they are executed by them personally or with the help of their assistant architects or engineers, and whose employment does not require approval from their respective Boards even though they also perform field work on behalf of the professionals, why then is approval from the Land Surveyors Board be required for the employment of assistant surveyors? I hope the Minister of State can further comment on this point.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I shall be very brief. The Minister has pointed out the need to have this Bill. I am glad that this Bill will help in raising the standards of land surveyors in Singapore.

Sir, in countries like Singapore, with its small size and very densely built, it is important that land surveyors have a high standard, like the other professions. I am very relieved that the Minister of State has also assured that those who are caught in the transitional period will be given a further chance of another two years because somebody has written to some of the MPs here. And I am glad that the Minister has acceded to this.

Sir, the law will require every land surveyor to be registered. It will prevent any person from being employed as a registered surveyor or an assistant surveyor without the approval from the Board. This is very important. Most professional bodies require certain registration and I am glad that this provision will help in lifting the standard.

What we would urge the Land Surveyors Board to do is to have courses conducted from time to time, just like the medical and legal professions are doing. It is important for us to have registered surveyors. It is very important for us in Singapore to improve ourselves by attending courses.

With that, I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support in principle the Land Surveyors (Amendment) Bill which basically aims to raise professional standards of all works performed by the land surveyors in Singapore. This is in line with our current efforts to achieve world-class standards of service in all our institutions to maintain our international competitiveness.

However, in our keenness to introduce legislative changes to achieve a higher standard of practice and service in a particular industry, due consideration must also be given to the interest and welfare of the existing service providers and workers who have contributed to the growth of the industry. This is not only to avoid or reduce undue hardships to those adversely affected by the legislative changes of the industry but also to help them to accept and adapt to these changes so that they can continue with their service and contribution to the industry.

With this amendment to the Land Surveyors Act, all land surveyors including those who do not conduct cadastral surveys, will be required to be registered under the Act. Currently, only land surveyors who conduct cadastral surveys need to be registered. The existing definition of "cadastral services" within the Land Surveyors Act (Chapter 156) would be rendered obsolete, and the amendment would then be applicable to all types of survey services. Directly affected by this new ruling would be those surveyors who may have a track record of relevant and time-tested surveying experience, but lack the requisite professional qualification to register themselves with the Land Surveyors Board in order to enable them to continue their practice in the surveying industry. Under the new ruling, even the registered surveyors would also not be able to employ any assistant surveyor unless the Land Surveyors Board is satisfied that the person to be employed as an assistant surveyor possesses the necessary qualifications recognised by the Board. These constitute substantial changes from the current industry practice and require careful thought especially in terms of their impact on both the service providers and the end-users of the industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he could provide statistics on the number of non-registered surveyors and assistant surveyors who will be adversely affected by these legislative changes and what sort of measures are being taken to help those surveying professionals adapt to these changes so that they can continue their practice to make useful contributions and earn a living in their field.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has studied the supply side of the surveying profession in introducing such a legislative change. Is there already a shortage of qualified professional surveyors to meet the growing industrial needs? Moreover, I wish to ask whether the new restriction will lead to a severe shortage of supply, thereby hindering the construction work and increasing the price and cost of the surveying works.

Clause 10 does provide a transitional provision, whereby all land surveyors who conduct surveys, other than cadastral surveys, be permitted to engage in carrying out such surveys for a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Land Surveyors (Amendment) Act 1999. However, in my opinion, an interim period of four years may be insufficient for the land surveyors who are currently not registered surveyors to prepare themselves for the new industrial criteria. I am however, very pleased to note the latest amendment in the Bill which states that upon receipt of application filed before the expiry of the four-year period, the Minister would consider granting an extension to the original transitional period of four years by another two years, and making it six years in total.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I fully advocate the rationale for upholding the excellent service standards in the land surveying business, especially in Singapore's service-oriented economy, we must also ensure that those who will be adversely affected will be given the necessary assistance to adapt to the changes, and that the costs of delivering such services are kept competitive.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill as amended.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to associate myself with some of the comments made by NMP, Mr Tay Beng Chuan, just before me and I will try not to repeat the points.

I think that clearly in this time of economic crisis, we have two quite different but intertwining concerns of the Singapore economy as a whole. First is to help people keep their livelihood and the second is to upgrade to be ready for the new competition. In this broader context, I find that the Bill makes sense. It does affect existing people. It affects the surveying technicians which others have spoken about. It makes them unable to continue their practice as individual shops or their own businesses in non-title surveys. And therefore, it does affect their livelihood. These are a small but a necessary number of sometimes very experienced individuals who know the ground well and who know their work. And they have, in that sense, a legitimate concern. In particular, one of their concerns is that legislation seems to go beyond what the Australian and UK requirements are as regards surveys and the registration of surveyors. If I could invite the Minister of State to comment on that. If that is so, why is it necessary for Singapore to go beyond the Australian and UK requirements?

