BEM Sept08-Nov 08 (Engineering Practice)

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


for new engineer



    KDN PP11720/1/2009(020604) ISSN 0128-4347 VOL.39 SEPT - NOV 2008 RM10.00



  • c o n t e n t sVolume 39 Sept - Nov 2008

    4 Presidents Message

    Editors Note

    6 Announcements

    Publication Calendar

    Call For Registration ACPE

    7 Update

    Federal Court Sets Rule On Discipline Of Professionals

    Cover Feature

    8 Mitigation and Rehabilitation Of Natural Disasters

    In Malaysia (Part 1)

    16 Updates On Route To Professional Engineer

    22 Should Professional Indemnity Insurance For Engineers

    Be Mandatory?

    25 How To Deal With Challenges In

    Civil Engineering Practice

    30 Introduction To Code Of Ethics For Young Engineers

    Engineering & Law

    32 The Certificate Of Completion And Compliance In

    The Building Industry Bugbear Or Bunkum? (Part 2)


    43 A Recollection Of 1961 Landslide, Cameron Highlands


    46 FAQs On Certificate Of Completion And Compliance

    Engineering Nostalgia

    56 Aspects Of Life During The Emergency





  • presidents message

    The construction activity of the nation as reported in the Ministry of Finance (MOF)s Economic Report remains positive, although the forecast growth for 2009 is expected to contract to 3.1% from the estimated 4% in 2008. Some local engineering firms and property developers have ventured overseas after having made names of themselves in the Engineering service sector locally.

    This issue on Engineering Practices offers readers some insight into Engineering services in Malaysia. An article by a senior practicing engineer examines in detail the challenges vis--vis the code of ethics in the civil engineering arena. The question of professional indemnity insurance (PII) that has been debated lately is discussed further in a paper by a local, experienced consultancy practitioner.

    The subject of Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) that was commonly discussed since it was launched in April 2007 is further elaborated in FAQs and an article on legal responsibilities of Professional Engineer (PE) as submitting persons.

    May I wish all our Muslim readers Selamat Hari Raya.

    Ir Fong Tian YongEditor


    PresidentYBhg. Dato Sri Prof. Ir. Dr. Judin Abdul Karim

    RegistrarIr. Dr. Mohd Johari Md. Arif

    SecretaryIr. Ruslan Abdul Aziz

    MembersYBhg. Tan Sri Prof. Ir. Dr. Mohd Zulkifli Tan Sri Mohd Ghazali

    YBhg. Datuk Ir. Hj. Keizrul AbdullahYBhg. Lt. Gen. Dato Ir. Ismail SamionYBhg. Dato Ir. Ashok Kumar Sharma

    YBhg. Datuk (Dr.) Ir. Abdul Rahim Hj. HashimYBhg. Datu Ir. Hubert Thian Chong Hui

    YBhg. Dato Ir. Prof. Chuah Hean TeikAr. Dr. Amer Hamzah Mohd Yunus

    Ir. Henry E ChelvanayagamIr. Dr. Shamsuddin Ab Latif

    Ir. Prof. Dr. Ruslan HassanIr. Mohd. Rousdin Hassan

    Ir. Tan Yean ChinIr. Ishak Abdul Rahman

    Ir. Anjin Hj. AjikIr. P E Chong

    Jaafar Bin Shahidan


    AdvisorYBhg. Dato Sri Prof. Ir. Dr. Judin Abdul Karim

    SecretaryIr. Ruslan Abdul Aziz

    ChairmanIr. Tan Yean Chin

    EditorIr. Fong Tian Yong

    MembersIr. Prem Kumar

    Ir. Mustaza SalimIr. Chan Boon Teik

    Ir. Ishak Abdul RahmanIr. Prof. Dr. K. S. Kannan

    Ir. Prof. Madya Dr. Eric K H GohIr. Rocky Wong Hon Thang

    Executive DirectorIr. Ashari Mohd Yakub

    Publication OfficerPn. Nik Kamaliah Nik Abdul Rahman

    Assistant Publication OfficerPn. Che Asiah Mohamad Ali

    Design and ProductionInforeach Communications Sdn Bhd

    PrinterArt Printing Works Sdn Bhd

    29 Jalan Riong, 59100 Kuala Lumpur

    The Ingenieur is published by the Board of Engineers Malaysia (Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia) and is distributed free of charge to

    registered Professional Engineers.

    The statements and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the writers.

    BEM invites all registered engineers to contribute articles or send their views and comments to

    the following address:

    Publication CommitteeLembaga Jurutera Malaysia, Tingkat 17, Ibu Pejabat JKR,

    Jalan Sultan Salahuddin,50580 Kuala Lumpur.

    Tel: 03-2698 0590 Fax: 03-2692 5017E-mail:;


    AdvertisingAdvertisement Form is on page 55

    KDN PP11720/1/2009(020604) ISSN 0128-4347

    I note with gratitude this Autumn Issue centres on Engineering Practice, the core-business of the BEM. It is perhaps an opportunity for registered engineers, and the public, to reflect on the prevailing paradigm in which Malaysian engineering practice prevails.

    The BEM has come a long way these 40 odd years since the Registration of Engineers Act was passed by Parliament in 1967. From just being the domestic registrar of engineers from the beginning; we are today the Profession Regulatory Authority (PRA) for Malaysian

    engineering practice in a flattened borderless and globalised knowledge-economy wherein trade liberalization is the order of the day. The BEM, besides being the traditional guardian of public interests over engineered facilities and assets, is further challenged by both domestic and international push-pull factors, among which include the roles of:-

    A facilitator to improve the Government public delivery system vis--vis the CCC policy;

    An acknowledged authority in the formation of knowledge workers (equipped with engineering, technology and innovation skills) certified and bench-marked to international best-practice standards in line with the aspiration of the nation; and

    The Malaysian trade-in-engineering services ambassador to the various international trade fora, such as those at the WTO, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) underpinned by the ASEAN Charter, other bi-lateral, plura-lateral, multi-lateral FTAs and others; Malaysias interests for both the export of engineering services, an certain national safeguards leading to Non-conforming Measures for in-bounds have to be championed and balanced respectively; and unenviable position.

    I am confident, with the support of all concerned stakeholders, the BEM will rise to the occasion to provide the leadership, and point the future direction for 21st century engineering practice in Malaysia.

    Dato Sri Prof Ir. Dr. Judin bin Abdul KarimPresidentBOARD OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA

    Vol. 39 Sept - Nov 2008

    editors note



    The following list is the Publication Calendar for the year 2008 and 2009. While we normally seek contributions from experts for each special theme, we are also pleased to accept articles relevant to themes listed.

    Please contact the Editor or the Publication Officer in advance if you would like to make such contributions or to discuss details and deadlines.

    December 2008: environment




    Call for Registration


    Registration Fees for Asean Chartered Professional Engineer (ACPE) will be

    waived until 2009.

    Application Form for registration is available on BEMs website

    The Board of Engineers Malaysia wishes all readers

  • Federal Court Sets Rule On Discipline Of ProfessionalsCourtesy of The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

    Putrajaya: Disciplinary bodies of professional organisations have flexibility to conduct proceedings against their members provided the rules of natural justice are not violated.

    The Federal Court provided this guidance when it allowed an appeal by the Board Of Engineers Malaysia to revoke the registration of engineer Leong Pui Kun. The unanimous decision would affect architects, surveyors, accountants and doctors.

    Judges Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi, Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman who heard the appeal made the ruling on Aug 1. The judgement written by Nik Hashim was made available yesterday.

    On Nov 11, 2006, the Apex Court granted the Board leave to appeal and two key questions were posed whether the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 required the Board to follow adversarial system of justice and whether the Board could act against an engineer without a complaint.

    Nik Hashim said the High Court and the Court of Appeal were erroneous in holding that the rules of natural justice under the Act must be governed by the adversarial system of justice. He said it was also wrong for both courts to hold that procedures with features similar to criminal court proceedings must be followed.

    Nik Hashim said the Act did not expressly require a complaint for the Board to exercise its powers and it may act on its own volition to prosecute an errant engineer.

    Any requirement on complaint will limit the appellants ability to regulate the engineering profession, he said. Nik Hashim said the Boards decision against Leong was based on his admission and findings that there were flaws in the design and lack of supervision.

