RESIDENT ENGINEER (Requirement on minimum contract sum)

Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the structural collapse of the roof at Compassvale School which was obviously due to lack of supervision, whether his Ministry will consider reverting to the past requirement of a resident engineer on a minimum contract sum of $10 million instead of the present requirement on a minimum sum of $15 million.

Mr Goh Chong Chia (Nominated Member): Before I ask my Question, I wish to declare that I am an architect in private practice. Question No. 26, Sir.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the collapse of the roof at Compassvale School was due mainly to a design error by the professional engineer and the failure of the Accredited Checker (AC) to spot the error. The lack of construction supervision by the site supervisor was a contributory factor but not the main cause of the collapse.

The requirement of a resident engineer for projects above $10 million was set in 1987. It was revised to $15 million in 1997 to take into account the higher construction costs. We have no intention to change the current limit for the time being.

Following the Compassvale incident, BCA has reviewed its current system in which the work of a professional engineer is checked by an AC to ensure the safety of the structure. The system is found to be sufficiently stringent. However, BCA will be fine-tuning the AC system to ensure that ACs maintain a high standard in checking so that there are no lapses in the design. Some of the measures include:

(a) ensuring that the larger or more complicated projects will be undertaken by an AC practice with better resources and staff strength;

(b) requiring ACs to apply for renewal of registration annually; and

(c) stepping up surveillance and enforcement actions to maintain a high standard in AC practice.

My Ministry intends to amend the Building Control Act this year to strengthen the AC system. The legislation is targeted for implementation from January 2001.

Mr Goh Chong Chia: Sir, as full-time supervision is actually done by a clerk-of-works or a resident engineer, would the Minister consider making them more accountable?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, currently clerks-of-works are already accountable for the supervisory actions at sites. I am not sure exactly in what way the Member would like them to be more accountable. Perhaps he could let the Ministry know what he has in mind.

Mr Goh Chong Chia: In the case of Compassvale, although the Minister said the supervising personnel were accountable to a certain extent, nothing actually happened at all in the whole case. They were literally let off scot-free. Since they are full-time supervisors on site, are they not accountable for anything at all?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Specifically in this Compassvale case, the inquiry found that the main cause of the accident was really due to both the PE as well as the accredited checker. The PE made a mistake in the design and he was primarily responsible. The AC, who was supposed to make sure that such design errors do not slip through the system, also did not check and, therefore, he was also found liable. The role of the supervisory professional, in this case, the clerk-of-works, was found to be a contributory but not the main cause of the accident. Therefore, it was deemed not necessary for action to be taken against him in this case. But that does not follow that he is not liable for his actions. If, let us say, in other cases, he is found to be liable, then action will be taken.