Professional Engineers (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.20 pm

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

A Professional Engineer (PE) is an engineer certified by the Professional Engineers Board (PEB) as being qualified and competent to undertake professional engineering work. Such work includes planning for and designing complex structures and machinery, supervising their construction, as well as maintaining their safe operation.

The Professional Engineers Act provides for the registration of PEs, regulates their conduct, and licenses entities supplying professional engineering services in Singapore. The Act regulates the four prescribed branches of engineering which are directly relevant to our built environment. These are civil, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering. Not only do these PEs design and oversee the construction of structures, systems, plants and facilities, but they are also responsible for conducting regular checks. The Act provides a basis to hold PEs legally accountable for the important work that they do. All this contributes to ensuring public safety.

The Act was last amended in December 2005. Since then, the number of registered PEs has increased by 20% to around 3,900 today. The number of licensed entities providing professional engineering services has grown to two and a half times, from 76 to over 200.

The operating environment is also different. Globalisation has opened new overseas markets but also brought in new players. Singapore has been making a big push to raise productivity and quality in the built environment. The Construction Industry Transformation Map (ITM) which will be launched later this year will set out strategies to help our construction industry move up the value chain and capture growth opportunities in Singapore and abroad. PEs will play an instrumental role in this effort.

To address the changing needs of the industry, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the PE Board (PEB) undertook a comprehensive review of the Act. We have proposed three sets of amendments to strengthen the profession so that our PEs can do their work well. One, raising the standards and professionalism of PEs. Two, helping Singapore-registered PEs capture overseas opportunities. Three, making existing requirements more enterprise-friendly.

As part of the review, we also sought the views of industry associations, Government agencies, institutes of higher learning and PEs, and received support for the proposed amendments. Allow me to go through each of these categories.

The first set of amendments is intended to raise the standards and professionalism of PEs. Given the crucial role played by the PEB, several are designed to strengthen the Board's role as an advocate and regulator.

First, we are proposing to expand the PEB's scope of functions to allow the Board to undertake more activities to develop the PE profession. Today, PEB is limited to promoting learning and education in connection with engineering. The amendment in clause 6(b) will expand that role to include more development and advocacy. For example, PEB will now be able to work with the Institution of Engineers and other industry associations to support the Construction ITM and assist with its implementation. This includes championing initiatives to push for the adoption of digital engineering, as well as pooling resources and conducting courses on relevant skills. This will help to strengthen the capabilities of the profession.

Second, we want to give PEB the flexibility to appoint any person to its committees to assist the Board. Currently, committee members can only come from PEB or be a PE or allied professional. This can limit the work of some committees. The amendment in clause 7 will allow the Board to tap on a wider range of expertise, such as lawyers and accountants, where necessary and appropriate.

Third, we want to provide the Board with a wider range of tools to carry out its regulatory role. This includes greater flexibility to calibrate penalties according to the severity of infringements of the Act. Currently, PEB is faced with rather binary choices. It can either impose a penalty of up to S$20,000, or it can revoke licences to practise. Clause 18(b) will now increase maximum financial penalties to S$100,000 for serious infringements with public safety implications. This is in line with those of other specialised professions, such as architects. At the same time, the Board will have the option of taking a lighter touch through censuring errant firms for minor infringements where monetary penalties or licence revocation is too severe.

Fourth, we are proposing to allow the Board to appoint investigators to conduct more in-depth investigations for serious offences. Currently, the Board relies on statements and evidence voluntarily provided by parties. But sometimes, cooperation may not be forthcoming from parties concerned. The amendment in clause 21 will allow investigators to apply for warrants from Magistrates to search premises for evidence. There will be conditions and limitations imposed on the investigators to ensure that these powers are not abused.

Finally, clause 11 makes explicit that clients who unknowingly paid for professional engineering services supplied by unauthorised persons may recover their money through the Courts. This is not explicitly stated in the current Act.

The second broad set of amendments is designed to help Singapore-registered PEs capture overseas opportunities. Singapore-registered PEs seeking to practise in another country generally need to go through the qualification process in that country. This could include having practical experience in that country. But Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) can help streamline this process. Clauses 9 and 10 will help to facilitate and support the execution of such MRAs, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) MRA which was signed in 2005. ASEAN countries have been working together to implement the MRA's terms. The MRA framework is expected to be fully in place in all ASEAN countries by the end of this year. With these amendments, Singapore-registered PEs who meet the requirements specified in the MRA can be recognised as ASEAN Chartered PEs (ACPEs).