But at the same time, while we are affecting the livelihood of this small but necessary group, as I mentioned, the other impulse and requirement in Singapore's drive to become world-class is to upgrade to be competitive. And here, I think that we should, in principle, support the idea of registration and on improvements. The Minister without Portfolio, Mr Lim Boon Heng said it quite well in a crisis. He said that our degrees are in a way time-barred. They are not a guarantee of perpetual employment or perpetual relevance to the economy that is emerging.

In this sense, the push for upgrading is the correct one. What we then need is to assist people who want to make that upgrade, that is, to make that possible for them with the minimum disruption. There would, of course, be disruption and not everyone would be happy to have his or her normal livelihood and normal way of life disrupted. But I think the amendments proposed by the Minister of State - to have a time period upon application, possibly six years, and the new course to be conducted by the polytechnics for the advanced diploma - are necessary and sufficient. But there is another hurdle of course after that. After the qualifications, there would still be the examinations set by the Board and I would ask that these examinations be fair and foster suitable standards, given that there would be in some ways a larger variation of quality and qualifications of people coming into the examinations. That is to say, in the past where it was mainly people of university degrees who sat for the examinations and only a small number of them qualified, we are going to have examinations set for a number of candidates without university degrees and, instead, with advanced diplomas.

The effort of the Minister to accommodate these changes is a very good one and shows that the Ministry is trying to accommodate differences. This is not to preserve a monopoly of a small clique, either the existing technicians or the existing surveyors. I think we must agree that a closed shop in either sense would be a bad thing for the construction and development industry of Singapore and Singapore as a whole. Only a small number of people benefit from a closed shop. We would be benefiting if we were to professionalise in a way that is competitive and allows the pool of professional and qualified people to be increased and to give the existing technicians a chance to compete on fair and even terms.

With this, I support the Bill.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San): Sir, may I declare my interest as an employee in a construction and property development company which would have, on many occasions, used the services of these surveyors and, in fact, our own staff do perform non-cadastral surveys and they are unregistered at present.

Sir, I want to thank the Minister of State for his explanation. In particular, I really want to thank the arrangement that his Ministry has made with the Singapore Polytechnic for the advanced diploma course and also the additional amendment to extend the period from four to six years upon application.

I must say that I fully agree with the need to register practitioners in this profession for the reasons mentioned by the Minister of State. However, my apprehension is not in the need to register but in the method of registration. Right now, the amendment as it is requires these people to be registered as assistants of currently registered surveyors or people who qualify under current standards to be registered with the Land Surveyors Board. I understand that though there are more registered surveyors, actually the number of registered surveyors currently practising, that means providing professional services for a fee, is only about 20. This means that there is a possibility that if we cannot get more into the market, we might end up a closed shop and a very uncompetitive market situation.

Hence, I would like the Minister of State to assure this House that if such a situation arises, he would change the method of registration to, for example, having a second registry for non-cadastral surveys or even certain types of non-cadastral surveys. Then at least these people who perform the simpler non-cadastral surveys can be registered in their own names and probably maybe different standards be set. But of course, they cannot do the more complicated or more complex tasks and also certainly not the title or cadastral surveys.

In this way, at least there would be sufficient practitioners in the market to provide a competitive environment. The reason that I am asking for this is that survey work is a whole range of very simple surveys to very complicated surveys. It is not like architectural work where the minimum standard involved is relatively much higher. But there is a range. For example, in the construction company that I work for, we do a lot of very simple non-cadastral surveys on site and these are done by our own professionals. They could be civil or structural engineers, and they can do this. It is not that they cannot do it. Of course, the starting point is that the proper cadastral survey is done by a fully registered professional. But from the reference points, it is really not difficult for somebody who is trained in engineering to do very simple surveys within the site.

So, once you remove the word "cadastral" from the Act, as it is the intention of the amendment, then the question arises: would this type of very simple non-cadastral surveys be caught now by the legislation? Does this mean that anybody doing this type of work, whether the person is providing a service for a fee or whether the person is doing it as a staff of, let us say, a construction company has to be registered? Would the current engineers that are doing it now, where they actually are very fully competent to do it, have to be registered too? And if so, would they have to take any additional examinations because, as I said, these are all very simple survey works and anybody with some understanding of simple engineering skills should be able to do it.

In this respect, I would like the Minister of State to confirm that the registration only applies to those professionals offering professional services for a fee and they do not apply to staff of companies that actually do such simple surveys for their company. May I give an analogy that if a doctor were to prescribe medicine for somebody, even if it is a matter of just a panadol pill, then obviously, he needs to be a registered practitioner. But if I feel sick, and on my own, I take panadol, it is self-medication. Certainly, I do not need to be a registered doctor to prescribe panadol for myself. So, in this respect, it is the same thing. If I ask somebody to provide a non-cadastral survey for me, then I am asking a professional for his services. Then he should be registered. But if one of my staff, for example, were to do a simple non-cadastral survey on my construction site, then it is as if that the company is prescribing self-medication. I would certainly like the Minister of State to confirm that there is no need to register such persons.

