S. Dhanabalan
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I said in my intervention on Tuesday that the general election is the right forum to determine the electorate's support because it puts the issue in a total and correct context.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with hindsight, of course, we can be very wise. But since one of the three islands was excluded, it was a substantial reduction in the scope of works. The assessment then, which I agreed with, was that if you called for a re-tender, you would get a substantially reduced tender.”
“To the extent that we can, we should work with countries that have a common interest, to come together and form economic groupings targeted at trade liberalisation. We have started this process within ASEAN under the AFTA Scheme. Economic linkages in groupings like APEC are also growing in significance.”
“Mr Speaker, all these questions make a lot of sense when the events are finished, and you look back. But the officer looking at the case at that time had to deal with the facts as they were at that time.”
“ASEAN countries agreed to publish all the Inclusions and Exclusions lists, as well as the full list of actual tariff reductions. The ASEAN Secretariat had since followed up and released, as scheduled, on 1st November 1993, the publications showing these lists.”
“Kallang Theatre was closed for five months in 1992 for cyclical maintenance and upgrading costing $3 million. This included a major upgrading of the toilets, recarpeting the auditorium, rewiring and repainting.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,635 lines we hold for S. Dhanabalan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 33.
“Sir, before we adjourned yesterday there were three main topics that were raised by Members. The first one was on the tendering system for shops. The second one had to do with the upgrading of HDB flats, and the third one, the problems arising from the new booking system. Since the booking system has given rise to quite a lot of wrong impressions and complaints from the public, I would like to give a reply to this last item first. Sir, when we started on the booking system in July 1989, we had 45,000 applicants on the waiting list and these had to be cleared first. While we were clearing these applicants on the waiting list, the HDB was of course receiving new applications. The booking system has now reached a stage where we have cleared the 45,000 applicants that were on the waiting list in July 1989. Many of the problems that were mentioned by Mr Chng Hee Kok were problems relating to the transitional phase of the booking system. The experience during this transitional phase has shown that the booking system has been successful in one very important respect in that it has identified real demand from those who require flats and has filtered out those who are not in pressing need for housing. Of the initial 45,000 applicants, 11,800 or 26% withdrew their applications when the booking system was introduced. A further 10,200 or 23% switched to the walk-in selection scheme or bought HDB resale flats on the open market. Only 23,000 applicants or 51% of the total 45,000 eventually made booking for HDB flats. The acceptance rate for those allocated flats has also improved from 60% under the previous waiting list system to between 80-90% under the booking system. So the booking system has been very, very effective in weeding out those who are not in pressing need for housing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1991/92, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“00 pm Regarding the hot spring in Sembawang, I mentioned the last time that the land had to be acquired for MINDEF's use. I mentioned that MINDEF had been asked to study carefully to see whether it could release any part of the land that it had acquired so that the land it was prepared to release could be used for recreational purposes. I am pleased to announce that MINDEF has agreed that some of the land which it acquired previously can be released for other kinds of development. The URA is now studying this particular site to see how it can be fitted in with the overall recreational and leisure master plan. And once we know exactly what we can use the site for, we will get potential developers to make their proposals.”
“Sir, regarding the Tree Planting Day, it may appear that this campaign that we have every year is very unproductive because many people are involved in planting a very few trees. But I would like to point out that the Tree Planting Day is not an attempt to get cheap labour or to get the maximum productivity from the people involved. It is an educational programme. And as an educational programme, we want to try and get maximum public participation. So even if we have 10 people involved in the planting of one tree, the act of going there and seeing the tree being planted is part of the exercise to make people aware of the importance of tree planting. In fact, most of the trees planted in Singapore are not planted on Tree Planting Day, they are planted throughout the year by the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD). And even on Tree Planting Day, most of the actual work is done by PRD. They have to bring the saplings. So it is an educational programme to involve the public. [Interruption.] Some may plant their own trees, cut their own trees, but they are free to do that. But I am talking about the Tree Planting Day which is basically an educational exercise. I think it is worth continuing with it and even if there is just space for a few trees to be planted, we should continue with it. It is a symbolic act which reminds the people every year of the importance of trees, greenery, and so on. So we intend to carry on with it. And the idea of having one site where everybody can turn up, that would mean even more effort in mobilising 81 constituencies to come to one spot. I do not think there is any one constituency that has a space for everybody to participate. So we will continue with the present scheme. 4.”
“Some private housing estates have organised themselves into associations. They should do so if they want to take up matters which are of common interest and if they cannot do so and they have particular problems, they have to learn to approach the Government department concerned. I do concede that sometimes they may not know which department to approach. And this is where I think our Service Quality Improvement Unit can help. For example, PWD has standard instructions that if they get calls on any matter which do not have to do with PWD, then they should direct the caller to the specific department concerned. But, of course, if the officer concerned does not know which department to direct the enquiry to, then the public would be given the run around. So we have to educate our civil servants. But I think the present system is the best system and I do not see the need for MND or any other Ministry to set up a special unit to deal with the complaints of private housing dwellers. Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Then the last and very important factor, with our population becoming very conscious of environment, is that the tunnel enables the environment along the route to be preserved or even improved. Surface expressways in the city will have very severe adverse environmental effects along the route, both in terms of noise, visual intrusion, air pollution, and so on. The other question has to do with the glide system, the use of computers to tie up the traffic signals at different junctions so that you get a green wave and not just a static green wave but a system that reads the volume of traffic at the junction coming from different directions with traffic lights that are able to react to the changes in traffic volumes. The glide system is now one that ties up the traffic lights within the city. We intend to extend the system to include another 119 sets of traffic lights outside the city and, ultimately, we hope to tie up all the traffic lights in all parts of Singapore, where there is significant traffic, to the system. And the entire system is scheduled to be completed in about seven years. On road openings, he asked why we cannot have a conduit or some sort of trench which can be permanently laid and into which we can put in new services, or change services. It is very difficult to do this in the old parts of the city. But for the new parts of the city, that is Marina South, we intend to introduce some such system. It is being studied, and if we can do it economically, we shall certainly do it. Then Mr Peh raised the woes of private housing estates that they do not have one particular body to turn to. Well, private housing is private housing. It is not HDB. There is no one authority to deal with them.”