    On Sept 16, 1995, a 32-metre span of partly-constructed steel truss l inkway bridge at the Matsushita Television Co Sdn Bhd factory in Shah Alam collapsed and a person died while five others were injured. The Board found there was deficiency in the linkway bridge designed by Leong and that he failed in the supervision when the construction was under progress.

    On July 13, 2000, the Board ordered that Leongs registration be revoked. Following an application for judicial review, the High Court quashed the Boards decision and ordered Leong be reinstated as an engineer.

    It held that there was a non-compliance with the Act and a breach of natural justice. The court of Appeal also dismissed the Boards appeal in 2004.



    Products & Services Cyclone,Bagfilter,Scrubber, OilMistFilter,AirCleaner Fan,Blower,IndustrialVacuumCleaner IndustrialSilencer,AcousticEnclosure HeatExchanger,Heat/EnergyRecovery FilterBags,Cages,PulsingValves,

    Controller PneumaticConveying, CentralVacuumCleaning Steel&AluminiumGrating SteelMillEquipment,Rolls, RollerGuide,SteelHandlingSystem

    Design, Consult, Manufacture, Supply, Install, Test & Commission, Parts & Service, Upgrade & Modify and Training

    Air & Steel Technology

    Office & Factory Address:-WismaMasterJaya,20, JalanTaming3,TamingJaya IndustrialPark,43300SeriKembangan,Selangor Tel:03-89626233 Fax:03-89626211Email:


  • By Ir. Dr Ooi Teik Aun

    Mitigation And Rehabilitation Of Natural Disasters In Malaysia

    cover feature

    Flooding, Landslides, Debris Flow and Tsunami are some of the disasters experienced in Malaysia. The flooding of Kuala Lumpur in the 1970s caused serious damage to lives and properties and called for flood mitigation schemes in Kuala Lumpur. Over the years despite the repeated dredging and canalization of floodwater in Kuala Lumpur, there were repeated incidences of severe flooding in the city centre. As part of the overall solution to the frequent flooding problem, the diversion tunnel project known as SMART was constructed and completed in June 2007. The tunnel is dual-purpose designed to cater to flow of water and ease traffic congestion in the city of Kuala Lumpur.

    In recent times, climate change has brought about severe flooding in many parts of Malaysia with increased frequencies. The landslide that caused the collapse of Block 1 of the Highland Towers condominium in December 1993 claimed 48 lives. The landslide occurred during 10 days of incessant rainfall. In November 2002, another landslide occurred and buried a bungalow at the foothill within the vicinity of the Highland Towers site. The incidence also occurred during the period of incessant rainfall and eight people were killed. Drainage of the Highland Towers area has been unsatisfactory as there were numerous complaints from the residents to the local authorities prior to the disastrous landslides.

    Debris flow occurred at the Genting Highlands area emerging from the mountainside flanking the access road and causing debris to flow onto the highway on June 30, 1995 and caused temporary closure of Kuala Lumpur-Karak Highway. In the incident, 20 people were killed and 23 people were injured.

    Debris flow also occurred in the Gunong Tempurong area along the North-South highway, causing debris-comprising boulders, timber logs and mud to impact on the beams of a bridge, necessitating closure of a stretch of the highway. This paper reports three cases of landslides including the rehabilitation of a massive landslide of a tipped-fill slope that was unstable since construction. Climate change is believed to be a factor contributing to this landslide.

    (Part 1)


  • The assessment of the risk of a natural disaster and the mitigation thereof are of foremost importance in an engineering design. Failure to assess the risks appropriately could spell disaster to the completed works. What is of concern to the geotechnical engineer is the prevention and mitigation of disasters as well as rehabilitations of failures in geotechnical works.

    In Malaysia, major disasters arising out of geotechnical failures in uncontrolled earthworks are: the repeated flooding of Kuala Lumpur since 1971, the collapse of Highland Towers Condominium in 1993, the Genting Highlands access road debris flow in 1995, landslide burying a bungalow at the foothill within the vicinity of the Highland Tower site in 2002, debris flow in the Gunong Tempurong Highlands area along the North South Highway. The tsunami that struck Pulau Langkawi, Kuala Kedah and Penang on December 26, 2004 (Ooi & Ting 2005) was a wake up call to examine the impact of earthquake events from neighbouring country on Malaysia. Climate change has

    resulted in more incidences of flooding throughout Malaysia in recent years.

    Mitigation, rehabilitation and prevention of disasters are important considerations for any geotechnical design. The SMART project was born out of the disastrous flooding of Kuala Lumpur in 1971 and the subsequent flooding events as shown in Table 1 and is believed to be the first of its kind in the world where the tunnel is used as a dual purpose tunnel for both flood control and to ease the traffic congestion of Kuala Lumpur City Centre. Fig. 1 shows the alignment and cross section of the tunnel.

    The Highland Towers Condominium collapse (Fig. 2) shows that it is important for a designer to consider all aspect of foreseeable possible danger to the buildings in relation to the environment including future maintenance. Slope stability and the structural foundation of the building are integral in the design analysis process. Professionals must put health and safety above all other factors in the design consideration. The need to get rid of surface and subsurface water from site is clear from this tragedy.

    Debris flow type of slope failures will increase with more

    Table 1. Kuala Lumpur Flood Events


    January 4, 1971

    1982, 1986, 1988

    June 7, 1993, December 21, 1995, 1996, 1997

    April 30, 2000

    April 26, 2001, October 29, 2001

    June 11, 2002

    June 10, 2003

    June 11, 2007

    Fig.1 Schematic alighment and cross section of SMART Fig.2 Collapse of Block 1 Highland Tower


    cover feature

  • development in the Highlands and mitigating measures recommended must consider hydraulic factors that dominate the impact of the debris flow, whilst geotechnical factors determine the formation of the natural barrier and the materials of the debris.

    The tsunami catastrophe that struck the Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004 brought about the urgent need from the geotechnical community in the region and Malaysia in particular to look at the mitigation by way of design provision and consideration.

    The programme of public education in awareness and training in handling of such disasters must also be implemented as has been done in Japan for tsunami (Ohta, 2005) and Hong Kong for slopes (Mak et. al. 2007). This paper deals with some aspects of landslide disasters due to tipped-fill slope in Malaysia.


    Ooi (2004) in his special lecture on Earthwork Practice in Malaysia discussed the effects of the water factor in the occurrences of landslides. Table 2 shows the case histories of major landslides in Malaysia. All these landslides occurred during the period of incessant rainfall.


    The incessant rainfall in the

    December 1970 and January 1971 caused the tipped-fill materials over the slope of the Gasing Height Development in Petaling Jaya to move down the slopes on January 4, 1971 and destroyed two Government quarters at the bottom of the slopes in two separate locations of the same

    Date Location Landslide Details

    January 4,1971

    Bukit Gasing, Petaling Jaya

    Gasing Height Development. Perimeter drains collapsed during one week of incessant rain. Tipped-fill Flow slide damaged two Government Quarters completely. The slope reconstructed with proper compaction and quarters rebuilt.Case settlement out of court. PWD internal report (Ooi, 1971). Kuala Lumpur flooded.


    Ulu Kelang, Ampang Jaya

    Slope failure due to excavating neighbouring land during prolonged period of incessant rain. Damage to bungalow and swimming poolHigh Court decided Engineer has a duty of care that he owed to the house ownerHouse owner was awarded economic loss amounting to about RM360,000


    Ulu Kelang, Ampang Jaya

    Collapse of Block I of Highland Towers on December 11, 1993 during prolonged period of incessant rain. 48 people were killed.Technical committee report of investigation by MPAJ (MPAJ, 1994)High Court decided Engineer failed in his duty of care he owed to the plaintiff


    Genting, Selangor

    Debris flow, Genting Highlands on June 30, 1995 caused closure of Kuala Lumpur Karak Highway20 people were killed23 people injuredEconomic losses, destruction of several vehicles, destruction of roadway and disruption of traffic.


    Ulu Kelang, Ampang Jaya

    Bukit Antarabangsa filled slope failure during prolonged period of incessant rain.Access road to Bukit Antarabangsa cut-off.Residents of the area were evacuated. No loss of lives but economic loss and anxieties.Rehabilitation by installation of horizontal drainage system.