ACPEs can apply to the professional authorities of other ASEAN countries to practise in collaboration with their local PEs there without having to go through the full qualification process. These amendments make it easier for Singapore-registered PEs to offer their services in other ASEAN countries.

As with all agreements of this nature, the benefits will be reciprocal. Foreign engineers registered in ASEAN states can also be authorised by the Board to supply professional engineering services in Singapore, provided they do so in collaboration with our Singapore PEs. But ultimately, our PEs stand to benefit, as they gain easier access to larger markets in our region. That said, we will monitor our PEs' internationalisation experience through the MRA and work to resolve any issues that may arise.

The last set of amendments is pro-enterprise changes that make existing requirements less onerous. Let me go through two of these.

The first proposal will allow professional engineering companies to engage specialist PEs as consultants so that they can take on more complex projects. Currently, companies can only provide professional engineering services that PEs in their direct employment are qualified to offer. As most firms do not have PEs in every discipline as permanent staff, this may limit their scope to bid for more complex projects. Clause 15(c) will now allow firms to expand their capabilities by subcontracting specialised professional engineering works to qualified specialist PEs. For instance, a company licensed in civil engineering could engage a specialist PE in geotechnical engineering as a consultant, thus allowing the firm to provide end-to-end services for projects involving underground geotechnical building works.

The second proposal, which is in clause 9(d), will allow builders to directly employ PEs to undertake low-risk professional engineering works pertaining to their own projects. These include works of a temporary nature, like site offices or workers' quarters. Currently, builders cannot undertake any professional engineering work, unless they are licensed by the Board to do so. But most builders are unable to meet the requirements to qualify for a licence from the Board. As a result, they have to engage external engineering consultancies for their projects, which may incur additional costs. This amendment will streamline work processes for some builders, while maintaining safety standards by limiting the scope to certain low-risk temporary works.

Taken together, the proposed amendments will raise standards, help our PEs capture overseas opportunities, and provide a more pro-enterprise environment for local professional engineering firms and contractors. The amendments will also put PEB in a stronger position to support the industry in its development, and to uphold higher standards of professionalism. Through these efforts, we hope that PEs in Singapore will continue to thrive both in our domestic market and overseas. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

6.29 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. May I begin by declaring my interest as a PE. I am also currently serving on the PEB.

I am pleased that the Bill will expand the functions of the Board to allow it to promote the development of Professional Engineering in Singapore. That is very progressive. We are moving into an era where engineering is, once again, leading the charge, be it in driverless motor vehicles, smart homes or even environmental protection.

But every so often, we hear of the waste of talent when those who are trained in engineering choose to go into other sectors, like the financial industry or into the corporate world.

I have spoken about the pay and career progression of engineers. The Government has started to remedy that, which will hopefully have a knock-on effect on the private sector. But we also need to improve the "image" of engineering. I will highlight two ways we can do so.

First, scholarships. As our Prime Minister pointed out, the trend among top scholarship holders has shifted to economics and liberal arts. I hope the Government will recalibrate the compass and point more students to take up subjects that support its Smart Nation projects. This will send a message to all students that engineering is an attractive and interesting career.

The Institution of Engineers Singapore and myself have been making calls publicly for more top students to be channelled into engineering. But when we saw this year's President's Scholars, our hopes were dashed again. None of the five scholars studied engineering. I would like to ask, for the last 10 years, how many President's Scholars studied engineering? If I can recall, there was only one in 2015. Whenever I bring up this question in Parliament, the answer has always been "they lump engineering and science together." I would like to say that engineering and science, they are "same-same" but different. If we really think that engineers are important, and the President's Scholarship being the most prestigious scholarship on this island, I look forward to seeing a change in the next round of scholarship awards.

Second, media coverage. We often read in the media about local medical discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. However, we hardly read about engineering breakthroughs. For example, we get excited about driverless vehicles but not much said about the persons working behind the project. We talk about tech startups but the focus is often on the founder, not the engineers and coders.

Did we miss out on something here? Is this because the research work carried out in the universities here is not getting the recognition, or is it because they are not courting the media to get exposure on their work? Or is it because the subject is too dry or too technical that it is difficult to have interesting articles?