“He asked me when the CTE tunnels would be completed. The CTE tunnels will be completed by September this year. As to whether PWD considered alternatives before building the CTE, it certainly did. Let me just give him some of the considerations that went into the choice of a tunnel as against other forms of roads. There was a long and detailed study on the cost and benefits of building a tunnel as against alternative solutions and the tunnel alternative was selected because it has many advantages over the alternative of surface expressways or elevated expressways. First of all, there is better development potential for land near the tunnel as compared to land near an expressway. Because an expressway even with buffer setbacks and strict vehicular access controls, has high noise nuisance and dust nuisance. But this does not apply to tunnels. Tunnels also enable better use of the land above the tunnels. Once, of course, you have a surface road, you cannot use the surface for anything other than for cars and vehicles. In the case of tunnels, you can landscape, and you can even build on the tunnels. Thirdly, the land required for a tunnel is much less, compared to surface expressways. In the case of CTE, we calculated that we will save more than 10 hectares of land as a result of using the tunnel alternative than a surface expressway. The other advantage is that most of the surface traffic will not be affected. This allows major roads, bus routes, and so on, to continue as they were before, whereas the construction of an expressway would, in many cases, require changes to bus routes and other surface use of the roads.”
“The clock does not start running from the date of TOP but from the date that the developer asks the purchaser to take possession. So buyers must take legal action on their own. When I say this, it does not mean that the Building Control Division in the PWD does nothing. When we receive complaints and purchasers appeal to us, we do take up with the developers and with the architects concerned and, in most cases, the developers do respond positively and they put right whatever needs to be put right. But there are some developers who do not take action or who really are unable to take action because the buildings are of such poor quality. In such cases, legally, we cannot take immediate action on that particular development, but when we receive complaints and our investigations show that the developer has, in fact, put up very poor quality buildings, we will take action to suspend the developer for a period of anything from one to four or five years. And during the period of suspension, that developer, or any other developer in which the directors of that particular company are involved, will not be given a licence to sell his development in advance of completion. As you know, developers now sell even before the ground is prepared. But where the developer does not get a licence, he has to complete the building so that the purchasers can go and see the completed building, the quality of the building, before they buy. We have, in fact, suspended some developers because they produce poor quality buildings and where we have had many complaints. So if there are any such specific cases, maybe the Member can write to me and we will see what can be done. The next question was raised by Dr Ho Tat Kin and it has to do with the CTE tunnels.”
“And, in fact, the old Certificate of Fitness (COF) reinforced this mis-impression that somehow Government went to examine the building and found it to be fit in the sense that it was of good quality. But when a COF was issued, what the department concerned really said was that the building was constructed according to the plans submitted. The basic thing that the Building Control Division (BCD) was concerned with was the structural aspect, the soundness of the building, the structure was built according to plans, and all the spaces, ventilation, and so on, were according to plans. Whether the tiles used were the right tiles, whether the roof has cracked tiles and whether it leaked from the wall or from the roof, really are not the problems of BCD. It is a matter of quality, which is governed by the Purchase and Sales Agreement between the buyer and the developer, and there are sufficient clauses in this Agreement for the purchaser to take action against the developer. But of course he has to take action through his lawyers. He cannot just go and appeal to a Government department. It is because of this wrong impression that we have changed the title of COF to a Certificate of Statutory Completion. It is very clear in that the building is completed according to the plans but it does not make any comment on the quality of the building except the quality of the structure, in other words, the safety aspects. Buyers have to take action and the period within which they can ask the developer to make good any defects is determined by the date of notice to the purchaser to take possession. It has got nothing to do with the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP).”
“So people who now have to pay for one hour, even though they want to park for just 10 or 15 minutes, will find that they have to pay only for half an hour. This will be introduced from 2nd May. As to the other types and forms of controlling or managing car parks, the present system has been found to be the most effective in terms of cost, manpower saving and efficiency. I think Members will remember that we had a different system in the past where we used to go to the booth to pay. Now you just buy a book of coupons and you tear the coupons and use as required. Nevertheless, both URA and HDB are exploring the feasibility of using new types of systems and the Smart card system is one of the systems that is under consideration. When such a system is proven to be effective, we will certainly introduce it. Regarding private car pick-up points at MRT stations, all stations have been provided with taxi stands and taxi bays, but not all have the space near the stations to provide private car pick-up points. At stations where there is space, such as the Novena or Bishan station, PWD has provided a place for private cars to pick up or drop off passengers. In new towns, where there are car parks near the MRT, we use such car parks for this purpose. I will ask PWD to try its best to prepare spaces or pick-up points as close to MRT stations as possible. But it may not be possible in all cases. Mr Chng Hee Kok raised the question of the plight of purchasers of private housing and the poor quality of some of this type of housing. There is a misunderstanding that the departments in the Ministry of National Development which are in charge of construction or development are also in charge of the quality of buildings.”
“Sir, I was asked to give a very brief idea of the long-term strategy on car parks and how they will be related to the transportation system or transportation planning. It is true that in the past we tended to look at the parking problem as quite distinct and separate from transportation problem, and very often the building authority, in requiring the number of car parks to be built, did not take into account the transportation problem. But that has been resolved. PWD, which is now in charge of car parks, has come up with a new policy on car parks. Singapore is divided into various zones and the car parking requirements vary from zone to zone according to the road system and the intentions under the transportation policy. For example, buildings around MRT stations do not have to provide as many car parks as other buildings because the intention is that people should use the MRT. Similarly, buildings within the heart of the restricted area will have to provide less car parks than buildings in the rest of the restricted zone or buildings in the rest of the island. So there is now a graduated system of car parking requirements in buildings which is tied very closely with the overall transportation system. Perhaps one of these days I will have an opportunity to make a more detailed statement. At this time I just want to give this broad outline in that car parking is now tied to the transportation system, and the development control and building control requirements are tied together with the transportation system. 3.45 pm On the question of half-hourly car parking, I am very pleased to announce that from 2nd May, PWD will be introducing half-hourly parking coupons for all car parks.”
“But sometimes even this is not possible because certain emergencies or immediate demands come up. For example, I have got a letter from a company saying that they want electricity, and PUB has been told that they cannot lay the cable because they were asked before the road was re-surfaced whether there was a cable to be laid, and they said no. And now a cable has to be laid which requires a road that was re-surfaced just last month to be opened up now. So we have that kind of situation, and we do face a situation where people seem to see the road being been opened up almost every week. We try to avoid it by coordinating, but I must say it is not one hundred per cent; it does not work all the time. We will try to improve the system. I think forward planning can help a lot in cutting down the inconvenience arising from frequent opening of roads.”