    Ulu Kelang, Ampang Jaya

    Landslide occurred at 6.00am during prolonged period of incessant rain.Landslide buried the bungalow at the foothill and eight people were killed.

    November 2003 Bukit Lanjan, NKVE

    Rockslide occurred during prolonged period of incessant rain. Rockslide caused closure of NKVE Highway at Bukit Lanjan for six months. Rock slope stabilised and slided materials were blasted and removed.


    Taman Zooview,Ulu Kelang, Ampang Jaya

    Massive landslide of an old tipped-fill slope with terrace houses on top of the slope.Continuous heavy rainfall in the month of April and May 2006 before the landslide. Long houses at the bottom of the slope demolished by the landslide materials and four persons in the long houses were killed. Residents of the terrace houses on top of the slope evacuated.Local authority directed slope rehabilitation by the Developer for the bottom of the slope.

    Table 2. Case histories of earthwork failures due to water.


    cover feature

  • development as shown in Figs.3 and 4. The loose tipped-fill materials were of residual soil of sandstone and shale origin known geologically as Kenny Hill Formation with inter-bedded quartz-veins obtained from leveling of the insitu sandstone/shale hills to create a platform for the buildings. The height of the slope was about 30m. The continuous rainfall has fully saturated the soil and the slope resulting in debris flow down the slope and caused severe damage to the two Government quarters. In Fig. 3 it can be seen that the debris had entered the quarter from the back portion of the two-storey house and emerged at the front of the house where the lounge was located. Fortunately, the incident happened at about 6am when the family members were still sleeping in their bedrooms located on the other half of the house. Because the damaged portion of the house was not being used at that time, no lives were lost and no one was injured but the two-storey building suffered severe damages. In Fig. 4 it can be seen that the debris came to rest against the single-storey building and the roof was nearly overtopped. Again because the landslide event occurred at about 5am the family

    members were still sleeping in their rooms. The damaged portions of the building were the kitchen and storeroom that at the time of the landslide were not being used. Consequently no lives were lost and no one was injured except that the building was damaged beyond repair.

    The Government took the developer to the Court but the parties agreed to settle the matter out of court when the developer undertook to reconstruct the slopes with proper compaction and reinstate the damaged quarters all at its own cost.

    At the same rainfall event the Kuala Lumpur city centre was flooded on January 4, 1971 with basements of banks and commercial buildings all under water. The previous recorded flooding of Kuala Lumpur happened in 1926.


    On December 11, 1993 at 1.30pm, after a period of 10 days of incessant rain, Block 1 of Highland Towers Condominium collapsed resulting in the loss of 48 lives and the loss of use of the remaining two Tower Blocks that are still unoccupied. The local authority (MPAJ, 1994) set up a

    Technical Committee of Enquiries and the findings are as follows:

    T h e H i g h l a n d To w e r s Condominium was sited mainly on fill ground over granitic formation. The maximum depth from the ground surface to bedrock is about 19m. Granitic rocks found in and around the areas were not highly soluble minerals to adversely affect the stability of the foundations. Soils overlying the granitic bedrock were very loose to loose silty sand and highly permeable. The foundation for all the three Tower Blocks were supported on rail piles designed to take only vertical loads. Su r face d ra inage sy s tem provided was not in accordance to approved plan. Situations worsen when earthwork activities changed the drainage pattern on the hill-slope behind the Condominium Blocks and available drainage systems were not maintained. Clearing of trees on upper catchments resulted in increased runoff that f lowed down the terraced hill-slope immediately behind the towers R e t r o g r e s s i v e s l i d e s progressively moved uphill starting from loss of toe mass at the back of the Condominium Block 1 (see Fig. 5).

    Fig.3 Landslide at Quarter 1276 Fig.4 Landslide at Quarter 1280


    cover feature

  • The fallen debris accumulated beh ind the back te r race o f Condominium Tower Block 1 caused the landslip to occur beneath the ent i re ra i l p i le foundation that brought down the Tower Block 1 Condominium within minutes of the landslide occurrences. (This mode of failure has been precluded by the High Court hearings. Yee (2008) has analytically shown that this mode of failure is inadmissible).

    It must be pointed out that the MPAJ 1994 report was accepted by the High Court only on the factual data contained in the report. The findings in the report were excluded as during the course of the High Court hearings, certain findings, based on evidence, were arrived at. The rotational retrogressive slope failure was accepted as the cause of the collapse of the Block 1 of the Highland Towers and water from up-slope development and its drainage system and maintenance were the major factors contributing to the slope failure.

    The Resident Association took the case to the High Court (Steve Phoa Chen Loon & Ors v Highland Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors, 2000) and the High Court found that the landslide that brought down Block 1 of the Highland Towers Condominium was due to a rotational retrogressive slide emanating from a high retaining wall behind the second tier of the three-tiered car parks. Water was found to be the principal factor that caused this high wall to fail.

    Lessons learned from the decision of the High Court in August 2000 are as follows:

    The Engineer was liable in negligence for (i) not having taken into account the hill or

    slope behind the Towers, (ii) not having designed and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have ensured that the adjacent hill-slope was stable, (iii) for not having implemented that approved drainage scheme, (iv) for colluding with the First (Developer) and Second (Architectural Draughtsman) Defendants to obtain CF without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant (Local Authorities) and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land. An appeal was filed by the Defendants and the Appeal Court in December 2002 maintained the fact findings of the High Court. The case went further to the Federal Court and in the judgment of February 2006; economic loss claim of the residents was rejected.

    This case has several important implications for developers, building professionals, local authorities, absentee landlords and developers of neighbouring properties in Malaysia. As the Court battle went on, the two other towers that were declared unsafe for occupation were left vacant and unattended even till

    today, some 15 years after the incident.

    In general, water has been the principal cause of many slope failures as can be seen in Table 2. The design should have taken into account suitable surface and subsurface drainage of slopes. The use of tipped-fill materials on slope and embankment should never have been allowed under any circumstances but this practice remains unabated.

    Rainfall RecordsSince water and poor drainage

    have been found to be the principal factors of the causes of collapse of the slope and one of the towers, it is important then to look at the cumulative rainfall three months before the collapse of the slope and the tower. Fig. 6 shows the rainfall dis t r ibut ion f rom September-December 1993. On the same figure, the cumulative rainfall was a lso plot ted. I t can be seen that the cumulative rainfall on the day of the tragic event was about 900mm. The annual rainfall for 1993 was 2,604mm. Thus the cumulative rainfall from September to December 11, 1993 accounted for 35% of the annual

    Fig. 5 Retrogressive Slope Failure


    cover feature

  • rainfall. The intensity of rainfall was severe in the month of December prior to the day when the slope and the Block 1 Tower col lapsed. The seepage f low would have played a part in the collapse of the slope since water emerging from the rubble wall at the slope toe can cause loss of support as the material collapsed locally leading to the rotational retrogressive slope failure.


    On May 31, 2006 at about 4.30pm, a landslide occurred at the back of a row of terrace houses located on top of the slope of Taman Zooview. In the incidence, the following damages were reported to have incurred:

    (a) A newly constructed Reinforced Soil Wall of 6m high and 40m long located a t the boundary of the development to Taman Zooview collapsed and moved about 100m down the slope.

    (b) Extensive ground movement on the down s lope s ide of the wall resulted in the destruct ion of three long houses at the bottom of the

    slope and loss of four lives.(c) The sixteen units of terrace

    houses located on top of the slope in Taman Zooview were subjected to evacuation order by the local authority as their houses were considered unsafe for occupation.

    The GeologyThe geology of the entire

    Taman Zooview area, including the terrace houses at Taman Zooview which were affected by the landslide are underlain by graphitic schist of the Hawthorden Formation. This schist is exposed at several localities on cut slopes along the road leading up to Taman Zooview from the Zoo entrance, either as bedrock or residual soils. The same schist is also exposed in a major excavation just to the east of the said terrace houses. The Hawthornden schist can be seen intruded by weathered granite and quartz veins and dykes in the major excavation for the housing development at the adjacent site to the site of the landslide. Borehole investigation showed that the terrace houses are located on fill ground with very low SPT blow counts. The landslide involves the tipped-fill

    material at the backyard of the terrace houses that was built on fill ground over the valley some 20 over years ago. Thus the landslide is basically a classical tipped-fill problem with poor drainage system.

