Architects (Amendment) Bill

1.00 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Architects Act was enacted (a) to provide a framework for the registration of architects; (b) to regulate the qualifications and practice of architects; and (c) to enable the Board of Architects (BOA) to licence corporations, partnerships and limited liability partnerships.

The last set of amendments to the Architects Act took effect on 1 December 2005, which included enlarging the composition of the BOA and enhancing its disciplinary process.

Today, with globalisation, more architects are likely to provide architectural services in foreign countries and territories in addition to their country or territory of registration. In particular, many of our locally registered architects are well recognised for their skills and professionalism, and many of them are already expanding their businesses overseas.

Hence, we need to amend the Architects Act to facilitate our locally registered architects to provide architectural services overseas. At the same time, we must regulate foreign architects that provide architectural services in Singapore.

The proposed changes in the Bill will seek to give effect to arrangements made between the BOA and the appropriate foreign registration authority of any country or territory outside Singapore, for the mutual recognition of the qualifications and standards adopted by each of the parties to the arrangement regarding the practice of architecture. It will also enhance disciplinary proceedings and penalties and allow limited partnerships to provide architectural services in Singapore.

Let me go through these in turn. Firstly, on Mutual Recognition Arrangements.

For locally registered architects seeking to practise overseas, they must first be recognised in Singapore before they engage in the practice of architecture in a participating overseas jurisdiction. By that, we mean any country or territory outside Singapore in relation to which a mutual recognition arrangement is in force.

The need for such domestic recognition is a standard feature of the mutual recognition arrangements we have currently with various jurisdictions. For example, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand have a Trilateral Agreement under the APEC Architect Framework. Singapore has also signed the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services with other ASEAN member countries. Such a domestic recognition allows for the qualifications and experience obtained by an architect in the country or territory where he or she is already registered to be recognised by the participating overseas jurisdictions. This will make it easier for Singapore-registered architects to practise abroad in a participating jurisdiction and will open up opportunities for them overseas.

Likewise, a foreign architect from a participating jurisdiction can be registered in Singapore to engage in the practice of architecture in Singapore subject to the following conditions. First, the foreign architect must meet the registration requirements as agreed to by the BOA and the registration authority of the participating overseas jurisdiction, pass the necessary examinations as approved by the BOA, and also pay a prescribed fee.

The amended act will also allow the BOA to impose any prohibitions, restrictions or conditions as to the practice of architecture in Singapore when registering a foreign architect. For example, the BOA may impose a restriction on a foreign architect to only provide architectural services in Singapore in collaboration with a local registered architect with a valid practicing certificate on a project basis, rather than doing so independently.

I will also like to take this opportunity to clarify that an architect providing architectural services independently in Singapore as a Qualified Person is required to be a registered architect with the BOA and must have a valid practicing certificate. This does not change even with the amendments in this Bill.

Next, on Disciplinary Proceedings and Penalties, the proposed changes in this Bill also seek to enhance the disciplinary proceedings and penalties currently provided, which include the following:

(a) BOA will be allowed to appoint independent investigators where necessary, to enable the Board to more effectively deal with disciplinary proceedings;

(b) The maximum penalties for certain offences in the Architects Act will be raised to ensure sufficient deterrence;

(c) A new offence is created under the new section 12(1A), which makes it an offence for a person to engage the architectural services of another person in relation to any building works unless the other person is authorised under the Act to supply architectural services; and

(d) A person will not be allowed to use the word "architect" or any of its derivatives as part of the name of an architectural practice if the person is not authorised under the Act to supply architectural services independently. This is to avoid misleading the public that the person is authorised to provide architectural services.

Thirdly, on Licensing of Limited Partnerships.

In view of the fact that the Limited Partnership Act was enacted in 2008 to provide for the establishment and registration of limited partnerships, the Architects Act is now also being updated to allow for the licensing of limited partnerships that provide architectural services in Singapore.

Finally, Madam, the amendments proposed in this Bill are timely − they will enable our Architects to operate more effectively in a globalised world, and also ensure that the BOA continues to play an effective role in supporting the growth of the profession.

Question proposed.

1.06 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I commend the stricter regulations brought about by this Bill. It also expands the powers given to the Board of Architects to ensure architects in Singapore stay in line thus strengthening honest work in the profession.