“I mentioned about the construction of semi-expressways; roads like Dunearn Road, Bukit Timah Road, Adam Road, Farrer Road will be improved by the building of vehicular interchanges. We also intend to do the same in Holland Road, Queensway, Yio Chu Kang, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 and Hougang Avenue 2. So these are the various detailed items in the next 5-year programme of the PWD. 3.30 pm On the question of road opening, this is in fact an old problem. It comes up every year - why our roads are opened up so often? We do have a Coordinating Committee that is chaired by PWD with all the various agencies that have reasons to open roads, such as PUB, Telecom, Ministry of the Environment and HDB. They all sit on this Committee. There is some coordination. They meet every month and try to coordinate all matters relating to what we call "road openings" in order to lay services. But there are practical difficulties. A normal layman's idea is why can we not open the road once and lay all the services in that trench and cover up, and not open up again for a long time. It cannot be done. For example, we cannot lay a sewer pipe and a water pipe in the same trench. And we cannot dig two trenches for both purposes at the same time, because that will cause tremendous traffic jams. So we dig first for the sewer, and after it is closed up, then we dig for the water pipeline. It has to be done that way. There is no other way to do it. Similarly with electricity and gas lines, we cannot lay them in the same trench. We try to minimize the inconvenience to public by asking the various departments concerned to think about their programmes in advance so that we can have a proper schedule of road openings.”
“In fact, the internal organisation of HDB now, in the Architectural Department, is to divide the teams into four design studios, and each studio is like a private sector architectural firm. They design quite independent of the other studios and of course there is an element of competition and a desire to out-perform each other, which I think is good. So we will do everything we can to introduce a greater variety into public housing. On the question of roads, Members will have noted that, in the past, the average that PWD has spent on roads is about $230 million per year. Over the next five years this will increase to $390 million a year. So there is a greatly expanded road building programme. Over the next five years we will be doing the following: We will build new expressways, extend the present expressways, improve the capacity of the present expressways; we are introducing new interchanges, as well as building a series of semi-expressways. The other important idea that we will be studying in some detail is the feasibility of an underground road tunnel network. There is a lot of excitement about this idea, but I must sound a note of caution that this is not a panacea for our road traffic problems. But in certain instances, tunnels can be very effective in getting traffic through a part of the city to another part. The major expressways that we will be constructing will be the following: Kranji, Tampines, Seletar Expressways. Pan-Island Expressway will be expanded and realigned, and parts of the PIE which are now narrow would be widened, especially the part between Kallang Bahru and the Bukit Timah Expressway.”
“Sir, I crave your indulgence to go beyond the 15 minutes. I will take some of the time from my other answers. First of all, on housing form. We had a competition on new housing forms. We had quite a few suggestions but unfortunately the competition did not throw out many creative ideas. From the competition we have been able to modify some of the planning guidelines and we will be announcing them soon. But as the Member has pointed out, we want to try out private sector ideas in public housing. We have already done this to some extent in the sense that we have sold parcels of land in HDB estates for both commercial as well as private housing development. This will create more variety in HDB new towns. But the idea of getting private sector architects to actually design public sector housing or HDB flats is a good one and I will ask HDB to examine this idea, and perhaps we can study the idea of a design-and-build approach. In other words, we mark out a parcel of land within an HDB estate and ask the private sector, a combination of maybe architects and contractors, to design and build public sector housing within certain parameters which we will have to lay down, not only some planning parameters but also, most important, cost parameters. Because whatever is the final product, it must meet the demand or the affordability of those under the HDB booking system. So I will ask HDB to look into this. As the Member has pointed out, we are involving the private sector in the Development Guide Plans of new areas, including HDB estates. The HDB itself has tried to introduce a greater variety of designs into public housing.”
“The British government then enacted the Sultan Hussain Ordinance to make financial provisions for the descendants of Sultan Hussain from the income derived from the Kampong Glam Estate and under these provisions, as I mentioned just now, the family was to be paid $750. That was a definite sum. Out of anything in excess of $750, the Government is entirely free to pay any amount up to nine-tenths. In other words, the Government has the discretion to pay nothing or up to nine-tenths. Over the years, the practice has been to pay nine-tenths, and that is what is provided in the Ordinance. As to submission of development plans by the family, it is true that there have been reports in the newspapers from time to time from various people who are still living in Kampong Glam. These reports contained details of the kind of plans that they have discussed with various promoters about how to develop Kampong Glam. We have always made it very clear and categorical that the land is State land and was reverted to the State on 1st January 1905 in accordance with the ruling of the Court of Appeal and repeated in the Ordinance. The land is State land administered by the Land Office in the same manner as any other State land in Singapore. So nobody, other than the State, really has the right to submit any development plans. Any members of the family of the late Sultan Hussain do not have the authority to submit any development plans because they are not owners of the land. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st March, 1991], "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1991 to 31st March, 1992.". -[Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 12.43 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would very briefly give the background to this Ordinance which really goes back to the founding of Singapore. Those of you who have done history either in school or university would remember that Singapore was part of the Riau Sultanate, the Sultan of which claimed sovereignty over Johor, Pahang and some of the East Sumatran states. Events following the death of the Riau Sultan in 1812 led to the late Sultan's younger son succeeding him. The elder son did not succeed to the Sultanate. The new Riau Sultanate rebuffed the British request for a trading post and this was where the elder brother came into the picture. The elder brother, Hussain, came to Singapore and was declared Sultan and he signed the treaty permitting the British to set up a factory or colony in Singapore in 1819, ie, the founding of Singapore. In 1824, a new treaty was signed whereby Singapore was ceded to the British except for the Kampong Glam Estate which was allocated to Hussain as his personal accommodation. That is the area we are talking about under the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. After this happened, the Sultanate in Johor, ie, the younger Sultan, prospered and Hussain's family in Singapore declined and became increasingly impoverished. With the death of Hussain in 1835, the family's fortunes declined even further. In 1896, towards the end of the last century, there was a dispute among the family of Sultan Hussain as to who was the successor to the Sultanate and to the estate, ie, the Kampong Glam Estate. This matter went to court and in December 1897, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no one who could claim to be the successor. The estate, therefore, reverted to the Crown. It became State land and it was no longer subject to the treaties which previously affected it.”
“The private sector will have to spend money to restore their premises which they already own or which they will buy from the Government. Substantial investments must be made by all parties. The conditions must be right for such investments to yield reasonable returns to justify the risks. With the capping of the payments under the Sultan Hussain Ordinance, URA will accelerate development plans for Kampong Glam.”