    Tipped-fill slopeThe sixteen units of terrace

    houses located on top of the slope were constructed on fill of over 13m thick over a ravine with loose tipped-fill slope at their backyard that was constantly slipping over the last 20 years since the houses were built. The drainage system has since not been functioning. To make matter worst, the residents have taken upon themselves to indiscriminately discharge domestic and storm water over the slope from their houses. Figs. 7 and 8 respectively show photographs taken in 2004 on the condition of the slope

    Fig. 6 Daily rainfall from 1/9/93 - 12/12/93 recorded at the DID Ampang Station

    Fig. 7 Condition of slope in 2004

    Fig. 8 Drainage discharging in slope in 2004


    cover feature

  • with plastic sheet cover and the drainage pipes sticking out of the slope for one of the houses with extension perching precariously on the slope. Behind the plastic sheet cover, all is not well. According to the house owners, the fill-slope at the backyard has being slipping/eroding since completion and has become critical when the edge of the slope came close to the houses. Water from the gutters of the houses was connected by plastic pipes to discharge further down the slope.

    Slope stability analysis shows that the factor of safety for localized slope failure to be 1.05. The slope is thus perching precariously and failure can be expected to happen at any time, particularly with incessant rainfall and poor drainage system. The localized slope failure can propagate upwards and eventually cause the collapse of the entire slope as had happened at the Highland Towers Tragedy in December 1993 where one of the three blocks of Towers collapsed as a result of the initiation of localized slope failure that led to rotational retrogressive slope failure. Fig. 9 shows the contour plan of the site after the landslide. Two parts of the slope are distinctively different; the upper slope consists of tipped-fill Hawthornden schist and the lower half where yellowish materials are visible are the original residual soil of granite origin. At both sides of the lower slope the materials were also of tipped-fill over the granite residual soil. At the lower end of the lower slope there is a layer of alluvium consisting of organic material of about 1m thick overlying the weathered granite of SPT greater than 50. The geology of the site can be said to be complex. Photographs showing the various layering can

    be found in subsequent sections during slope rehabilitation.

    The Reinforced Soil WallWhen the residents of the

    terrace houses complained to the local authority on the slope movement, a site meeting was held at which the local authority directed the developer on the down slope to stabilize the slope behind the terrace houses and a 40m reinforced soil wall supported on reinforced concrete slab and piles was built by a specialist contractor. The global stability of the slope and the wall was greater than 1.4. The design was reviewed and approved by the independent

    reviewer appointed by the local authority. The drainage condition of the slope at the back of the houses remained the same at the time the wall was built. There was an overall plan to connect all the drains from the houses to the monsoon drains of the new development; unfortunately the plan was too early to be effected then. As there was a directive from the local authority to complete the wall urgently for fear of the raining season, the construction of the wall took about six weeks to reach its full height. The slope behind the terrace houses and the wall collapsed 10 days after the wall reached its full height of 6 to

    Fig. 9 Contour Plan of Landslide Area


    cover feature

  • 7m on May 31, 2006. The landslide material travelled approximately 100m down the slope and caused massive upheaval of the ground resulting in the destruction of squatter houses and death of four persons. Fig. 10 shows a general view of the landslide.

    Rainfall RecordThe total amount of rainfall

    during the consecutive months of May 2006 and the 11 months preceding it were very much higher than the long term means. It is evident that the area was exceptionally wet and registered

    Fig. 10 General view of Landslide

    Fig. 11 Histogram of monthly rainfall record BEM

    unusually high rainfall during October 2005 to May 2006. The prolonged period of rainfall and/or the intense rainfall is common denominator in the incidence of monsoonal and flash flood, mudflow and landslide events. Such phenomenon is believed linked to climate change. Fig. 11 shows the histogram of the rainfall record.

    Rehabilitation of failed slopeAs mentioned earlier, the 16

    units of terrace houses were declared unsafe for occupation by the local authorities and the residents were evacuated. There was growing anxiety among the residents and pressure on the local authorities to restore the safety of the terrace houses so that the residents can move back to their houses. The remedial works considered the following factors:

    (a) Safety of the terrace houses during rehabilitation works

    (b) Safety of the slope(c) Design consideration of future

    development of the land(d) Economic consideration of the

    rehabilitation works.

    The following were carried out prior to the commencement of rehabilitation works:

    (a) A condition survey of the 16 units of the terrace houses was carried out.

    (b) Owners consent to enter the terrace houses to continue the monitoring works during the slope rehabilitation works.

    (c) Local authorities approvals for the proposed rehabilitation works.

    (d) Instrumentation to monitor the movement of slope and buildings using inclinometers and set t lement measuring stations.


    cover feature

  • By Ir. Prof Dr K. S. Kannan

    Updates On Route To Professional Engineer

    cover feature

    The purpose of this article is to provide guidance to registered Graduate Engineers who are seeking registration as Professional Engineers based on the current requirements.

    Professional engineering services

    professional engineering services means engineering services and advice in connection with any feasibility study, planning, survey, design, construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance and management of engineering works or projects and includes any other engineering services approved by the Board;

    The relevant extracts from the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Revised 2007) in respect of graduate/professional registration is provided below:

    Restrictions on unregistered persons, Graduate Engineers, etc.

    7. (1) No person shall, unless he is a Professional Engineer-

    (a) practise, carry on business or take up employment which requires him to carry out or perform professional engineering services.

    (aa) be entitled to describe himself or hold himself out under any name, style or title -(i) bearing the words Professional Engineer, or the equivalent thereto in any other

    language;(ii) bearing any other word whatsoever in any language which may reasonably be construed

    to imply that he is a Professional Engineer; or(iii) using the abbreviation Ir. before his name or the abbreviation P.Eng. after his name or

    in any way in association with his name;

    (b) use or display any sign, board, card or other device representing or implying that he is a Professional Engineer;

    (c) be entitled to recover in any court any fee, charge remuneration or other form of consideration for any professional engineering services rendered; or

    (d) use the stamp as prescribed in the Second Schedule.

    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) -

    (a) a Graduate Engineer may, subject to section 8, take up employment which requires him to perform professional engineering services;

    Only Professional Engineer and Engineering Consultancy Practice may submit plan, drawing, etc.

    8. (1) Except as otherwise provided under any other written law, no person or body, other than a Professional Engineer who is residing and practising in Malaysia, or an Engineering consultancy practice providing professional engineering services in Malaysia, shall be entitled to submit plans, engineering surveys, drawings, schemes, proposals, reports, designs or studies to any person or authority in Malaysia.



    Any candidate who applies for registration as a Professional Engineer must:

    (a) be registered as a Graduate Engineer with BEM (b) have obtained the practical experience as

    prescribed below (c) have passed the Professional Assessment Examination

    (PAE) conducted by BEM or is a Corporate Member of the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM);

    (d) has complied with all the requirements of the Board; and

    (e) has been residing in Malaysia for a period of not less than six months immediately prior to the date of application.

    The Graduate Engineer shall carry out the practical experience in the following manner as prescribed in Regulation 22(1) of the Registration of Engineers Regulations 1990 (Revised 2003):

    (1) The practical experience that a Graduate Engineer is required to obtain under section 10(1)(b) of the Act so as to be entitled to apply for registration as a Professional Engineer shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Board for a period of at least three years, and shall include the following

    (a) the Graduate Engineer must undergo (i) at least two years of general training that

    will provide a sound basis for professional development; and

    (ii) at least one year of professional career development and training providing wide exposure to the various managerial and technical expertise in engineering practice

    where at least one year of the training must be obtained in Malaysia under the supervision of a Professional Engineer in the same branch of engineering as that practiced by the Graduate Engineer, although Professional Engineers in other related branches of engineering may be acceptable with prior approval of the Board; and

    (b) the Graduate Engineer must have satisfactory attendance in courses and professional development

    programmes determined by the Board, and conducted by the Board or institutions approved or accredited by the Board.

    Regulation 22 (1) (b) shall be applicable to all Graduate Engineers registered after January 1, 2005.

    Details of the courses and professional development programmes are provided below.

    The Professional Assessment Examination (PAE) that a Graduate Engineer has to pass under Section 10(2)(i)(b) of the Act in order to be entitled to be registered as a Professional Engineer consists of:

    (a) a professional interview conducted by not less than two examiners appointed by the Board

    (b) a written paper on any relevant subject related to the practical experience which he has obtained

    (c) a written paper on his understanding of the Code of Professional Conduct; and

    (d) any other examination, written or otherwise, to be determined by the Board.