Sir, to reiterate, I support the intent of the Bill to register all those who provide professional surveying services. I am only concerned with the implementation of the intent. I therefore hope that should the implementation be less than satisfactory, the Minister of State or his successor would present another amendment Bill to this House at a future date.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I rise to express the concern of the Society of Surveying Technicians. I believe they have also written to other Members of this House and most of the points have been raised by speakers before me. But I just wish to raise three points with the Minister. Firstly, I would like to know whether the cost of surveys would increase because of this amendment Bill, as the number of survey firms would be limited.

Secondly, I would like the Minister of State to assure this House that the existing practitioners would not be at the mercy of the registered surveyors after the Act is amended. Because the Bill, as it is now, requires them to be registered with the registered surveyors as assistant surveyors. It seems to me that it is all under the registered surveyors' power or they are at their mercy. The market talk has been that the registered surveyors are waiting for money to come, because they are bound to make a lot of money as they will be the only ones who will be able to practise when the amendment Bill comes into effect.

Thirdly, I would like the Minister to consider a suggestion which was made by Mr Heng Chiang Meng. Is it possible for us to have different classes of surveyors, instead of just registered surveyors that encompass everything? Like in other trades, we have technicians, electricians and we also have professional electrical engineers. There are different classes of professionals. Is it possible to consider having different classes of surveyors doing different types of surveys? They can register directly with the board and practise, and they can do whatever submissions that are needed.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank all the speakers who have spoken. The different speakers who have spoken have injected various viewpoints to the discussion, some of which we have considered carefully after receiving representations. What I want to say at the outset is that, as captured very poignantly by Mr Kenneth Chen and also repeated by Mr Simon Tay and others, the key objectives of the amendments are, firstly, to promote accountability of surveyors. Currently the situation is not tenable, because there are people doing non-cadastral works who are not accountable to the Land Surveyors Board.

Secondly, promote public safety and interest. Mr Chen, who is an architect, brings this up very well, that as Singapore progresses in terms of building styles and complexity, there is a need to upgrade our surveyors. Apparently simple mistakes can result in enormous losses. And the example I gave in my speech illustrates this point, where two rows of shophouses had to be demolished.

I think I should start my speech on this point - the basic objectives of the Bill. Having said this, I want to debunk any allegation that this Bill is to protect those who are already registered. This is related to what Mr Tay Beng Chuan has said. He asked whether the amendments would result in a shortage of registered surveyors. In fact, the intent of this Bill is to require all professional surveyors who are offering survey works of whatever form, whether cadastral or non-cadastral, to register. Currently, only those who are doing survey works of the cadastral type need to register. There are currently about 30 of such unregistered professional surveyors offering non-cadastral survey works, who are not yet registered, which means that they will have to register. What they will do is to take the necessary examinations. They will also familiarise themselves with cadastral work, and then they will register. They will therefore add to the 50-odd registered surveyors who are currently on the register, so that there will in fact be more professional surveyors. That is the first point. This will not reduce the pool but will increase the pool.

The second aspect of this is that these amendments will indeed give impetus to field assistants to register. In the Act, they are renamed "Assistant Surveyors" and called in the industry "Surveying Technicians". The impetus will be there for them also to register, particularly those who want to practise on their own. As I have said in my speech, there are about 400 such field assistants currently. In fact, many will be quite content with doing what they are doing now. They are working in Government departments and statutory boards, or they are working as field assistants for registered surveyors and they are quite happy doing that. So they will not want to take the examinations to upgrade themselves to become professional surveyors. But there will be some who will rise to the occasion and indeed these surveying technicians who have been operating on their own, if they still want to continue operating on their own, then it is quite likely that they will take the route which is open to them. The Singapore Polytechnic is organising the advanced diploma course for them.

The good news for Mr Simon Tay is that the Singapore Polytechnic is working towards a situation where they will incorporate the examinations which normally the surveyors will take at the end into the course. Because it is a part-time 3-year course, it will be comprehensive enough to also incorporate the legislation examination and the field work aspect into the course. I do not think it has been finalised yet, but I think they are working towards that, so that it will actually give incentive for those who want to continue providing survey works on their own to register. This is an important point because this will in fact give the impetus, not only for upgrading, but for more to become registered. Hence, we will have a larger pool of people offering a higher quality of work, thereby enhancing competition and keeping costs competitive.