“So far, the practice of the Government has been to pay nine-tenths of the revenue derived from the properties in Kampong Glam covered by the Ordinance to the family of the late Sultan Hussain. This amount has varied from $64,590 in 1974/75 to $254,749 in 1986/87 to $226,601 in 1989/90. The figures are for the recent years. Of course, in the early years, it would have been much less. The State owns 120 buildings in Kampong Glam which are covered by the Ordinance. These buildings are deteriorating. The properties in Kampong Glam cannot bring in more revenue without massive investments by the State in infrastructure and by the building owners in conservation works. The properties do not belong to the family of the late Sultan Hussain and under the Ordinance they are not enabled or entitled nor are they required to contribute towards such investments. Hence, increases in income arising from these additional investments will not benefit the family of the late Sultan Hussain. The Government has, therefore, decided to cap the annual income payable to the family of the late Sultan Hussain at $250,000 per annum with immediate effect. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly describe the plans we have for Kampong Glam. The URA will implement a pilot project costing $12 million in Kampong Glam at the end of 1991. In addition, another $2 million will be spent to develop Bussorah Street and Muscat Street as landscaped malls with pedestrian sidewalks, lighting, signages and other street furniture. Some State-owned buildings will be sold to the public to restore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the success of conservation in Kampong Glam depends on the active participation of both the Government and the private sector. The Government, on its part, will invest to improve the infrastructure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1988, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) announced the conservation guidelines for Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam. I am pleased to report that the private sector has responded well to the conservation programme. To-date, owners of some 800 premises in Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam have submitted planning applications for restoration or change of use. Progress is fastest in Chinatown where owners of 55% of the premises have applied for planning permission to carry out conservation work. In Little India and Kampong Glam, only 14% of the owners have applied for planning permission. We have reasons to believe that the pace of conservation development in Little India will accelerate soon. But in Kampong Glam, there are certain constraints that have to be removed before development can proceed further. These constraints have to do with the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. The Sultan Hussain Ordinance was enacted by the British in 1904 after a Court of Appeal ruling that the land in Kampong Glam had become Crown Land, ie, State Land. The Ordinance requires the Government to pay the family of the late Sultan Hussain up to $750 a year. It further enables the Government to pay to the family of the late Sultan Hussain up to nine-tenths of the difference between $750 and the net annual revenue yielded by the properties covered by the Ordinance. About 80% of the Kampong Glam conservation area consists of properties covered by the Ordinance. The family of the late Sultan Hussain are not beneficial owners of the properties covered by the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. They are only entitled under the Ordinance to $750 and whatever amount the Government decides to pay out to them pursuant to the formula prescribed in the Ordinance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware that a covered bridge will become an attraction for people to visit the site. Whether it benefits one-quarter or one-third or one-half of Yishun, ultimately it must be reflected in the number of people who use the bridge during peak hours. As I have said, studies have shown that the peak hour traffic is well below the 1,200 per hour that we have set as the cut-off point. At a later stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there will be an opportunity to build a proper bridge because the site opposite the MRT station, which is a vacant site, will be sold for commercial development and a site adjacent to the MRT station is also a site to be sold for commercial development. We can then integrate the two commercial developments together with the MRT station and have a proper pedestrian bridge. But if before we sell the sites, there is a great increase in the number of people using the present uncovered bridge, we can construct a cover for the bridge. CIVIL SERVANTS (Conversion to Central Provident Fund Scheme) 3. Mr Sia Khoon Seong asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government intends to mount another exercise to convert all civil servants on the pension scheme to the Central Provident Fund Scheme, and whether he will assure civil servants on the pension scheme that they will retain their right of option if and when such a conversion exercise is mounted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department (PWD) has a programme to construct covered bridges where the pedestrian traffic is heavy during peak hours. PWD has adopted the guideline of 1,200 pedestrians per hour (20 per minute) during the peak hours, below which a covered bridge would not be justified. The request by Yishun Town Council to erect a shelter over the existing pedestrian bridge across Yishun Avenue 2 was carefully considered by PWD. The bridge is not part of a busy walkway linking, say, a bus interchange with a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station. The actual pedestrian traffic on site is well below the guideline of 1,200 pedestrians per hour during the peak hours. Therefore, the request for a covered bridge was turned down. PWD will monitor the situation and will construct the covered bridge when the pedestrian traffic volume justifies it. The cost of the roof structure for the 64-metre long bridge is about $100,000.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the resolution of the House on 20th December 1990 committing the Professional Engineers Bill to a select committee be modified by deleting the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate" and substituting therefor the words "the Bill be committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Architects Bill". ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 14th January, 1991." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Four o'clock pm to Monday, 14th January, 1991.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as item 6 in the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament resolves that the resolution of the House on 20th December 1990 committing the Professional Engineers Bill to a select committee be modified by deleting the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate" and substituting therefor the words "the Bill be committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Architects Bill". The objective and rationale for the Professional Engineers Bill is similar to that of the Architects Bill. Both Bills seek to allow professional engineers and architects to team up with allied professionals to form multi-discipline partnerships and limited liability companies. The contents of both Bills are similar except for one clause in the Professional Engineers Bill - clause 11(3)(b) which seeks to permit only professional engineers to use, as a title before his or her name, the word "Engineer" or its abbreviation "Er." or "Engr.". It is, therefore, logical for both Bills to be considered by the same Select Committee. Whatever amendments that are to be made to the Architects Bill will be applicable to the Professional Engineers Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“(4) A new provision under clause 12 makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder the Director-General of Public Works, Superintendent or any authorised officer in the discharge of his duties. The penalty for the offence is a fine of up to $2,000 or a 3-month imprisonment, or both. Clause 13 is a consequential amendment arising from the appointment of the Director-General of Public Works as the Car Parks Authority. It empowers the Minister to allow the URA, HDB and other statutory boards to keep the car parking charges and fines collected by them in any public parking place maintained by them under the Act. In conclusion, Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Parking Places Act for a more efficient and effective regulation and control of public and private car parks. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“This is to enable these statutory boards to manage their car parks effectively. Clause 5 amends section 7 of the present Act to make it clear that the Government and the Car Parks Authority will not be liable for any injury or death suffered by any person in any parking place. Clauses 6, 7 and 9 of the Bill seek to increase the maximum composition sums and fines for various offences under the Act. These penalties, which were fixed in 1974, 16 years ago, have lost much of their deterrent effect as inflation has depreciated the value of the fines. Doubling the maximum amount of these penalties will restore their deterrent effect. The Bill also proposes the following changes to enable the Car Parks Authority to administer the Act more effectively: (1) Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 15 of the Act to empower the Superintendent to detain as well as remove any vehicle parked unlawfully in any car park. (2) Clause 10 empowers the Superintendent to hold an officer of a company responsible for an offence committed by that company if the offence is found to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any act or default on the part of such an officer. This is similar to section 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act. So it is not a new principle. For example, when a company car is caught parking illegally, the company will be informed of the parking offence by a Notice of Request for the driver's particulars. If the company fails to respond, a summons will be issued against any director, manager, secretary or officer of the company who is attributable to the offence. (3) Clause 11 amends section 17 of the Act to enable parking notices to be issued by any duly authorised officer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Parking Places (Amendment) Bill has two objectives: (i) to appoint the Director-General of Public Works as the Car Parks Authority to administer the Parking Places Act; and (ii) to enhance the powers of the Superintendent of Car Parks to enable him to deal more effectively with car parking offences. Sir, the planning and regulation of car parks is an important component of road transport policy. The Public Works Department, as the road planning and engineering authority, is better placed to integrate the planning and control of car parks with traffic planning, management and operation of roads. My Ministry has therefore decided that the Public Works Department should take over the functions of the Car Parks Authority from the Urban Redevelopment Authority. The first phase of the transfer was done on 1st September 1989 under the Planning Act, whereby the Director-General of Public Works was appointed as the Competent Authority to carry out the function of car park planning functions. Now, clause 3 of the Bill before us seeks to complete the transfer by appointing the Director-General of Public Works as the Car Parks Authority to administer the Parking Places Act. Under the Act, the Director-General of Public Works will be responsible for the regulation and control of all public and private parking places in Singapore. Clause 3 of the Bill also enables the appointment of a public officer as the Superintendent of Car Parks. In addition, it empowers the Director-General of Public Works to appoint public officers and officers from statutory boards as Deputy and Assistant Superintendents of Car Parks to exercise powers under the Act.”
“But our preliminary survey shows that probably about 60% of those who are now living in these squatter colonies will not be eligible for any resettlement benefits, because they are non-citizen single persons. If they are citizen single persons, of course, they will get benefits. They are mainly work permit holders who are using the place to sleep at night and paying very cheap rentals. These people will be given a disturbance allowance and they will have to look for alternative accommodation themselves. All the clearance costs, the resettlement costs, will be paid by the Singapore Government in the first instance and we will offset these against compensation for MRA lands as and when we have to take over these lands for public infrastructure purposes or as and when they are returned to the Singapore Government. As far as private lands are concerned, as I said, we have already asked the private landowners to clear the squatters and it is up to the private landowners to settle with the squatters whatever compensation they want. The Government will not be involved. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CURRENCY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Once railway use ceases, the land reverts to Singapore. So it is a very special type of land. For this reason, we have discussed with the Malaysian Government and have agreed to move in and clear these squatters. That situation, of course, does not apply to other private lands in Singapore. The Building Authority will take immediate action on the unauthorised structures, whether they are temporary or permanent in nature, after this Bill is passed. The clearance exercise will be divided into two phases. Phase 1 will cover the land between Silat Road and Upper Bukit Timah/Chia Eng Say Road. Phase 2 will cover the remaining MRA lands. Our programme is to clear the squatters on MRA lands in three years' time. Although the amended Building Control Act enables the Building Authority to take similar actions on other private lands, I have explained why we will not in fact do it. In order to expedite the process of clearance on MRA land, we will in fact be offering the squatters certain resettlement compensation. And these resettlement benefits will be equivalent to those paid out to squatters on State land, and only squatters occupying the MRA land as of today - today is the cut-off date because I am making this speech and the law will be passed today - will be entitled to the resettlement benefits. But of course each case will have to be processed and there is an eligibility requirement and the eligibility criteria applied to those squatters on MRA land will be the same as those which are applied to squatters on State land. All eligible persons and families will be given alternative accommodation. The HDB will make available rental flats as an interim arrangement and then they will be asked to buy flats under the booking system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chng has raised the question of the MRA squatters and whether any compensation will be offered to those who are eligible. I want to take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to expand a little bit on the squatters on MRA land. As I mentioned, the heaviest concentration of squatters in private land is at present found in those lands managed by the Malayan Railway Administration. We, in fact, asked the MRA to clear these squatters and they tried to clear them in 1986, but with limited success. The MRA lands are meant for use for railway purposes only. These lands will revert to Singapore when they cease to be used for railway purposes. So it is a very special type of land. We have agreed with the Malaysian Government that the Singapore Building Authority should move in and take direct action on the unauthorised structures on MRA land. The question may be raised: why do we not do this with other private lands? Why do we not help private landowners to clear the squatters on their behalf? The answer is very simple. Private lands can be used for commercial, residential and other types of developments. MRA lands were alienated for a specific purpose, ie, railway only. All these other buildings that have been put on MRA lands, squatter huts, temples, and so on, are unauthorised, both under the Building Control Act as well as under the Planning Act. The Planning Act requires that the use on that land be according to the use allowed under the Planning Act. The use allowed under the Planning Act for the MRA lands is railway. So all the other uses are unauthorised uses. And even if the owners of such structures apply for permission to regularise their buildings, such permission will not be given because the use will not be permitted.”
“The Building Authority is empowered to take enforcement action on any temporary building in respect of which no temporary permit is in force. This will make it absolutely clear that the Building Authority has jurisdiction over such temporary buildings. With the amended Act, the Building Control Division will have clear powers to require the demolition of unauthorised structures and temporary buildings; and to demolish them in the event that the owners or occupiers fail to comply with the demolition orders. If the owners or occupiers fail to demolish as ordered they will be guilty of an offence. They can be taken to court for the offence. They can be made to pay the full cost incurred by the Building Authority to remove such unauthorised structures. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I am particularly pleased to hear that this amendment Bill will give the Minister the power to clear up squatters located along the Malayan Railway. The squatters in this area are not only an eyesore but I think they also pose a health risk and occasional inconvenience to those who are living in the nearby Housing and Development Board estates. Whilst advocating the clearance of these squatters, I am also apprehensive about the welfare of these squatters. Since the land in question is not State land, will the Minister explain if these squatters, especially Singapore citizens, will be entitled to some form of resettlement compensation or be provided with alternative housing? Will the present resettlement policy apply to these squatters?”
“Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 25 of the Act to make it clear that the Building Authority can take action itself or ask for the removal of goods, furniture, etc, from a building on which a closure order has been served. The Building Authority can, therefore, clear the unauthorised structure before demolition. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 42 of the present Act to provide that where any such goods, or furniture, or other effects are removed, they can be sold at the end of two weeks of their removal and the proceeds can be put into an account and if it is not claimed within two years of the sale, the proceeds will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Clause 6 of the Bill makes it clear that any notice served shall be deemed to be sufficiently served if the notice is affixed on a conspicuous part of the premises to which it relates. This will help the Building Authority in cases where the owner or occupier of the premises cannot be contacted or traced. There have been instances where everybody disclaims responsibility as either owner or occupier of the building. In such cases, all that the Building Authority has to do is to put the notice on a conspicuous part of the building. Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the unauthorised buildings are temporary structures which may have had permits issued to them long ago, in one form or other, when they were first constructed. They were meant to meet an immediate temporary need and were, in fact, constructed of shortlived materials. But over the years, they have been repaired, extended and have become a part of the squatter colonies. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that any such temporary permit or permission issued for any temporary building under any law before 5th February 1960 shall be presumed to have lapsed.”
“They are safety hazards, potential fire risks and blights on our environment. My Ministry put in some effort to screen off the unsightly structures by thick planting. But this is really not a solution because it is just sweeping the carpet but there is dirt under the carpet. The long term solution is to remove them. In fact, many Singaporeans wonder why such blights are still allowed in modern Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, we intend to amend the Building Control Act to give the Building Control Division clear powers to act against such unauthorised structures. The Bill also sets out new procedures for enforcement actions. At present, when the Building Authority detects an unauthorised building, it serves a demolition order on the owner of the building asking him to demolish or remove the unauthorised structure within a specified period of time. If such a person does not comply with the order, he is guilty of an offence. The Building Authority may then take the necessary steps to demolish the unauthorised building. Clause 3 of the Bill now enables the Building Authority to serve the demolition order on either the owner or the occupier of the building. The Building Authority can also close a building and ask the occupier to vacate an unauthorised building. This is to enable demolition to proceed. A new subsection 13(6) is added to make it clear that the Building Authority has the power to demolish temporary structures. Clause 2 of the Bill, in fact, is a consequence of this clause 3. As for the unauthorised structures which are more permanent in nature, action will be taken to clear them under the present Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The objective of the Building Control (Amendment) Bill is to enable the Building Authority to clear more effectively unauthorised buildings and structures, especially those erected by squatters on private lands. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1980, my Ministry embarked on a programme to clear squatter colonies. HDB, JTC and URA removed squatter structures on State land. Private landowners were asked to do the same for their lands. We gave ourselves ten years to make Singapore squatter-free. While the ten years are up, and we are not quite squatter-free, we have gone a long way. In the ten years, between 1980 and October this year, the Government cleared more than 150,000 squatter cases on State land. There are, however, still 4,700 squatters on State land. These will be cleared by 1992. So all Government or State lands will be free of squatters by 1992. Private land owners have also been given notice to clear the squatters by the end of this year, failing which we said that we would acquire the land. Most, if not all, have taken actions. Some have not been able to complete. We will have to look at each individual case before we decide what to do. But in another two or three years, we should have cleared all squatters. But we still do have, apart from squatters on State land, about 350 lots of private land which are squattered. The heaviest concentration of squatters on these private lands or non-state lands (more than 1,500 cases) is found on land managed by the Malayan Railway Administration (MRA). Many of the structures on MRA land are makeshift huts, sited on both sides of the railway track. They were erected without permission.”
“" As I have mentioned, just as the dentists and the Veterinarians have, over the last few years, begun to use the word "Dr" which was never the case previously, I hope the engineers would also begin to use "Er." before their names. And only engineers and not others masquerading as engineers. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate. - [Mr Dhanabalan]. BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have touched on the reasons. In the case of the practising certificate, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech on the Architects Bill, under the present system a person can just de-register himself by not paying the fees. So there have been cases where architects or engineers who are under investigation for disciplinary action just did not pay their fees and did not renew their membership and therefore they were deregistered, and that was the end of the matter. Nothing could be done to deal with them. Under this new provision, once an engineer is registered, he remains an engineer. He cannot de-register himself just by not paying his fees. But in order to practise his particular profession, he has to get a practising certificate which he renews every year. So, even if he does not pay his fees, he will continue to be registered as an engineer and any disciplinary action, which is outstanding, can still be proceeded with. The same with the architects and the other professions. Regarding the use of "Er." and "Engr.", I have touched on that. As I have said, this is not a new thing. It is the practice in other countries with a much longer history of employing engineers or a much longer history of educating engineers. In Germany, for example, the title "Diploma Engineer" DIPL-ING is conferred on engineering graduates from the technical universities and they use it as a prefix to their name. In the Netherlands, they also have a similar word - I do not know how to pronounce the Dutch word - but it is "Ir." instead of "Er". We discussed the abbreviations with the engineers and they decided that they would prefer either "Engr." or "Er.”
“In fact, we hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that after this Bill is passed, and over time engineers would put before their names "Er." just like doctors put "Dr" before their names, and a Mr Tan, B.Sc (Engineering) would become known as Engineer Tan. This is the practice in other countries, especially in Europe, in Germany, in Holland, where engineers have this prefix before their names indicating that they are engineers. This is to ensure that only professionally qualified engineers use this title. At present, there are many people who go around handing out cards calling themselves engineers. They may be polytechnic graduates, VITB graduates, or just people who have tinkered around with machines for a long time and they call themselves engineers. This provision in the Bill will make sure that only professionals and qualified persons can call themselves engineers. The Bill has also been drafted by the Attorney-General in consultation with the Professional Engineers Board and officers from my Ministry, and it has taken into consideration the views of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore. Together with the Architects Bill, it marks an important milestone for the course of professional practice in the construction industry. Here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to enable individual professionals as well as other professional bodies in the construction industry to present their views on the new provisions which affect them. I therefore propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The substance of the Bill and the arguments for the Bill are exactly the same as those that I have mentioned for the Architects Bill. The Professional Engineers Bill will repeal and re-enact with changes the existing Professional Engineers Act (Cap. 253). The Bill's main objective, as I mentioned, is similar to that of the Architects Bill, that is, to allow professional engineers to team up with allied professionals to form multi-discipline partnerships and limited liability companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, the rationale for moving this Bill is to make our engineers more competitive - the same reason as I have mentioned for the Architects Bill. The same safeguards are provided in this Bill as in the Architects Bill. The Bill also introduces the same concept of practising certificates for professional engineers. And similar to the Board of Architects, the Professional Engineers Board will have greater disciplinary powers to deal with misconduct, if any, by multi-discipline consultancy firms. The Board's functions are also expanded and the Board can also establish trust funds, either alone or jointly with other professional bodies, for the promotion of learning and education in connection with engineering. In addition to the provisions in the Architects Bill, the Professional Engineers Bill has the provision in clause 11(3)(b) under which it seeks to permit only a professional engineer to use as a title before his or her name, the word "Engineer" or its abbreviation "Er." or "Engr." This is to enhance the status of the engineering profession and to prevent the loose usage of the title "Engineer" by non-approved members of the profession.”
“PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“All the other points that the Member has made that the professionals in public sector should work closely with the professionals in the private sector - I take them completely, and I think they are very valid and we are doing everything possible to have more cooperation and exchange of ideas. There are many things that we do in Government which we do not publicise or do not make known to the professionals in the private sector. For some time now, I have made it a practice to tell the Public Works Department that every time they do something new, they should bring around private architects and private engineers to show them what has been done so that they can in turn learn and apply it in the private sector. When HDB introduced a system of quality checking of buildings and how to rate the quality of a building which finally resulted in the "CONQUAS" system, architects were brought to HDB projects and they were given a briefing during the visit on how this is done. Similarly, one of the new growth fields in Singapore is retrofitting. My Ministry's building has just gone through a major retrofitting exercise and it will be holding a seminar to explain to the private sector architects and engineers the problems involved in retrofitting and so on. So there is this kind of cooperation. There is an on-going process and programme to disseminate the experience in the public sector to the private sector. But if Mr Leong Chee Whye wants to pursue this matter further, he can always make a submission to the Select Committee. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate. - [Mr Dhanabalan].”
“Mr Leong Chee Whye, Nominated MP, touched on clause 3(1) of the Architects Bill and also clause 3 of the Professional Engineers Bill. This is a standard clause. And as he pointed out, it is in the present Act and it is also found in many other Acts. It does not mean that a Government officer is free from liabilities. This Bill that we are now considering covers the registration of Architects and the practice of the profession in the architectural field. This registration as architects does not apply to the Government. Government of course employs architects who are qualified and they may be graduates, or with other qualifications. But the Government buildings under the Building Control Act are not required to comply with the provisions of the Building Control Act. We went through this quite extensively when we considered amendments to the Building Control Act. And the point we made was that in fact the Government buildings are subject to far more stringent requirements than the private sector buildings. It is not intended that by putting in this clause public officers will be free from any liability. If a public officer, acting on the direction of the Government, does something and, say, a building collapses, people are hurt or killed, the Government can be sued. In fact, the officer concerned can also be sued although he will be indemnified by the employer, in this case, the Government. He can also be sued. But what this means is that - this is a strictly legal point, and in fact I wish I had the Minister for Law here to expand on this - the engineers and architects who work for the Government need not go through the process of registration.”
“An architect, for example, practises his profession in two distinct ways: one, which is professional; the other, commercial. The incorporated company allows wider scope for the practice to expand, as I have already explained. But the registered person who signs the plans, whether as an architect or engineer, is governed by a set of professional code of conduct provided under the Act in his personal capacity, and he is personally liable for disciplinary action should he breach any of these provisions in the Act. There is therefore no reduction in the professional responsibility of an architect or engineer if he chooses to have his practice incorporated as a company. Now I come to the questions raised by Mr Chng. I think basically he made the point that the quality of buildings has to be ensured. Of course there are many things that go into this, not just architects and engineers, but also the provisions in the Building Control Act, and so on. I think Members will remember that as a result of the Hotel New World disaster, the whole Building Control Act was amended and there is far more teeth in the Act now to ensure that buildings are properly constructed. Mr Chng also raised the question of penalty - why under the Professional Engineers Bill it is $20,000, and under the Architects Bill it is $10,000. I think it is a bit invidious to make comparisons. Some may say that the architect dresses up a building, but the engineer in fact provides the structure. So while the building may look ugly, you can live in it. If the building is weak and it collapses, the responsibility is that much more. But I take the point and I think we should consider this matter at the Select Committee stage.”
“For one thing, it is easier to raise finance for a company than for a partnership as the security can be more readily created by the assets of the company. The tax position also is very much simpler for a company and overall taxation is likely to be lower since the company tax is lower than the highest personal income tax. All salaries, including directors' fees, are deductible before the calculation of profit for corpo- rate tax purposes. Moreover, an interest in a company may be given more readily than in a partnership. In other words, you can bring in new shareholders much more easily than you can bring in a partner into a partnership, and you can bring in new people either by making them directors, employing them, or making them shareholders, and you can bring in non-architects. Another important advantage is that it is far more easy to remove an unsatisfactory director than it is to remove a partner. So for these reasons, architects have for some time been very keen that they should be allowed to form themselves into limited liability companies. But, of course, not all architects may choose to follow this route. Architects can choose the most suitable form of practice for their particular circumstances, according to their size, their aspirations and the type of clients they have. And there will be many architects who may still prefer to continue to work as partnerships. So they can, under the Act. It gives them various options. Dr Tan also raised the question of professional responsibility. The architect's professional responsibility, or in the case of the engineer, his professional responsibility is not diminished in any way by practising in a corporate framework.”
