BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

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

(a) strengthening the system of accredited checkers in their role in checking structural plans submitted to the Commissioner of Building Control;

(b) imposing, on the appropriate qualified person, a duty to ensure that the structure of a building is designed according to prescribed requirements; and

(c) clarifying the intended role of site supervisors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, following the collapse of the roof of the uncompleted Compassvale Primary School hall in June last year, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) conducted a review of its accredited checkers system. The system requires all structural plans and calculations to be checked by an independent accredited checker before they are submitted to BCA for approval. BCA also examined the provisions of the Building Control Act to evaluate their adequacy in ensuring that our buildings are designed to safe standards and that these plans are checked. The main provisions of this Bill arose from the review.

Sir, let me now explain the proposed amendments in detail.

Strengthening the Accredited Checkers System

The accredited checkers system was introduced into the Building Control Act in 1989, following the Commission of Inquiry on the collapse of the Hotel New World.

The Commission had recommended that there should be a mandatory requirement to check the structural plans and design of a building, so as to minimise the risk of errors arising from lapses on the part of the designer. A system of independent checks by an accredited checker was put in place since then.

In its review, the BCA concluded that the current system of accredited checkers remains valid and is an efficient and cost-effective way to achieve an independent check on the building design. However, the BCA highlighted two areas in the present system which should be strengthened.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will elaborate on these areas.

Resources of the Accredited Checker

Currently, an accredited checker can check any project, regardless of its size and complexity and the amount of technical supporting resources that he has. BCA's view is that an accredited checker taking on a large and complex building project should have more specialised technical support staff and resources.

Clause 7 of the Bill addresses this issue by requiring an accredited checker undertaking large projects to be registered and to operate within an accredited checking organisation that has certain resources as required by the Commissioner of Building Control. The requirements will be prescribed in the Regulations. These include minimum staff strength, amount of professional liability insurance and an ISO certification. Only accredited checking organisations will be allowed to check plans of building works above a prescribed value. The value is set at $10 million initially but it may be adjusted from time to time to allow for changes in construction cost. Individual accredited checkers will only be allowed to check building works below this value. They will be required to be covered by a minimum amount of professional liability insurance.

The insurance is intended to provide for financial claims made by the public who may suffer personal injury or loss caused by the negligence of the accredited checker.

Sir, I would like to emphasise that the accredited checker is still personally responsible for the checking of plans and design calculations, whether he operates individually or within an accredited checking organisation. He cannot delegate this responsibility to his assistants.

Review of the Accredited Checker's performance

Another area that should be strengthened relates to the need for a regular review of the performance of an accredited checker. Under the present system, the registration of an accredited checker is valid for life, unless he breaches his duty. There is no provision to review his performance regularly after his registration.

Sir, the amended section 16 and new section 16A will require the accredited checker or accredited checking organisation to renew their registration periodically. The registration will be valid for one year, but this period can be reviewed in the future if some other time frame for renewal is deemed more suitable.

The amendment also allows the Commissioner of Building Control to suspend or cancel the registration of an accredited checker or accredited checking organisation. These offences could include situations where the accredited checker has been censured, fined, suspended or de-registered by the Professional Engineers Board, where he has failed to meet the prescribed requirements for registration and where his performance failed to meet the standards prescribed in the Regulations. During the period of suspension, the accredited checker or organisation will not be allowed to practise.

The new sections 16A, 16B, 16C and 18A extend the existing provisions relating to the individual accredited checker to the accredited checking organisations. These provisions include the registration procedures, suspension or cancellation of registration procedures, the avenues for appeals against decisions taken by the Commissioner of Building Control and the requirement to maintain professional and financial independence in the building works being checked.

Exemption of Government buildings

The new section 18B allows the Minister to exempt buildings and building works carried out by the public authorities from certain requirements of the revised accredited checkers system. With the exemption, public authorities with the necessary qualified accredited checkers in-house need not appoint an accredited checking organisation for building works above the prescribed value. These in-house accredited checkers will also not be subjected to the requirement of checking only plans of building works below the prescribed value.

Sir, as I have mentioned earlier, the accredited checking organisation is introduced to ensure that the accredited checker has adequate and appropriate staff and resources. Public authorities like the Housing and Development Board and the Land Transport Authority already have the professional support staff and resources, and good internal control and disciplinary measures to ensure that their in-house accredited checkers carry out proper checks on designs. However, if the public authorities appoint external accredited checkers, they will be subjected to the relevant provisions in the Bill.