    In accordance with item (d) above, the Board has decided that from June 1, 2008 all graduate engineers have to sit for a Competency Examination to qualify for registration as a Professional Engineer.

    The above is represented diagrammatically in Figure 1.


    cover feature


    To comply with Regulation 22(1)(b), Graduate Engineers have to fulfil the following:

    1. Satisfactory attendance in the following courses conducted by BEM or institutions approved by BEM

    (i) Code of Ethics - 12 hrs(ii) Health and Safety at work - 12 hrs(iii) Engineering management practice - 12 hrs

    and(iv) Courses related to graduates branch of

    engineering - 24 hrs

    2. Completion of not less than 30 units of Professional Development which includes attendance at technical talks, seminars, society/association meetings and community services (excluding attendance at courses and in-house training). One unit of Professional Development is equivalent to one hours participation in the above-mentioned activities subject to a maximum of four units in a day.


    cover feature

    (a) Interview(b) Essay on Practice(c) Essay on Code of Ethics

    (d) Competency Examination

    Registered Graduate Engineer

    Corporate Member of IEM Professional Assessment Examination

    Professional EngineerFigure 1


    This period of training in a local environment is greatly emphasized by BEM as it is of paramount importance for the prospective Professional Engineers to be familiar with the local conditions and by-laws so that they can comply and practise effectively in Malaysia.

    Notwithstanding the above, regulation 22(2) stipulates that if the Board is satisfied for sufficient cause or reason, the Board may in any particular case exempt either wholly or partially, or enhance the requirements as to the practical experience required to be obtained in Malaysia or the requirement as to the supervision by a Professional Engineer in Malaysia;

    Where there is no Professional Engineer of the same or allied discipline as the candidate in the

    organisation in which the candidate is working, he may seek the approval from BEM to obtain a Professional Engineer from outside his organisation to supervise his training.

    After the candidate has completed the required prescribed training, he may apply to sit for the Professional Assessment Examination conducted by BEM.


    A Graduate Engineer shall submit an application for registration as a Professional Engineer within one year from the date he is informed by the Board that he has passed the Professional Assessment Examination.

    The Graduate Engineer shall provide details of the organisations he has worked in, positions held, his duties and responsibilities and experience gained. There shall be a balance of experience gained in site/field, design/office and management/planning works. For those involved in teaching and research, at least one year of practical experience is necessary.

    Guidelines on the Professional Assessment Examination (PAE) and the preparation of documents for the PAE are available from the BEM.


    cover feature

    Other Services Skid mounted dosing systems

    Chemical preparation system

    Flocculator and Mixer

    Design and Build - Water Treatment Plant

    - Waste Water Treatment Plant

    - Sewage Water Treatment Plant

    HYTRAN SDN BHD ( 779146W)No 6, Jalan Anggerik Vanilla, AC31/AC, Sek 31, Kota Kemuning, 40460 Shah AlamTel:603-5121 9734, 36, 39, Fax:603-5121 9769 Http://

    Hydraulic Surge Analysis

    Replaceable to (Capital Control Spare Part) Hydro Instruments Chlorinator

    Jesco Metering



    A Professional Engineer desirous of renewing his registration shall

    (a) Submit to the Board(i) an application for renewal of registration

    in the prescribed form on or before January 31 of the year following the year of expiration of registration.

    (ii) A renewal fee of RM 200 (age below 60 years) or RM 100 (age 60 years and above)

    (b) Satisfy such conditions as determined by the Board.

    Continuing Professional Development

    The Board has introduced Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme for Professional Engineers who renew their registration with effect from the year 2005. The objective of the CPD for Professional Engineers is the maintenance of technical knowledge and skill (i.e. competency) to do a job. At the same time it requires all engineers to stay abreast of new engineering developments in their field and changes in the relevant codes and regulations.

    The CPD shall be an average of 50 hours per year over a three-year period.

    The CPD programme for Professional Engineers will comprise six major groups of activities:

    (i) Formal education and training(ii) Informal learning (iii) Conference and meetings(iv) Presentation and papers(v) Service activities(vi) Industry involvement (for academicians)

    Details are available in the


    To be registered as a Professional Engineer with the Board, a Graduate Engineer who has passed his interview and essay writing will have to pass a written competency examination (w.e.f. June 2008)

    The examination will be conducted in the broad areas of Civil/Structural, Chemical, Electrical and Mechanical engineering with option for specific branches within these broad areas. The written examination will provide a standardised method of assessment, tests broad-based knowledge and assesses application of engineering applications. The examination will consist of two papers (one in the broad area and one in the specific branch) on Practice of Engineering and one three-hour paper on the Engineers Act and relevant By-laws.

    Graduate Engineers are expected to attain a set competency level in these examinations.


    Application shall be made in Form B1 as provided in the regulations. The application shall be accompanied by a processing fee of RM 50 and a registration fee for the amount of RM 300.

    A Graduate Engineer applying for registration as a Professional Engineer shall submit with his application proof in writing of his practical experience. Such submission shall include details and description of the practical experience and a statement by the supervisory Professional Engineer in the case of experience obtained in Malaysia or by an Engineer acceptable to the Board in the case of experience obtained outside Malaysia, that the Graduate Engineer has satisfactorily completed his practical experience.

    On approval of the application, a certificate of registration will be issued. The certificate will indicate the branch of engineering. If the application is not approved, the registration fee will be refunded. BEM


    cover feature

  • cover feature

    By Ir. Khoo Choong Keow

    Liabilities attributable to his error or negligence wi l l be borne by the engineer and/or h i s practice. The question arises as to whether the engineer and his practice will have the financial capability to meet successful claims against him.

    Professional Indemnity Insurance For Engineers

    PII is intended to cover such claims. In this respect, it is similar to other types of insurance in its main function, i.e. to spread the risk amongst a large group of people having identical interests in protection against the financial impact of such risks if they materialise, e.g. personal accident, house owner, motor, life, etc.

    In a claim against professional liabilities of an engineer the amount can run to millions of Ringgit, which is well beyond the means of the average engineer to bear personally, through his practice or even PII. Thus in determining the quantum of PII he should carry the engineer will have to consider:

    (1) His own capacity to meet claims;

    (2) His fee income and the amount he can allocate from this towards PII premium;

    Should Professional Indemnity Insurance For Engineers Be Mandatory?

    When an engineer renders professional services and is found to be negligent he becomes liable to his client as well as third parties for damages. To his client (with whom he has entered into a contract) he is also liable for failure to perform in accordance with his obligation under the contract.

    If the engineer practises through a body corporate, the body corporate is also jointly liable.

    Extent Of Liability

    The engineers liability has no limits in quantum and in time.

    In some countries for damages arising from negligence time is limited by what is called the long stop of 10 to 15 years, from the time the services were performed, after which period the engineer will not be held liable. In Malaysian law we have no long stop but it is felt among most professions that this would be desirable.

    As for quantum, this depends on the nature of the project, e.g. collapse of a tall building or a major bridge would obviously have far greater consequences than a (minor) slope failure on a road embankment or cracks in a single residential building.

    The following paper was presented at Seminar on Professional Indemnity Insurance on July 28, 2005. The paper explains in a simple way the purpose and the practical application of Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) on the liability of engineers and engineering practices and leads to the authors conclusion that PII should not be mandatory but is desirable for the practising Engineers own protection.

    The author also suggests some essential provisions in a mandatory PII scheme (if implemented) involving both owners and engineers which would provide effective protection for all stakeholders.


  • (3) The risks attached to the type of work he carries out.

    Usually the first two factors dictate, since Factor (3) is practically impossible to cover due to high premiums.

    Factor (1) is dealt with by opting for a self-covered amount called the excess e.g., RM50,000, RM100,000, etc which will constitute the first resort in any claim. When this amount is exceeded recourse will be made to PII for the excess. An engineer may cover himself and his practice for sums of e.g. RM250,000 and above, depending on his annual turnover. There used to be a rule of thumb figure for PII i.e. the annual turnover. However, this may now not be practical due to escalating costs of premiums, and it is more common now for engineer to fix their PII quantum based on what he can afford to buy, e.g. for 1 to 2% of his annual fees.