“The company is therefore prohibited from offering architectural services under the present Architects Act, and the same comments apply to the Professional Engineers Act. So these sections in the present Acts, in fact, restrict both architects and engineers from practising together because every partnership must be made up of people of the same profession. But once they form themselves into a company, as will be allowed under the provisions of the Bill, the company is a separate legal entity and distinct from its shareholders. The company continues whoever leaves or joins, and it is not affected by the death, bankruptcy or retirement of any of the shareholders or directors or employees of the company. As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, at present, when you want to bring in a new partner, all the partners have to agree, and legally the partnership has to cease and a new partnership has to be formed. And all the people for whom the partnership is doing work will have to be informed that the old partnership has ceased and a new one will take over the responsibilities and liabilities and so on. Many clients are very upset because they do not know whether the responsibilities and liabilities that they have entered into with the old partnership will be carried over into the new partnership. But a company can carry on regardless of who owns it, or who are the directors, or who are its employees. It is a separate and distinct entity. Of course, a company has to comply with the formalities and the requirements laid down in the Companies Act and this relates to all aspects of the company's formation and operation. But this is not an onerous requirement, because there are many compensating advantages.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I want to thank the Members who have spoken in support of this Bill. As I pointed out in my speech, this Bill is related to the other two Bills, the Professional Engineers Bill as well as the Land Surveyors Bill. I am not surprised that many of the comments made in fact straddle all these Bills. Dr Tan Cheng Bock raised the question of the advantages of corporate practice and the disadvantages of the present sole proprietorship or partnership requirement. Sir, section 17 of the present Architects Act prohibits a person who is not an architect from offering architectural services. If a team of architects and engineers forms a partnership and carries on business as a firm, that firm will contravene section 17 because the engineers in such a firm will be purporting to offer architectural services when they are in fact not registered as architects. Similarly, architects in an engineering partnership cannot offer engineering services. So when a partnership, whether it is a partnership of architects or engineers, offers to do something, all the members in the partnership are in fact offering to do the same. So obviously, engineers cannot offer to do what the architects offer and vice-versa. A company incorporated under the Companies Act is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. But section 8 of the Architects Act only allows natural persons who possess the prescribed qualifications to be registered to offer the services of architecture. So even if all the shareholders are architects, the company, as a distinct separate legal entity, cannot offer, because the company cannot be registered as an architect.”
“The functions of the Board of Architects have also been expanded to allow the Board to establish trust funds, either alone or jointly with other professional bodies, in order to promote learning and education connected with architecture. The Architects Bill is linked to the Professional Engineers Bill, which I will be moving later, and the Land Surveyors Bill, which the Minister for Law will be moving at the next sitting, through the definition of allied professionals for the purpose of multi-discipline corporate practice. They should therefore be considered together by Parliament and brought into operation simultaneously. This Bill marks an important milestone for the course of professional practices in our construction industry. The Bill has been drafted by the Attorney-General, in consultation with the Board of Architects, and officers from my Ministry. The views of the Singapore Institute of Architects have also been sought and taken into account. I would however like to give an opportunity to individual professionals, as well as other professional bodies in the construction industry, to present their views on the new provisions which affect them. Therefore, I propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“To safeguard the professional character of consultancy firms, the Bill contains the following provisions to ensure that the consultancy firms remain under the control of professionals: (1) Every director of the company's board must be either a registered architect or an allied professional; and (2) Not less than two-thirds of the shareholdings of the company must be owned by registered architects and allied professionals. The Minister may, however, specify a lower proportion in relation to a particular company. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members may like to note that all the other countries also maintain regulatory safeguards to ensure professional accountability. However, most do not impose on these companies special requirements of paid-up capital, shareholding and directorship. While such liberalisation is our long-term aim, my Ministry prefers a cautious approach of gradual liberalisation. The Bill will also introduce the use of practising certificates for registered architects. Unlike the present Act, the Bill provides that once an architect is registered, he will remain as a registered architect until he is de-registered by the Board of Architects. However, he cannot practise architecture in Singapore unless he has a valid practising certificate, which is issued on an annual basis. This requirement eliminates the current problem where an architect can escape disciplinary action by simply failing to renew his registration, thereby getting himself de-registered. This follows the provisions of the Medical Profession Act. Under the Bill, the Board of Architects will have greater disciplinary powers and new grounds for disciplinary actions, mainly to deal with misconduct, if any, by multi-discipline consultancy companies.”
“These countries have created a conducive legal environment for their consultancy firms to expand and compete favourably in the international consultancy market. Our consultants are at a disadvantage when competing in overseas markets as they lack the size and track record to compete with the established consultancy companies from the other countries. In revising the existing Act to allow multi-disciplinary corporate practices with limited liability in Singapore, my Ministry has studied the corresponding legislation of the above-named six countries and we have learned from their experience. We have adopted or adapted parts of their legislation that are applicable to our conditions. Sufficient safeguards have been incorporated in the new Bill to protect public interest and to ensure that commercial considerations do not compromise the professionalism of incorporated consultancy firms. I will discuss these safeguards in further detail. To protect consumer interests, the Bill contains the following provisions to ensure that the professional accountability of registered architects is not diminished in any way:- First, all professional services must still be provided under the control and management of a registered architect; Second, all architectural plans must be signed by registered architects; and Third, any consultancy firm constituted as a limited liability company must have at least $1 million paid-up capital and be insured against professional liability.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Architects Bill will repeal and re-enact with changes the existing Architects Act (Cap 12). The main objective of the Bill is to permit registered architects to team up with allied professionals to form multi-discipline partnerships and limited liability companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, the existing Architects Act provides for the registration of architects in Singapore. This is to regulate their qualifications and their practice. At present, architects are allowed to practise only as sole proprietors or in partnership with members of their own profession. This restriction severely hampers the growth of our architectural consultancy firms. In the case of partnerships, every partner has to shoulder the onerous burden of unlimited liability for acts committed by other members of the partnership. This discourages the formation of large consultancy firms. The partnership cannot also expand easily without the unanimous consent of all the partners. Every introduction or retirement of a partner is regarded as a cessation of the previous partnership. Clients often react adversely to such changes and interruptions. Mr Speaker, Sir, today's development projects are bigger in scale and far more complex. These projects require integrated design inputs from a team of architects, engineers and allied professionals. Several developed countries including the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia have, for some years now, liberalised their rules to allow architects and engineers to practise through limited liability companies. Even Malaysia and Hong Kong have similarly liberalised their laws.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at present, 1- and 2-room flats are available as rental housing for the lower income groups. Some of the existing rental flats are, however, poorly designed and ventilated. Our long-term objective is to raise the minimum standard of rental housing to that of a 2-room flat. Existing 1-room flats, which are poorly designed, will be phased out gradually. 2-room flats that are identified for retention in the long term will be refurbished under the Upgrading Programme. For a start, a total of 716 units of two-room rental flats located in three demonstration precincts of the Upgrading Programme will be upgraded with the sold flats in these precincts. SCHOOL ADMISSION POLICY (For children who return with parents from overseas job assignments) 3. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Education what is his Ministry's school admission policy for children who return with their parents from overseas job assignments.”