Perhaps, we need a concerted effort to build up the image and correct any wrong perception of the engineering profession. We need to promote the profession as one that offers a career, with rewards that commensurate with responsibilities and opportunities to move up the ladder. The Smart Nation project should be an awakening to parents, students and others.

Another point I would like to make is that in the interest of upskilling, I hope the institutions of higher learning and others look into more specialised courses on a part-time basis. It will be even better if they can collaborate with the various engineering bodies on this, and SkillsFuture fund can be used to pursue those specialised courses module by module. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have talked about salaries and promotion opportunities for engineers before. Today, I would like to put my focus on the "face" issue of the engineering sector.

Many students still feel that engineering is difficult to study, the work is hard and yet the salary is not high; worse still, it is not respected. Hence, many engineering graduates go into other industries to work.

In order to reverse this trend, the Government should go back to the old practice of giving more scholarships to engineering students, just like what we did in the early years of our nation-building. Many scholarship holders have studied engineering and made great contributions to our country. We have talked about this issue for so long, yet amongst this year's President's Scholars, none studies engineering. I hope that next year will be different.

There should be more media coverage on engineering, too. In fact, without engineers, we will not be able to build a Smart Nation. However, what we often see is the technology itself or the founder of the tech company, not the engineers who work behind the scenes. If we can work on these two areas, I believe our students will develop a different perspective of engineering.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill's amendments.

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

6.36 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, we are at a juncture when we are encouraging the growth of the engineering profession and looking to retain expertise within the field of practice. It cannot be more timely to review expanding the functions of the PEB and enhance the scope of professional services. This will help to deepen expertise within the industry and bring about opportunities for more cross-disciplinary training. I note several key improvements in this amendment and would highlight a few here.

Firstly, PEB maintains a register of persons authorised to work with the PEs. With the increasing number of infrastructural projects and heightened awareness of workplace safety, provision of a new register of authorised persons who can work with the PEs will give rise to accountability and mitigate risks. Such a register, for example, the Registered Foreign PEs, also provides recognition and becomes a springboard for our engineers with broader job opportunities in another jurisdiction like the developing ASEAN market. This will be further facilitated under the existing ASEAN MRA on Engineering Services.

Secondly, it allows companies that are licensed to provide PE services to engage specialist PEs as subconsultants in cases where they lack the expertise. Indirectly, this enables the smaller companies to undertake more complex projects, scale up and be not only restricted to projects where they have the relevant inhouse PE expertise. Over time, when the companies are willing to invest in cross-training their staff, these workers can enhance their skills through on-the-job training as they work alongside other experts.

Thirdly, the role of advocacy that PEB needs to promote. Nothing beats having a known professional community to advocate for the profession, as it goes beyond the role of the registrar, regulating quality and the conduct of engineers. However, such advocacy must be shaped with the objectives of lending support to our engineers in the trade over time. PEB should be cognisant that such advocacy is not simply one with a focus on social presence but, more importantly, to develop the education front, continuous learning within the trade and building networks.

It is heartening to know that PEB organises events for accreditation of partners and recognition of exemplary engineers. Through this, I hope PEB can put more emphasis in working with the education and industry sectors to see how best to maintain cohorts of engineers and assist agencies like the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) to strengthen partnerships with employers who are willing to offer internships and job placements for our aspiring engineers. It would be of PEB's keen interest to creatively find avenues for engineers to have cross-discipline training throughout their career and take on challenges in new areas or advancement overseas. Thus, PEB must build the global and local networks to support the profession in scaling up over time. On this positive note, I have some questions and suggestions to raise.

One, under the current practice, PEB can only revoke the licence or impose a penalty up to $20,000. With changes in the Bill, PEB will have the power and discretion to censure licensed firms providing PE services. It is good that PEB is benchmarking the penalty against other industries.

The question is (a) under what circumstances, for example, how many warning letters would PEB issue before revoking the licence; (b) would the warning letters be issued against PEs or the companies that they work for; (c) when PEs undertake private contractual jobs and disputes arise, is the general public able to seek advice and recourse through PEB?

Two, contractors can be exempted from applying for a licence to supply PE services if the PEs are providing services for the contractors' own projects. How can checks and balances be put in place to ensure endorsements and regulations are complied with?