    By and large typical sums insured range from RM500,000 to RM2 million for Association of Consulting Engineers (ACEM) members.

    PII : Philosophies And Hopes

    When a claim succeeds against an engineer the first recourse will be to the excess, and the second recourse to the PII. Concurrent and co-existent with these will be recourse (if required) to the engineer and his practice. An example is given below:-

    Sum of damages awarded = RM5,000,000 met by:

    Amount(RM) Cumulative(RM)Excess 100,000PII 1,000,000 1,100,000(A)Engineers personal assets 500,000 1,600,000(B)Engineers practice assets 700,000 2,300,000(C)

    In this example the successful claim will not be totally met and the engineer will face bankruptcy and his practice will be wound up.

    Thus the fervent hope of the engineer, when he pays for PII, is that any claim that succeeds will not exceed amount (A) above, which will be duly met and life can go on as before, except that he may have his PII premium uprated.

    Perhaps, if the amount does not exceed amount (B) and his practice remains intact, he can still

    carry on and rebuild his life and career through his practice. However, if the successful claim requires recourse to amount (C), then the engineer will have to give up his practice.

    From the above, a common fallacy about PII can be dispelled. The notion of PII covering multi-million Ringgit projects for the protection of clients is simply not true. In the above example the maximum protection in monetary terms is RM2,300,000 attended by the complete ruin of the engineers career and practice and the livelihood of his employees. If that is so, one asks, why PII?

    As mentioned earlier, the fervent hope of the engineer is that any claim will not (as in the above example A) exceed RM1,100,000. The claim can then be met, and the engineers life, career and practice will not all lie in ruins.

    As for the multi-million Ringgit claims, they simply do not lie within the purview of PII, nor the capacity of an engineer to bear.

    Thus the philosophy of PII is that it gives comfort to both the engineers and the small p ro jec t owner s and no t t he l a r ge p ro jec t proponents. How then, are the latter taken care of? They will need to, and have the ability to, cover themselves. Therefore if they wish to have protection of PII, they will need to make their own arrangements, perhaps through the engineer and pay the premiums.

    It should also be borne in mind that the BEM Scale of Fees had been fixed without any consideration of PII costs.

    Should PII Be Compulsor y?

    There had been some though t s towards compulsory PII, as in the case of lawyers.

    However the lawyers compulsory PII scheme was launched some years ago. And since then the insurance industry has gone through some traumatic changes such as:-

    Slope failure


    cover feature

  • 911 Collapse of major insurers in Australia and

    Europe Large hikes on premiums

    If PII is to be made compulsory, then other questions arise:-

    If the amount of cover is fixed, what is the premium and can the engineer afford it?

    Will fees be increased to meet the cost of premiums? (In this recessionary market the answer could be No).

    If the amount of cover is not fixed, and instead the engineer is required to allocate, say 1 to 2% of his fees to cover PII, how much cover will it buy? This year, next year, and later?

    Given the philosophy of PII as stated above, compulsory PII may achieve little purpose, if the intention is to cover the larger projects. It would be a more positive approach to do the following:-

    Advise engineer to take PII for their own comfort (as illustrated in the example given above). Guidelines to be given as to the amount of cover. (this may be difficult to fix for the reason given above.)

    Educate engineers on the consequences they face if they are negligent in performing their

    services, even if they are covered by a limited amount of PII.

    Advise clients of large projects to arrange and pay for their own PII, through the engineer if they wish. Insurers will probably require this as they would like to know who the engineer is and assess their risks and premiums accordingly.

    A long stop for liability should be enacted in Statute - hopefully this will help to lower PII premiums.

    It may be useful to consider the French system of a centennial (10 year) cover to be taken by project owners which includes all risks including PII and third party damages.

    If PII is to be compulsory it would be practical and effective only if:-

    The mandatory PII amount should be reasonable and within the Engineers means, and BEM Scale of Fees should be uprated to cover the cost of insurance.

    An alternative must be provided - otherwise premiums can go through the roof, e.g. the whole or part of PII can be substituted with a Bank Guarantee or Insurance Bond against security provided by the engineer.

    Project owners be required to buy PII and all risk cover including damages to third parties. If a project owner does not take such cover, then the engineers liability for damages should be limited to the engineers fee for the defective part of their work, and excluding any consequential or economic loss. Such a scheme will encourage project owners to insure for their own protection. This makes sense as project owners have the means to bear the premium (or pass on the same to consumers) as well as the financial clout to negotiate with insurers for the best deal.

    For their own comfort engineers may elect to cover for amounts over and above the minimum mandatory cover.

    A long stop is enacted in Statute. BEMConstruction in progress


    cover feature

  • By Ir. Chester Ho MSc, DIC, FICE, FIEM, PEng


    How To Deal With Challenges In Civil Engineering Practice

    who yield to pressures from stingy business interests to lower fees are undermining the livelihood and earnings of Engineers from the mandatory Scale of Fees, with no feelings of regret about the havoc they create. None of them would admit their impropriety against the mandatory fees. They persist without remorse as they could get away with it.

    A bad case is where a sharp-witted draftsman teamed up with a Professional Engineer (PE) to open a firm purportedly for project management. The engineer is said to also provide consulting engineering services through the firm. Under the Code of Ethics all the owners of a consulting firm must be registered Professionals. If the PE and the draftsman are both shareholders in the same firm the arrangement would violate the Code of Ethics. If the engineer practices under a firm that he owns with other professionals, he could also own a separate firm which could do project management. This would then be in order. As a non-professional is not allowed to share in a consulting firm, he would also be prohibited from taking any profit that is earned from consulting work. A PE may have too much work so that he needs his chosen draftsman and to encourage him to stay and

    cover feature

    that clients are depressing to the level of wages paid to directly employed staff. The heavy responsibilities borne by engineers are not compensated for. In better days, the scale fees ensured that engineers would have comparable earnings and standing that other professionals, such as lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants and managing directors receive. Fees for engineers must provide for wages, continuing education, learning new technology, visits to engineering schemes locally and overseas to study larger projects, training young graduates and draftsmen from raw recruits, payments for seminars and conferences, purchase of computer software and hardware, improving office facilities, organised holidays and trips for the bonding of personnel, bonus payments and retirement benefits. The engineers who do not have the standing to procure work other than by lowering their fees are selfish and care little for the damage they are causing the profession. They run their offices on shoe-string budgets and contribute little to an honoured profession.

    To counter this tendency the mandatory Scale of Fees of the Board of Engineers is meant to benefit Engineers with satisfactory remuneration. Those Engineers

    Civil engineering in private practice in Malaysia faces serious challenges that must be addressed for it to survive. The challenges faced are of concern for all engaged in engineering, who should contribute in detail their encounters with difficulties to inform their experiences to improve practice of an honoured profession, which has benefited mankind with countless achievements to make living comfortable and expedient. Although many eminent engineers have been honoured, they feel even more rewarded that they have resolved with their great skills the challenges they meet to create marvelous works of engineering. These include major dams, bridges, highways, levees, irrigation drainage water and sewerage schemes etc. They are honest professionals, who do not take on work that fall outside their expertise. They cherish integrity and uprightness. Engineers today need to emulate these ideals, as the situation is being made worse by the lure of profit and laxity in self-control. Moral fibre and pride in their profession are essential to prevent such a decline and loss of respect, appreciation and remuneration by society for the engineer.

    Those engineers who do not respect their own expertise sell their services for the low fees


    work diligently, he could pay the draftsman part of the profit from the firm as a bonus instead of a divided. If the draftsman has the contacts for sourcing work but needs the PE to do the consulting work, the draftsman would want to own majority shares in the firm while the Engineer also wants his shareholding so he cannot be sacked. The draftsman need not use the scale fees, as he cannot be held to be in violation, not being registered with the Board of Engineers. The set-up is still a violation of the Code of Ethics. The draftsman could however procure the project and employ the PE, to be in compliance. Does the code prohibit non PEs from procuring work, to be done by a PE he will employ? As to who is exploited is anybodys guess. Their arrangement is safe as no evidence could be obtained because confidentiality would be maintained, as the businessman employer is more than happy with non-scale fees.

    Some other PEs are also by-passing the Scale of Fees by taking on work at lower than Scale of Fees, while other engineers share fees with project managers to secure projects for them.