Design Duty of the Qualified Persons

Besides the accredited checker, it is also very important that the qualified person be appraised of his duties and responsibilities under the Building Control Act and its Regulations, and carry out such duties with professionalism and due diligence.

Currently, the maximum penalty for a design offence committed by the qualified person is a fine of not more than $5,000 or an imprisonment of not more than six months or both under the Building Control Regulations.

On the other hand, an accredited checker who fails to detect the same design offence will face a penalty of up to $50,000 in fines (10 times the amount for the qualified person) or an imprisonment of not more than one year or both under the Building Control Act. The difference in the penalties suggests that, in the design of a building, the accredited checker carries a much heavier responsibility than that of the qualified person. This clearly cannot be so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the qualified person must carry the primary responsibility of ensuring the integrity of his design, as he is the one doing the design in the first place. He must not be lulled into a false sense of complacency that the accredited checker will be there to spot his mistakes, and therefore there is no need for him to check his own work for errors. The qualified person must exercise due diligence in ensuring the integrity of his work. The accredited checker only acts as the final mechanism in the system to check and detect any lapses in design. Ideally, if the qualified person exercises due diligence in his design, the accredited checker should not detect any design faults.

The amendment to section 9 of the Act therefore seeks to make clear the importance of the role of the qualified person in his design duties. It proposes to impose a duty on the qualified person to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence in ensuring that the structural design of a building meets the specified requirements. The maximum penalty for a breach of this duty is a fine of up to $100,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or both. This is more severe than the maximum penalty that the accredited checker could face in order to reflect that the primary responsibility of the building design rests with the qualified person.

Site Supervisors

Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn now to the amendments in this Bill that concern site supervisors. Site supervisors were introduced into the Building Control Act when it was first enacted in 1989. The intention was, and still is, for the site supervisor to assist the qualified person in his supervisory duties of construction work.

The current section 8 of the Building Control Act stipulates that construction works can only be carried out under the full-time supervision of a site supervisor. However, there has been some misconception that site supervisors can work independently of the qualified person.

Clause 3 of this Bill seeks to eliminate this ambiguity by making it clear in section 8 of the Act that construction works are to be supervised by the qualified person, or a site supervisor appointed by the qualified person and working under the qualified person's control and supervision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, the amendments to the Building Control Act in this Bill will strengthen the legislation on the structural safety of buildings in Singapore. It will re-emphasize the proper roles and responsibilities of the various professionals involved in the design and checking of buildings. Finally, it will ensure that the highest standards are observed by all who are involved in the building and construction industry.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Building Control (Amendment) Bill.

The collapse of the roof at Compassvale School last year was a shock to many of us, as we are known to be very stringent in our building control and regulations. In the aftermath of the incident, we have been told that it was a result of human error: firstly, the design error of the professional engineer; and secondly, the failure of the accredited checker to spot the error. We are told that this is the current system and that this system of the accredited checker checking on the work of the professional engineer is sufficiently stringent. I can agree with that. What we need are competent and diligent professionals who take their jobs seriously and not by adding another layer of checkers. In principle, therefore, I support what the Bill proposes, and that is to ensure that professional engineers and accredited checkers exercise due diligence in their design and checking work.

On the measure to require accredited checkers to renew their registration annually or after any period prescribed by the Minister, I think there is a need to balance the desire of control over administrative cost and convenience. The present registration of the accredited checker is for life. This new measure is a drastic change and I am not sure whether it is entirely necessary, given that the Minister today already has the power to deregister any errant accredited checker at any time. I think renewal of registration for everyone in three to five years may be more appropriate and reasonable. Using the same argument, for example, what about doctors and lawyers and other professionals? Do we need to require them to renew their registration simply because one or two of their kind have been negligent? Can the Minister tell us how much administrative cost would be involved in requiring such renewals on a yearly basis?

Secondly, the new provisions allow individual accredited checkers to check building works below $10 million only. Checking of plans of building works above $10 million can only be given to accredited checking organisations. This assumes that the organisations would have more resources to do higher value added work. This new requirement is of concern to the individual accredited checkers, as it would reduce their business to some extent. My question to the Minister is whether individual accredited checkers have been found to be less able to handle bigger projects than organisations. For example, when we see a doctor or a lawyer, we seldom ask how many partners or directors there are in the company. We base our decision on the professional reputation of that person whom we are employing or seeing.