Three, it is a positive move to remove the need for a three-year stand-down for deregistered PEs, especially those who were deregistered under current rules for minor violations, for example, no contact address provided in Singapore. This change would help those PEs under such circumstances to begin practising sooner lest their skills become irrelevant after being detached from the industry during the stand-down period.

On the other hand, discipline and upholding standards of a PE is critical. I suggest for PEB to create a clear listing of rules for those violations which fall under no disciplinary actions required and show a differentiated list by gravity of offence that warrants deregistration of PEs. With this, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

6.41 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The PEB was set up to safeguard life, property and the welfare of the public by setting and maintaining high standards for registering PEs, and by regulating and advancing the practice of professional engineering.

For PEB to take on the role of development of professional engineering is a natural progression as it has the resources and Government support that are required and the neutrality to allow the different engineering branches and professional engineering associations a platform to help brand and push forward the engineering profession such that customers and engineers alike recognise the value of a registered PE.

Continual upgrade of technical skills and project management skills and safety awareness education should be developed to help prevent engineering tragedies that lead to severe loss of lives. Sir, notwithstanding, I have the following clarifications.

One, that determines "Professional Engineering Work" and why is it that only certain branches prescribed under section 10(A) are required to register?

Two, the rationale to amend section 15(2), as the explanation notes point out, is to allow an undergraduate to be registered as a PE. Should there also be a qualification in terms of stipulated years of work experience and review of projects the engineer had managed or undertaken before allowing engineers to be certified?

Three, the re-enactment of section 35 and the new section 35A provides the necessary safeguards to encourage whistleblowing and eliminate any scapegoating behaviour that may be adopted by the management. This, indeed, will help protect the rights of PEs and prosecute the relevant parties that may be responsible.

In conclusion, there should be an ecosystem where professional engineering practitioners could thrive and progress. PEB should also work closely with other stakeholders, especially buyer of services, to ensure the PEs are subject to fair treatment and remunerations without being subject to undue commercial pressures, unfair and untenable contractual terms. Perhaps, there should be a watchdog to monitor industry practices on the above. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.44 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which will enhance the role of PEB and strengthen the engineering profession.

Much has been reported about the manpower crunch in the engineering sector due to the decreased attractiveness of the profession to young people. The expanded role of PEB will help to further advance industry development and broaden its appeal as a profession to address the skills gap that currently exists. We all know that engineers are important and it has also been reported that close to half of the economy relies on inputs from engineers.

Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications on behalf of members of the profession.

Firstly, it is a positive step forward for PEB to now help develop the engineering profession and promote engineering. However, the question is, why not do this for all branches of engineering since this is the PEB? Why exclude other engineering branches, such as aerospace, marine and transportation? Who then will help to regulate these branches of engineering?

Secondly, there are concerns about the new section 10(c) where a foreign engineer may now be authorised by PEB to engage in professional engineering work with a registered PE. I understand that this is under the existing ASEAN MRA on Engineering Services.

Mr Yew Hang, a Singaporean engineer, commented on Facebook and asked how we will ensure that PEs from different countries are of consistent quality and that they are familiar with local regulatory requirements. Can the Minister share what are the processes and criteria the Board will use for authorising foreign PEs?

I do understand that the Registered Foreign PE must work with a Registered PE but will there an established ratio for this? For example, will there be a case of 10 Registered Foreign PEs working with just one Registered PE?

Mr Yew Hang further raised, and I quote, "How do we ensure that companies and businesses do not overly favour foreign PEs over local PEs, creating too much competition and driving wages down? Will this lead to an erosion of our local engineering core, especially when we are already lacking in engineering talents and engineering is not seen as an attractive career for many youths today?"

I would be grateful if the Minister can provide clarifications about this and help assure the engineers in Singapore.

Sir, engineering has been described as the "backbone of the economy". We rely on engineers to design, operate, maintain and support the running of our economy in sectors ranging from manufacturing to finance and transportation. Also, developing a pool of talent in software engineering is an essential part of our push to become a Smart Nation.

This Bill is a welcomed step in revitalising engineering in Singapore. In addition to this legislative amendment, I urge the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the engineering core, such as through initiatives to deepen our public sector engineering capabilities. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Debate resumed.

6.47 pm

Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill and let me try to respond to some of their questions.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Thanaletchimi asked about the scope of the PE Bill. In particular, why the Bill covers only the four prescribed branches of engineering, and how other branches of engineering will be regulated and supported. Mr Louis Ng cited, as examples, aerospace, marine and transport.