I support the enhancements to the current Act, and the new definitions introduced to offer clarity to the practice. Architects I have spoken to inform that industry practitioners have already been practicing along these lines even before regulations were set in stone, but codifying these good practices into law is a progressive step forward.

Madam, I have three comments to make, based on conversations I have had with architects. Firstly, can the Minister clarify why there is a need to increase the maximum penalty the Board can impose on a registered architect from the current $10,000 to $50,000? Has there been a rise in cases in recent years?

Secondly, with the amendments to section 6, I assume it will now be easier for architects in Singapore to do quality work overseas, benefiting less developed countries in our region. Singapore is more advanced and sophisticated in our Building Legislations and Codes of Practice, and this Bill will now place Singapore in a better position to bring our expertise to areas which could benefit from technical support.

With the amendments, foreign registered architects will also be able to work in Singapore. The APEC Architect Framework allows registered architects in each of the countries to work independently, while ASEAN architects under the ASEAN Framework Agreement have to work in collaboration with a licensed Singapore architectural firm or practice.

The safeguards are different depending on the agreements. Can the Minister clarify what is the required registration process with the Board? Minister has mentioned this earlier but I understand that architects from APEC have to take a domain-specific test. What about architects from ASEAN?

In Singapore, some submissions by architects to authorities include a self-declaration to confirm that the qualified person has duly complied with the requirements from the authorities. If something goes wrong, architects may lose their licence and be removed from the Board.

If something goes wrong, for projects done by overseas architects under this "mutual recognition" scheme, what penalty would that incur? Do they lose the practice licence obtained in their country?

Training and exposure for architects in less-developed countries may not be adequate to familiarise them with Singapore's building codes and standards. If there are no tight controls to limit the overseas architects to practise in Singapore, the standard of architectural practice here could be affected.

Architecture is already a very competitive market with limited jobs and many firms, and some architects overseas quote cheaper fees, offering poorer quality work. As such, how can we offer mutual recognition, yet protect the profession in Singapore?

Lastly, the Board can appoint a public officer, or any other person, to investigate offenses against architects. Investigators have the power of search and require persons to provide information for investigations. This confers extensive powers to investigators.

Can the Minister clarify who he envisages "any other persons" to be? Perhaps, investigators should only be limited to employees of the Board, who will be more familiar with the rules and regulations.

Madam, these comments notwithstanding, architects have a professional responsibility towards society and I stand in support of the Bill.

1.09 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill sets out the general qualifications and requirements for architect registration. It brings about improvements to safeguard the interest of both the architects providing and the clients who sought their services. Essentially, the amendment to the Bill allows for the recognition of architect qualification and standards with the arrangement between the Board of Architects and those territories or countries outside Singapore.

This will indeed open up more opportunities for these professionals and allow them to extend their expertise and services overseas with lesser hurdles. At this stage, I wish to seek the following clarification on the amendments. In regard to section 4C, if a tie occurs in the voting of president, how will the tie be decided?

Section 11(2), which explains the recovery of payment from architect. How can a person recover the amount paid to an unauthorised architect? Will he/she have to file a civil suit to recover his/her money? As stated in section 31(k), will the appointed investigator be allowed to authorise or appoint a team of support for the investigation work? And which Ministry oversees this Act?

Section 15A, which is a new section that spells the recognition of registered architects in any participating jurisdiction. Is this restricted to foreign architect to obtain any of the qualification listed in the Board of Architects website? And importantly, how do we preserve the standards of overseas architects that are practising in Singapore vis-a-vis the Singapore architects?

1.11 pm

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and also for their support of the Bill.

Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Louis Ng sought several clarifications on the administration of the Architects Act, and I will clarify the queries that they have. Let me start with Ms Thanaletchimi's query on the election process for the President of the Board of Architects (BOA).

If there is a tie of votes, that she had asked, another round of secret ballot will be carried out. And should there be another tie of votes, the successful candidate will be determined by the drawing of lots. This is already set out in the rules of the Procedure for the Election of the President of BOA. So, this is already in place. And in fact, these rules are read out before the commencement of any voting.