In this amendment Bill, the maximum penalty for the qualified person for breach of duty has been raised from $50,000 and/or a jail term not exceeding 12 months to $100,000. This is double the maximum penalty for breach of duty by the accredited checker, and this is meant to reflect that the primary responsibility of building designs lies with the qualified person and not the accredited checker. In principle, I can understand the rationale for this. I am told by the professionals in this industry that this Bill does not give recognition to the fact that contractors should be held equally responsible. The QP or designer can only be responsible for the design. The contractors should be responsible for the construction. Proper structural design and proper construction are both necessary ingredients for the safety of the building. This is especially important for the design-and-build projects where the contractors take the lead in a construction team which even includes the appointment of a QP and the payment of his fees. This amendment Bill does not seem to address this concern.

On a separate but related matter, there is concern from professionals in the construction and building sector that the public sector is relying too much on competitive bidding or lower pricing to select professionals for Government jobs. This method may level down the industry and contribute to shoddy work. The local professionals would like to see selection based more on quality of work and design. I would appreciate it if the Minister can comment on this.

With these comments, I support the Bill.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise the following concerns which the proposed amendments would affect the construction industry and eventually the general public.

Essentially, the proposed amendments seek to fine-tune the Accredited Checker Scheme and increase the penalty for breach of duty by the accredited checker.

The system of accredited checker was introduced after the collapse of Hotel New World in 1986 and now, we are again amending the Building Control Act due to the collapse of Compassvale Primary School. It seems like the proposed amendment is a reactive rather than a holistic approach to improve the safety of building works. May I ask the Minister, by amending the Act, how can we assure the general public that our buildings are safe and structurally sound?

Singapore is probably one of the very few countries in the world that implements the accredited checking system whereby it is mandatory for an accredited checker, who is a professional engineer, to check the work of another professional engineer. Obviously, this double-checking system results in unnecessary duplication of professional work, contributing to construction productivity losses and manpower wastages in Singapore.

It could be argued that the structural soundness of buildings concerns public safety, hence the need for double-checking. But this approach may not effectively enhance the safety standards and professionalism in the construction industry. Sir, we need to examine the root cause leading to the design of structurally unsound buildings. If the problem lies in the lack of competence of professional engineers, then we should address the issue of increasing the stringency of laws governing the registration of engineers or reviewing the professional training of engineers.

Both the accredited checker and professional engineer are registered under the same Professional Engineers Act. So, why not put the professional engineer solely responsible for his own actions? Raising the registration requirements and imposing penalty for malpractice to ensure higher standards of professional practice could achieve this.

In short, if the root cause of designing structurally unsound buildings lies in the quality of training and registration system of professional engineers in Singapore, then how does the "double checking" system ensure that the accredited checker will not commit the same mistake as the professional engineer? This is exactly what happened in the Compassvale School's roof collapse.

Sir, I would like to urge the Ministry to explore other options which will instill professionalism in the construction industry. We need to have a system whereby professionals take responsibility for their professional work, and face the consequences for failing to perform their work competently. A system that instills professionalism (ie, one who takes responsibility for his own actions) will go a longer way than a system that creates mistrust (ie, one who doubts his own standard of work) and distrust (ie, one professional having to check on another professional's standard of work).

Therefore, the accredited checker scheme needs to be reviewed, as it may not provide a holistic solution to having structurally sound buildings in Singapore.

On the contrary, construction practitioners have raised concerns that the accredited checker system has increased the cost of construction, and also caused a shortage of professional engineers in Singapore. The increased cost of construction is eventually transferred to property purchasers.

Sir, let me now request for some clarifications on a few amended clauses in the Act.

New sections 8(1) and 10 insert the words "the appropriate qualified person". May I ask the Minister: is the word "appropriate" necessary? If yes, what is the distinction between an "appropriate qualified person" and a "qualified person"?

New section 16 sets the prescribed limit to be $10 million for building works that require the appointment of accredited checking organisation. May I ask the Minister on what basis is this limit derived? Why is there a need to prescribe a limit for an accredited organisation to check only buildings of a certain value if safety of the public is at risk?