The other main point is the point that Mr Heng Chiang Meng makes, where he talks about the large variety of survey works. He asks whether or not a separate register can be kept for people who want to do simple survey works. I should, first, clarify that there are two registration exercises. The first is to be registered as professional surveyors, and the other one is registration as field assistants for those who are working for or employed by registered surveyors. That is how the amendment Bill is structured.

Mr Kenneth Chen realises this, because under the new section 16A, all registered surveyors who want to engage or employ field assistants will need approval of the Board, and thereafter a register is kept for them. Mr Chen asked why this needs to be so. I have mentioned in my speech the reasons why this has to be so, because these field assistants are the ones who actually do the field work on the ground. And in the nature of the profession, they work very much on their own, no doubt under the direction and supervision of the registered surveyors, but the registered surveyors cannot be there all the time. The data that they collect on the field is very important. It will be the original source data based on which the office staff will do the computation and draw up the field plans. So there is a need to ensure that field assistants are of a certain standard. Having said this, here the standards will not be raised. Registration for field assistants doing cadastral work has been required since 1972. So it is a matter of extending it now to field assistants doing non-cadastral work. The requirements are quite basic - a diploma in surveying work from the polytechnic. If not, then they need to pass a course in cadastral survey conducted by the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. These are not overly strict requirements for field assistants.

Mr Simon Tay asked whether, in Singapore, we are running ahead of other countries. In fact, we are not the only country doing this. Our system is quite close to the Australian system, and there are three states in Australia which also regulate both cadastral and non-cadastral surveys. Having said this, I think we need not be apologetic that we are progressive. As Members have quite rightly captured the spirit here, the fact is that, in Singapore, we are land scarce and high density, and we have little room for error in the positioning of buildings, structures in our estates and infrastructural developments. As has been said, the cost of remedying such defects can be enormous. I think what we are doing is justified, more so because of the increasing overlapping between cadastral work and non-cadastral work.

Sir, in the old days, we could have people say, "I just do non-cadastral work." But with the advent of modern technology, eg, the Global Positioning System (GPS), the use of modern equipment, the overlap is becoming increasingly large. There is indeed a need for those who do non-cadastral work to also know about cadastral work and what it entails.

Sir, this point addresses Mr Heng's question. He has asked whether we are going to make further amendments to the Act. I do not think we want to have a separate register for people who say that they are doing simple works. What I can ask the Land Surveyors Board to consider is to see, without jeopardising public interest and safety, for these very simple minor works which do not require certification by a registered surveyor, maybe levelling of drains and so forth, whether or not we could provide an exemption from the Land Surveyors Act for these simple works. But I think this is something that I cannot give an assurance now. It is an idea that Mr Heng has suggested which the Land Surveyors Board can study, because under the Act, the Minister, if he deems it suitable, can make an exemption. But the important point is that public safety must not be jeopardised.

Sir, I think I have addressed all the points.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, will the cost of surveys go up?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I have mentioned just now that the amendment will result in more surveyors entering the field and providing quality survey work. So with more surveyors doing the work, cost will be kept competitive. Nobody can assure you that cost will not go up or cost may go down. I think it is a function of the marketplace. What we can say is that it is not a monopoly or closed-shop situation.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I do not think the Minister of State has answered my question regarding those people doing very simple, non-cadastral work, not as professional services, but as staff members; for example, as the engineer in a construction company doing work within its own construction site. These people are not providing professional services. But as I have said, these people are doing some simple work, for example, some measurements here and there from certain reference points, as part of their job. Under the present definition, these are actually survey works. I am trying to say that for this type of work you do not need a registered surveyor to do it. There are quite of lot of this type of very simple work.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Can I ask the Member whether these people who are doing the survey work are offering their services?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: These are the staff in the construction company.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: So they are in-house.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: They are more or less in-house. I want to know whether these people would be required to be registered.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: This is one situation which I will bring to the Land Surveyors Board's attention. They can look into it and respond to the Member accordingly.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, after line 14: to insert -

"(2) The Minister may, upon an application made before the expiry of the transitional period by any person referred to in subsection (1), extend the transitional period of 4 years referred to in that subsection for that person to practise as a land surveyor in respect of surveys other than cadastral surveys for a further period not exceeding 2 years.".

Sir, as I have indicated in my Second Reading speech, a small group of surveying technicians currently practising on their own have expressed the concern that their firms may be phased out after the Bill is passed. The Bill already provides a four-year grace period for these surveying technicians to either join firms which are run by registered surveyors or, if they wish to continue practising on their own, upgrade themselves to become registered surveyors. It will take about three years for a surveying technician to obtain the necessary qualifications. The grace period of four years should be sufficient in most cases. The amendment gives the Minister the power to extend the grace period on a case-by-case basis for a further two years. This will provide more time for those who have actively tried to upgrade themselves during the four-year transitional period but, despite their hard work, failed to do so within the four years.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: A consequential amendment will be made:

In page 6, line 9, after "10.", to insert "- (1)".

This will be done.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.