The regulatory agencies overseeing safety of engineering works on aircraft, marine projects and land transportation rely on specific legislation as well as industry codes to enforce quality and safety requirements. These are their primary levers.

However, on top of that, it is open to some regulators to decide to specify in their legislation that certain works need to be undertaken or certified by PEs. In such situations, PEB will come in and prescribe these as branches of professional engineering. The Board then becomes an important secondary lever for regulation of PEs doing this work.

So, this is an evolving and continuing conversation between PEB and various sectoral regulators. One key consideration amongst many is whether sectoral regulators assess that it is necessary to add a further layer of regulation on PE involvement in order to secure certain levels of safety and quality standards in the work, over and beyond what they have managed to achieve under their primary regulatory framework. If so, PEB will work with them to prescribe new branches of professional engineering. For example, chemical engineering was just introduced as a prescribed branch of professional engineering last November. The decision was based on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) assessment that Chemical PEs were needed to ensure the safety of Major Hazard Installations, such as chemical plants.

Ms Thanaletchimi also asked about experience requirements for PEs. PE candidates are already required to meet relevant experience requirements prior to key milestones of the qualification process. For instance, applicants must have at least four years of practical work experience before they can attend the professional interview. Details of such requirements, such as the duration and scope of work experience, will be further prescribed in the Act's subsidiary legislation.

Miss Cheryl Chan asked about PEB's processes for issuing penalties to PEs and professional engineering practices. She suggested that the Board create a list of violations to make clear which warranted deregistration.

To some extent, sections 17B and 26A of the Act already set out some of the situations under which a PE can be removed from the register and when a professional engineering practice may have its licence revoked. For minor infringements, PEB may choose to issue a letter of censure to errant firms or errant PEs. In some cases, PEB might censure both.

It would be hard to be more prescriptive beyond that, as the exact course of action will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. PEB has to calibrate the penalty according to the severity of wrongdoing. But sometimes, complex cases may need to be investigated by PEB or Disciplinary Committees appointed by PEB.

Miss Chan also asked about checks and balances for contractors who employ PEs to carry out professional engineering works on their own projects. This amendment should not compromise safety or professional standards.

First, PEs undertaking these works will still need to fulfil the full requirements, including the scope of work prescribed under the relevant legislation, such as the Building Control Act. Second, PEs employed by contractors will continue to be held accountable by the PE Code of Conduct, which requires them to carry out their duties in a professional and independent manner. And third, the PEs that contractors employ can only carry out professional engineering works on specified low-risk temporary works, such as site offices and temporary living quarters.

Miss Cheryl Chan also asked if the public could seek advice and recourse through the Board in the event of contractual disputes with PEs. The Board is a professional body and does not provide dispute resolution services. Contractual disputes should be resolved through other avenues, like mediation or litigation. Nevertheless, if disputes arise because of a PE's alleged professional misconduct, members of the public can still file a complaint against the PE with the Board.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the processes and criteria for authorising Registered Foreign PEs (RFPEs) through the ASEAN MRA on Engineering Services.

Becoming an RFPE involves a two-step process. To start, a person seeking to become an RFPE in Singapore must first be admitted in his own country as an ASEAN Chartered PE (ACPE).

To do so, he has to meet the criteria set out in the ASEAN MRA. Basically, this means holding a recognised engineering degree, keeping up with Continuing Professional Development, being equipped with relevant experience in engineering practice, and being recognised as the equivalent of a PE in his own country. Taken together, these criteria help to uphold the standards of ACPEs.

Next, an ACPE must submit an application to the Board before he can become an RFPE in Singapore. If approved, this will be valid for one year. ACPEs and RFPEs are bound by both Singapore and international codes of professional conduct, as well as Singapore laws and regulations. This means that any RFPE working in Singapore will be held accountable, both by our regulatory bodies and by the Singapore legal system.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether there will be restrictions on the number of RFPEs who can collaborate with each locally-registered PE, and whether there are measures to mitigate unhealthy foreign competition that could depress wages and weaken our local core.