Finally, new section 16 also defines the "value of building works" which means the total cost to be expended in carrying out the building works (including foundations, structural frame, finishes and installation of services). However, we have left out "walls and slabs" as part of building works. I propose that we insert the words "walls and slabs" after the words "structural frame".

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I welcome this Amendment Bill to the Building Control Act. We must do everything we can to ensure the safety of construction workers. It is too often, in the past years, that whenever we opened the morning paper, we read that some accident had happened at a local construction site. If that type of news is allowed to continue, very soon Singaporeans will begin to feel that it is another piece of news. We become used to that kind of news. We become callous and unfeeling. But, in actual fact, lives are lost every time a serious accident takes place at a construction site. Those who have lost their lives are human beings and they are also the husbands or fathers or sons of some foreigners. We must be made to realise that the loss of lives of foreign workers means sadness and hardship inflicted on their loved ones and relatives.

I understand that developed countries, like Australia, take the loss of life in the building site very seriously. That was one of the reasons cited why units in high rise flats in the inner city area in Australia are so expensive when compared to landed properties in the suburbs. The developers have to spend extra costs on safety measures to make sure that no accident happens. And if it so happens that one accident takes place, the whole building works have to be stopped. The investigation that follows is normally prolonged and it takes weeks to complete. That would cost the developers a lot of money for the stoppage. Developers in Australia therefore prefer to spend more money on safety measures rather than suffer long stoppages when an accident occurs. Also, if an accident does happen at the site, the developer shall get into the bad books of the authorities and future applications to the authorities may be difficult.

I am glad that the Government is taking industrial accidents at building sites very seriously and has put more stringent checks on the detailed structural plans and design calculations of building works. When we think of the need to check detailed structural plans and design calculations of building works, the disaster at Compassvale School quickly comes to mind. In that accident, Sir, as cited by the other two speakers, the roof collapsed and seven workers were killed and others injured.

Sir, that accident may have been prevented if this Amendment Bill has been passed earlier before the Compassvale School was built.

I support this Bill.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the three speakers for their support of the Bill, including Mr Chiam's support. However, I would just like to clarify one point with Mr Chiam and, that is, this Bill has nothing to do with construction site accidents. Construction site safety is actually under the Factories Act which is administered by a separate Ministry. Although he supports the Bill, I think in his speech he gave the wrong reasons for supporting the Bill. I thought I should clarify this before we continue.

Let me now turn to the other two speakers. Mr Lew Syn Pau mentioned that the renewal of registration on an annual basis may be too onerous for the QPs and the ACs. I did mention in my Second Reading speech that we will review this renewal period, and if it is most suitable to have a longer period, we will amend it. If three to five years are considered to be more reasonable, we will certainly amend it. However, just let me say that the requirement for having an annual review is to make sure that the qualified persons are aware that they must be at their best professional behaviour and they are subject to a review. Therefore, in this process, hopefully, they will be able to exercise even greater due diligence in their work. Having said that, of course, we will ensure that in the review process, we will make it as simple as possible in order to make sure that the administration costs involved are kept to the very minimum.

Mr Lew asked why contractors are not responsible. Indeed, contractors are not responsible when you are talking about a building design. Because in the construction of a building, the contractor actually works under the supervision of a qualified person (QP). He is responsible to the qualified person. If the qualified person makes a wrong design and the contractor carries out the construction according to that wrong design, then it is the QP who is at fault, and not the contractor. And if the QP's design is correct, then it is the job of the QP to make sure that the contractor carries out his work according to that particular design and according to proper construction methodology. So in this particular amendment to the Bill, we are looking at making sure that the design in the first place is carried out properly and, secondly, of course, make sure that there is a second level check on that design. This is in response to his point about why the contractor is not responsible.

However, that does not absolve the contractor if the contractor himself is guilty of contravening any of the construction safety regulations or construction practices. For example, in the Compassvale incident, if I may cite an incident, the contractor was also fined because he did not perform certain works according to that design. So specifically, he was fined for not doing work up to a certain standard. When we are talking about the design of the building, which is the subject of this particular amendment, it is the qualified person, the design engineer as well as the AC who should be made to exercise full diligence and responsibility.

Mr Lew also asked whether the public sector bids which are based on the lowest price would affect the quality of the design. If I may explain the process for public sector works, the public sector contracts are awarded only to contractors which are pre-qualified. They are listed with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), what is known as the "G" List, or Government List. The Government registration system is incidentally also used by the private sector but it is primarily a list of contractors which are registered with the BCA and from this list, public sector construction projects are tendered out.