Ms Thanaletchimi also sought a clarification on section 11 of the Act, about the recovery process; should the person pay money to an unauthorised architect and how would they recover the money in a court. Indeed, as she has asked, the person would have to file a civil suit to recover the money paid to the unauthorised architect and this is consistent with the recovery process for other professions as well.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked about qualifications. The new section 15A provides for the recognition of local registered architects who intend to supply or offer to supply architectural services in any participating jurisdiction. For anyone, including foreign architects who are seeking registration under section 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(b) to practise in Singapore, the qualifications recognised by the BOA are already listed on its website. They can refer to that for any clarification.

Mr Louis Ng sought clarifications on the registration process under the new section 15(2A) for foreign architects from a participating jurisdiction. Let me briefly set out what this process entails.

First, a foreign architect will need to be qualified and recognised in his/her own country; the original country or territory of registration for mutual recognition, based on the agreed criteria set out in the mutual agreements between the BOA and the registration authority of the participating jurisdiction.

Following that, the foreign architect will have to pass the examination set by BOA to ensure that he/she has the knowledge of the practice laws, rules and regulations and other conditions of practising in Singapore, and then pay the prescribed fee, before this architect is entitled for registration under the new section 15(2A).

The need to pass an examination set by the BOA before the foreign architect can seek registration will hence also apply to ASEAN architects recognised under the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services. This was the query that Mr Louis Ng asked. So, yes, ASEAN architects will also have to take the exams. And I think with these examinations, that is the way we can ensure standards are not compromised.

Mr Louis Ng also enquired about penalties for foreign architects who are registered with the BOA under the new section 15(2A), and how we can offer mutual recognition while protecting the profession in Singapore. Perhaps, I would like to explain this in two parts because there are foreign architects who qualify to practise independently in Singapore under the new section 15(2A). These foreign architects who can qualify to practise independently, will be required to maintain a valid practicing certificate and they will be subjected to the same disciplinary procedures and penalties as anyone who is registered under the existing section 15(1) with a valid practicing certificate.

At the same time, the offences committed will be reported to the foreign architect's original country or territory of registration, where the relevant authorities there will also follow up with the relevant penalties. So, this is for the first category of foreign architects who can qualify to practise independently.

The second category of foreign architects are those who can only practise in collaboration with a local registered architect on a project basis. They will not be issued a practicing certificate by BOA and so they are not Qualified Persons who can offer architectural services independently in Singapore.

For this category of foreign architects, in the event of a suspected offence, BOA will write to the foreign architect's original country or territory of registration. The foreign architect will then be subjected to the investigation and disciplinary proceedings and relevant penalties imposed by the relevant authorities there.

BOA can also reject future applications from such a foreign architect to register for collaborations depending on the seriousness of the offence committed, because a new registration for practising in collaboration with a locally registered architect is required for every new project. So, if an offence is committed, BOA will take that into consideration before issuing any new registration.

Next, on the increase in penalty which is something Mr Louis Ng asked about. This increase in the maximum penalty is to ensure that there is sufficient deterrence against any potential wrong-doings. In fact, the higher level of penalty has also been benchmarked and is similar to that imposed by other professional boards in the medical and legal professions.

Both Mr Louis Ng and Ms Thanaletchimi sought clarifications for the new section 31(K), which empowers BOA to appoint investigators to investigate into the commission of an offence under the Act. I would like to explain how this process will work out.

Under the current Act, BOA will form an investigation committee which will be chaired by a Board member and comprise of two other registered architects with more than 10 years of practising experience, and a layperson. The investigation committee is in charge of evaluating the findings and making a recommendation to the Board on the investigation.

The new section 31(K) allows BOA to appoint an investigator or more than one investigator to assist the investigation committee, such as assisting to obtain evidences. Such a person may be a retired police officer who is familiar with our laws and knows how to conduct proper investigation and search for evidences.

The Board of Architects and the investigation committee will make their own independent decisions and disciplinary decisions after the hearing. But appeals on the Board of Architects' decisions can be made to the Minister. This is an answer to Ms Thanaletchimi's query.

Madam, I believe that I have addressed the issues raised by the Members. I would like to once again thank them for their support for this Bill. With that, Madam, 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 Lawrence Wong].

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