    These engineers have garnered a great deal of the work in a State and have caused fees to fall to about 0.7%. No complaint could be lodged as evidence is hard to obtain. Businesses argue that there should be no Scale of Fees at all in the publics best interest. Another country has abolished scale fees, with the firm belief that meritocracy and competition would correct fees to the minima, which would be best for the public. Many years later their universities face a drastic drop in the numbers of applications for study of engineering. Now seriously concerned that there

    could be a shortage of engineers a counter measure is being sought by emphasizing engineering to be an interesting and fulfilling career even without scale fees. But reward is the plank of choice of career in Eastern societies, especially in todays rapidly rising prices and inflation. Businessmen who oppose scale fees as being too high, consider that engineers do not run high risks and should therefore not prosper from the scale fees they consider to be too high.

    What is the situation for developers of housing? Are they correct to hold the same view? A deeper examination of the circumstance of housing developers reveals that they need not be repressive on fees. Rubber land during the 1960s could be bought for RM5,000 per acre or 11.8 cents per square foot. From 1970 land converted for residential housing could get between RM12 and RM30 per square foot, i.e. 63 to 152 times increase of their investment, even after land for roads, green areas and public areas are deducted. Also outlays for bank interest on capital, wages for plantation staff, operation and maintenance are offset by reasonable and in some years lucrative incomes from the plantations. Business interests do not appreciate the engineering profession as they do lawyers, doctors and accountants for their indispensable services that relate to life, death, health and bankruptcy. Moreover engineers must remember that business interests heavily influence decisions by officialdom. Engineers must also realize they are not receiving a fair share of the cake.

    Another consideration is whether the countrys development and progress would be adversely

    jeopardized, if there were no local engineers? Not so, because there are many engineers in other English-speaking countries, who would come, although their costs could be higher. If the local business sector were unhappy at such higher costs, it only is to be blamed as it should have taken responsibility to sustain the local engineering sector by accepting scale of fees. Its answer is NO, because it has to face a fiercely competitive and unfriendly business environment without any help. The willing engineers, by offering low fees, are siding with the businessmen not to use scale fees. As no one is brought to task, let those who wish to be engineers beware and ask themselves whether it is worthwhile to go through all the difficult studies and hard work and later shoulder heavy responsibilities for less remuneration than those being paid to other professions.

    Next, one should examine the placing of responsibility for the proper construction of engineering works. The construction contractor must take full responsibility for building the works correctly, while the engineer bears full responsibility for his designs. The contractor is handsomely paid some 5% to 15%, or even 50% for demanding and difficult work. His reward far outstrips the fees of 0.7% to 5% being paid to consulting engineers. Yet society, having no confidence in contractors, demands that the engineer must oversee construction by the contractor. In many legal suits, damages for improper construction are apportioned to the engineer on the basis that the engineer provided overseeing supervision. Does this mean that the contractor is hopelessly incapable of proper

    cover feature


    cover feature

    construction without overseeing by an engineer but is still allowed to undertake the work? Society accepts that the contractor need not be professionally qualified to do construction but must need overseeing by an engineer. Would a medical patient be willing to be operated on by a surgeon who must be supervised? The answer is obviously NO. Why then is such an anomaly applied to the engineers role? At present anyone who has the money, gumption, daring, brash confidence and some knowledge of construction could set up a contracting outfit even if he does not believe in professionalism, because he believes that professionalism would diminish his profit. Less defects, better job management, reduced site problems, less delays, prompt execution and timely completion of projects by professional contractors would grossly benefit society. Yet there are no counter measures for change. The emergence of some well organised contracting firms headed by directors, who are qualified engineers is a welcome change. Hopefully more such firms will be established to displace old-fashioned daring-do contractors. An old fashioned contractors attitude caused 60 mm cracks in the walls of his tall cement silos. His cement silos were built with 75 mm and larger stone aggregates at his specific behest as owner. To him standards and codes of practice carried little meaning. The repairs did cost him unnecessary expenditure, which he was happy to meet with the profit he gained from lower initial investment. He was lucky that the silos did not collapse totally! Monetary success does cause mental myopia.

    The Code of Ethics forbids an engineer from earning

    commission by job referrals. A grey area does exist. Civil engineering encompasses many disciplines: highways, hydropower, water supply, sewerage, drainage, irrigation, bridges and structures. Large firms in first world countries may have several specialist divisions in a single firm but few have divisions for all specializations. Locally, engineers who are trained for structural engineering usually stay in that field though some may be afforded opportunity to delve in civil engineering. Even after many years they could not likely gain in-depth civil engineering knowledge, not having studied the other civil engineering subjects. No system is in place for checking how much knowledge in civil engineering these structural engineers could have gained. They could learn using formulae to do some design but may not grasp the basic principles. They could make errors in more complicated situations, as has happened. Polytechnics issued a certificate for Civil Engineering because structural engineering is a discipline under civil engineering. A registration authority would accept such a certificate, on face value although the subjects studied were only in structural and geo-technical engineering, to register the applicant under civil engineering. Society is then put at risk, because such engineers could engage in all fields of civil engineering not studied by him. His self-control to do only structural work would be brushed aside by a greed for the better civil engineering fees. A serious failure is known to have occurred from this dubious registration.

    In this case, a structural engineer obtained a PE registration for civil engineering because his certificate stated civil engineering. This structural

    engineer deftly manoeuvred to take over as principal for his firm, with seeming confidence. There resulted a major failure of an earth slope, which ruptured the water supply to a city of one million people with a damage assessed at RM2 million.

    Many sewage treatment plants have shown construction defects and process operational deficiencies. The cause is that the civil engineering consultants had only simplistic knowledge. Fortunately, the plants are small plants.

    The engineering profession needs to adopt measures to counter the several challenges mentioned above. It needs to restore its image of honesty, uprightness, integrity and dependability, which must not be sacrificed for profit. The loss of fees is a serious challenge not easily solved. Doctors save lives, lawyers save clients against injustice and accountants save clients against fraud.

    Engineers must demonstrate that their expert skills save costs for clients so that they would accept the importance of the engineers beneficial contributions and to remunerate them with scale fees. Engineers must comply fully with the Code of Ethics by avoiding duplicity and devious guiles to bypass rules and requirements for profit. Engineers must unite to present a solid front to correct a general misconception about supervisory responsibility and sharing damages for construction failures. Engineers must not fraudulently present incorrect qualifications nor undertake projects beyond their trained disciplines. Do engineers have the moral discipline to do all these. What is your view?

    Note: The views expressed here are those of the author.


  • Introduction To Code Of Ethics For Young Engineers

    cover feature


    The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) has, from time to time, received enquiries and complaints from the public about the conduct of engineers in relation to the Registration of Engineers Act. BEM has, therefore, produced the guidelines herein that outline the conduct expected of engineers. These guidelines are set out under a number of broad areas relating to the engineering profession.

    Dos & Donts1) Registration

    Under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138) and subsequent amendments, themost recent being year2002, it is a requirement of the Law that any person providing engineering services be a qualified person andregisteredwith the Board of EngineersMalaysia. This requirement extends to foreignerswho are required to seekregistration as Temporary Engineers. The Dos and Donts below relate to the requirement of this Act.

    DOs1.1 An engineering graduate with accredited engineering degree must register with the Board of Engineers to take up employment as an engineer.

    DONTs1.1 An engineer should not be the Submitting Person for designs beyond his/her area of competency1.2 An engineer should not endorse his PE Stamp and sign on reports or plans not prepared by him.(see also Consultancy - 2.3 of Dont )1.3 An engineer should not enter into partnership with any party not permitted under the Engineers Act.1.4 An Engineering Consultancy Practice should not provide professional services in any branch of engineering where none of its directors are registered to practise in that

    branch of engineering.1.5 An engineer must not practise in the branch of engineering he is not registered in.

    2) ConsultancyIn the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Revised 2002), provision is included for the registration of AccreditedCheckers and the requirement of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) beginning year 2005.