Contractors which fall short of certain requirements, which fail to deliver the goods as it were, or which deliver shoddy goods or shoddy workmanship, will be delisted. They will no longer be allowed to tender for Government projects. So it is in the interest of all the contractors to make sure that they deliver a high standard of construction workmanship and that they do not tender frivolously for Government jobs. Only contractors with good track records are registered and the list is updated every few years. So in the first place, we do have a pre-qualification system which would require the G-registered contractors to qualify to tender. Contractors are also regularly and vigorously screened. The point I want to make really is that it is not just price alone. There is a pre-qualification process which makes sure that there is a certain minimum standard. But having said all that, once you are on the list, and once you are invited to tender, then it is only fair that the tender price would be one of the factors, if not the main factor, in deciding whether tenders are awarded or not. In the interest of transparency and fairness, this must be so. And there are only very few exceptional cases where the tender is not awarded to the lowest tenderer. So it is not correct to say that tenders are based on the lowest price alone. But it is also correct to say that if they meet the minimum standard of pre-qualification, then price should be one of the most important factors.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Mr Speaker, Sir, actually I was referring to professional services, like engineers and architects, not the contractors.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Similarly, for professional engineers and architects, if they are registered with the relevant professional boards, then they would be qualified to tender. And when it comes to the awards, it is not a matter of price. There are certain criteria for awarding these contracts to these professionals. Price is one of the factors, but is not the only factor.

I think I have answered Mr Lew's questions. I turn now to the questions posed by Dr Teo Ho Pin. Dr Teo makes the general point that the accredited checking system should be changed, that we should not have a second level of check because it would then distract attention from the responsibility of the qualified person who, in this case, would be the structural engineer.

He makes the point that professionals should take responsibility for their work and I totally agree with him on this. But having said that, it would be irresponsible of us not to, in the light of experience, have a second level of check. Singapore is not unique in this. We are unique in the sense that we have an AC system, a second person to check the plans. But we are not unique in having a second level of check. There are many countries which have a second level of check. The only difference is that this second level of check is done by the building authorities. So if we were to follow the system, for example, in Hong Kong and UK and some other countries, we would have the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) doing the check rather than an AC. I do not think, and this is the view of the Review Committee, that having the BCA itself check is in any way superior to having the accredited checker do the checking. In the light of the Hotel New World disaster and indeed, in a certain way also, because of the Compassvale incident, it is important for us to look at the AC system, to see whether it is still relevant and the recommendation and finding is that it is still relevant. The only point is that we need to refine it a little bit more. While I do agree with Dr Teo that the professionals must take primary responsibility for their work, I must also add that it is incumbent upon the BCA whose mission is to make sure that buildings in Singapore are structurally sound and properly designed not to remove the second level of check.

Dr Teo also asked some specific questions about some clauses in the Bill. He mentioned something about the word "appropriate" in new section 10. Basically, what he is asking is why do we need to use the word "appropriate". Essentially, when we use the words "qualified professionals" in the Bill, we can either refer to the structural engineer or, in some cases, we can refer to the architect. The word "appropriate" really allows us to pinpoint the responsibility.

In the case of designs, we are looking at the structural engineer who is the appropriate qualified person.

Why do we prescribe a limit of $10 million? In my speech I did allude to the fact that, in the case of larger jobs, it is deemed necessary for the Accredited Checker to be able to have access to more resources. It is essentially a matter of how much time you have available and how many assistants you have available to help you to do the checking. Larger jobs require more checking. It is as simple as that. As to whether the limit should be set at $5 million, $10 million or $20 million, BCA made an assessment of the number of jobs that are available in the marketplace. They feel that $10 million is a fair limit as most of the jobs in town are below $10 million. So, they have set this as the prescribed limit in the first instance. Again, as I have indicated, with experience, if we need to change that, we will do so.

Finally, on walls and slabs, I am not sure what exactly Dr Teo means by this, but I will ask the BCA to look into it. As I understand it, in the relevant section, the most important point is that it is the total value of the building works that is relevant. If the total value of the building works exceeds $10 million, then it cannot be handled by individuals. If it is below, it can be done. I presume that walls and slabs will be included in the total cost of the building. I cannot imagine a building being put up without walls and slabs!

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 Mah Bow Tan].

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