On the first point, PEB requires an RFPE to collaborate with one designated local PE. This is to facilitate tracking. The Board will also be looking at whether sensible ratios can be put in place, whether in rules, practice directions or guidelines, of how many RFPEs that a Singapore PE can collaborate with. This is to ensure that the quality of supervision by the Singapore PE is not diminished. But as I mentioned earlier, the scheme is still in its early days, and the number of RFPEs in Singapore is still very small. PEB is monitoring the situation and will adjust the conditions in future if necessary.

On the second point, RFPEs cannot undertake professional engineering work independently. They cannot sign off on submissions to regulatory agencies. So, they will not be able to replace PEB-registered PEs as custodians of the safety of our engineering works. Currently, the Singaporean Core of our PE profession is strong. Of the 3,900 PEs that we have today, Singaporeans make up almost 80%, and this proportion has held steady for the last 10 years.

But separately and more importantly, we will continue to work with the industry to strengthen the capabilities and skills of our engineering core. Let me go through some of these measures, together with the points raised by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Er Dr Lee spoke of the need to develop our engineering profession and improve its image. She is spot on. Engineering is a core capability that we must build on.

As she noted, giving scholarships has been an important means of attracting talent into engineering-related fields. And the prestigious Public Service Commission Engineering Scholarship was introduced last year to strengthen our pipeline for apex leadership positions in the engineering clusters within the Public Service. Eight of these scholarships were given out this year. Various Ministries and Statutory Boards, such as MND, the Ministry of Defence, JTC, the Public Utilities Board, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, the Defence Science and Technology Agency and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), amongst others, also give out engineering scholarships in many different branches.

To grow engineering capabilities in the private sector, agencies, such as BCA and the IMDA, have been working with industry partners to award scholarships in various branches of engineering. For instance, BCA offers the BCA-Industry Built-Environment Scholarships and Sponsorships in collaboration with industry firms. These scholarships aim to encourage high calibre students to pursue an engineering career in the built environment sector in Singapore. So far, more than 200 industry firms have participated in this programme.

We will also continue to look into new ways to develop the profession. We agree that media publicity can help shape perception, correct misimpressions and promote engineering as a good career choice.

So, in 2016, the Government launched a rebranding campaign to revitalise the profession's image and highlight its important contributions to society. And, in fact, the new realm of digital engineering and the introduction of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, and Virtual Design and Construction involving technology and virtual reality, have begun to make the built environment sector and the engineering profession a lot more attractive, especially to young people for whom technology is like fish in water.

We also increased salaries for public sector engineers to ensure that these jobs remain attractive. These efforts aim to raise the standards of public sector engineers and set the benchmark for the wider profession.

For engineers in the Built Environment sector, the Construction ITM that will be launched later this year will include strategies to develop and strengthen the profession. Details will be announced soon. But one idea that has been floated is to introduce a capstone programme for graduating students to bring them up to speed on industry best practices and prepare them for work.

We have also set up a task force comprising representatives from the Government, industry and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to incorporate relevant skills into the engineering curricula of our tertiary education. The task force is expected to deliver their recommendations early next year.

I agree with Er Dr Lee on the importance of upskilling. There is already a comprehensive suite of SkillsFuture programmes designed to help Singaporeans develop skills and competencies for future growth sectors. All of these schemes cover specialised courses in various fields of engineering.

The SkillsFuture Earn and Learn programme aims to help fresh graduates from polytechnics and the Institutes of Technical Education augment their academic training with practical industry experience to support their transition into the workforce. Candidates undergo a 12- to 18-month structured training programme in a job related to their field of study. The training programme includes guided learning, on-the-job training and work-based projects. Candidates receive an industry-recognised certification upon completion.

The SkillsFuture Study Award is targeted at early- to mid-career Singaporeans looking to enhance their skills in future growth sectors. Successful applicants will receive a monetary award of S$5,000 which can be used to defray out-of-pocket expenses associated with their study. Eligible courses in the Built Environment sector include those from the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and BCA Academy. We will continue to work with the Future Economy Council, IHLs and industry associations to review and update the list of qualifying courses.

So, there are many resources that our engineers can tap on to upskill and deepen their expertise. And I encourage interested parties to find out more about the relevant schemes and qualifying courses on the SkillsFuture website before applying for the ones that are most suitable.

In summary, we place great importance on developing our engineering profession. I am confident that this Bill, which will help to raise the standards of PEs, enhance their access to overseas opportunities and provide a more pro-enterprise environment for local professional engineering firms, is a step in the right direction. With that, Mr Speaker, 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 Desmond Lee.]

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