    DOs2.1 An engineer should be transparent and receptive to peer review or checking of his work if requestd/required by the client/authorities.2.2 A checker engineer must be open to the views and design concept of the original designer and in areas of disagreement, the checker must give justification for his

    disagreement.2.3 A checker engineer should take full responsibility for the checking of the work himself.2.4 An engineer should undertake continuing professional development to enhance his knowledge and capability.2.5 An employer engineer should ensure that his employee engineers are bona fide engineers registered with BEM.2.6 An engineer should report unethical practice to BEM.2.7 An engineer who is a Submitting Person must ensure the accuracy of and be responsible for all works delegated to others by him.2.8 An engineer should make optimum use of manpower, materials and money.2.9 An engineer should be aware of Government requirement to use local materials, wherever possible.

    DONTs2.1 A checker engineer should not accept checking of work not within his area of competency as well as work that he is not familiar with.2.2 An engineering consultant should not carry out projects for fees below the minimum outlined in the scale of fees.2.3 An engineer should not endorse any work not performed and/or supervised by him.2.4 An engineer should not supplant another engineer.2.5 An engineer should not compromise on public safety.2.6 An engineer should not offer his opinion on engineering matters unless he has full facts to support the opinion.2.7 An engineer should not base his design on unsubstantiated data, for example designing foundation without soil investigation.2.8 An engineer should not have any conflict of interest whatsoever in connection with the work he is undertaking unless prior approval from BEM and client are obtained.2.9 An engineer should not accept work outside his regular work without the expressed permission of his employer.

  • cover feature


    3) SupervisionThe supervision of works designed by the Submitting Engineer is a requirement under the Uniform Building By-Law 5 (UBBL 5). This By-Law states that supervisionmust be provided by the Submitting Engineer to ensure thattheworks carried out are as intended in the design. Delegation of supervision is permitted but the responsibilityof this supervision still rests with the Submitting Engineer.

    DOs3.1 An engineer who is the Submitting Person should be responsible for the project regardless of whether it is self-supervised and/or delegated supervision.3.2 An engineer must be meticulously proper and correct in certification of works.3.3 An engineer must be familiar with and knowledgeable in the work he is to supervise.3.4 An employer engineer shall ensure that his staff undergoes regular and proper skills-training.3.5 An engineer supervising a project shall keep proper records of all documents and correspondence pertaining to the project.3.6 An engineer must be conversant with time and cost implications in the issuance of any instruction.

    DONTs3.1 An engineer must not over or under certify progress of works.3.2 An engineer must not make wrongful certifications.3.3 An engineer must not certify work not within his expertise.3.4 An engineer must not accept site supervisory staff who are not qualified or are incompetent.3.5 An engineer must not delay approvals without justification.3.6 An engineer must not intentionally delay inspection of works.

    4) Regulatory RequirementsAll engineers registered with the Board of Engineers Malaysia must be familiar with the requirements of theRegistration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138) and its subsequent amendments. Ignorance of the requirements ofthis Act is no defense in the Courts of Law in Malaysia.

    DOs4.1 An engineer should notify the relevant authorities (within reasonable/statutory time limit) on changes in designs or withdrawal of services.4.2 An engineer should submit completed forms in time for inspection and approval for Certificate of Fitness / Certificate of Completion and Compliance.4.3 An engineer should be aware of environmental, health and safety matters during and after construction.4.4 An engineer should ensure that environmental, health and safety measures are implemented as per drawings and specifications.

    DONTs4.1 An engineer should not allow works to proceed before plans are submitted to and/or approved by the relevant authorities.4.2 An engineer should not undertake a project for which the client is not going to fulfill statutory requirements.

    5) Code of EthicsAll engineers are expected to uphold the integrity of the profession by behaving in a manner expected of himin the Code of Conduct of Engineers.

    DOs5.1 An engineer must be conversant with the Code of Conduct of Engineers.5.2 An engineer must understand the need for responsibility and liability as stipulated in the Code of Conduct.5.3 An engineer must respond promptly to complaints and enquiries by clients /authorities.

    DONTs5.1 An engineer should not solicit/ tout.5.2 An engineer should not knowingly mislead the public by giving misrepresented information so as to gain commercial advantage/mileage.5.3 An engineer should not respond to an open advertisement to bid for provision of professional service if such provision for the service requires bidding fees or equivalent

    as is usually imposed on contractors.5.4 An engineer should avoid favoritism among vendors and other suppliers.

    These guidelines are by no means exhaustive and will be updated from time to time to reflect the changing needs of the profession. All engineers are required to be fully familiar with the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138), and its subsequent amendments, and the Code of Ethics. The requirements of this Act are to be upheld at all times by the engineering profession. BEM

  • The Certificate Of Completion And Compliance In The Building Industry - Bugbear Or Bunkum?

    This paper was presented on November 28, 2007 at the talk organised jointly by The Malaysian Bar Council, The Society of Construction Law (SCL) and The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Malaysia).

    By Ir. Harbans Singh K.S.Chartered Engineer, Professional Engineer, Advocate & Solicitor (Non-Practising) and Sundra RajooChartered Arbitrator, Advocate & Solicitor, Architect and Town Planner (Non-Practising)

    engineering & law

    (Part 2)



    Promoters Deny That There Is Change In Liabilities

    With the move towards self-certification, it is inevitable that there is a parallel shift in liabilities away from the local authorities to the professionals, in particular, the PSP. Although the promoters of the CCC and the respective professional organisations vehemently deny there is any change in the responsibility or liability of the PSP as compared with the previous CFO regime (see Q10, CCC FAQ,, it is an undeniable fact, as distilled from the various amendments to the applicable laws, that the duties and obligations of the PSP have become more onerous.

    Liabilities Under The Previous CFO Procedure

    Under t he prev ious CFO procedure, the liabilities were split between the developer or vendor, qualified person and the local authorities as follows: Apartment buildings

  • The failure of the developer to ensure that the building works were contracted out and/or completed in time owing to any of his other defaults (for e.g. failure to pay the contractor or the professionals on time, etc) and/or his obligations under the various approvals were met (for e.g., under the Building Plan Approval which caused a delay in the issue of the CFO) opened him up to a cause of action in breach of contract to the various purchasers e.g. under the Sale and Purchase Agreement (though absolving the other parties involved i.e. the local authorities and the qualified person in the process).

    The qualified person carried a multitude of liabilities anyway; these being categorised under civil liability, statutory liability and professional liability:-

    Civil Liability With regard to the first category,

    the qualified person owed a duty of care both under his professional services agreement and the law of tort to his employer to ensure that the works were properly supervised (see Dr Abdul Hamid Rashid & Anor v Jurusan Malaysia Consultants & 4 Ors [1997] 4 MLJ 243), the works had been executed in accordance with the applicable laws and by-laws and that Form E had been certified and issued to the local authority concerned on time.

    Breach of the said duty of care would presumably have also made him liable to third parties such as the purchasers, lenders, etc. under the tort of negligence (see Chin Sin Motor Works Sdn Bhd v Arosa Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 23). More often than not, this head of liability was usually covered under the

    Professional Indemnity Insurance taken by most qualified persons.

    Statutory Liability Pe r t a in ing t o t he second

    category of the qualified persons statutory liability this was confined only to wrongful or fraudulent certification of the Form E. For wrongful certification, it merely attracted a monetary sanction in the form of a nominal fine under the UBBL and SBDA (see By-law 26, UBBL and section 127, SBDA). Fraudulent certification, if there were criminal elements involved, could presumably have attracted a custodial sentence under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), but in practice was hardly the case.

    Professional Liability On a professional level, if a

    disciplinary offence could have been established arising out of the qualified persons certification process, then the professional involved could have been fined or suspended depending on the gravity of the offence and in a very serious scenario, his registration cancelled (for e.g. see sections 15(1), 25,

    Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Rev. 1987)).

    Local Authorities Immune From Suit

    Where the local authority was the defaulting party, there was little recourse for the innocent developers and/or purchasers, as protection against suit had been statutori ly given to the local authorities and its officers for personal liability under the SDBA (see sections 95(1) and (2), SDBA). This has been reaffirmed by the Federal Court in the celebrated but much criticized judgment of Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2006] 6 MLJ 389 and appears to be the prevailing law (recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in UDA Holdings Bhd v Koperasi Pasaraya Malaysia Bhd [2007] 6 MLJ 530 ).

    Hence, any delay in the issue of the CFO would only have made the qualified person and/or the developer directly liable to the contracting parties and the affected third parties. Be that as it may, the sanctions on these defaulting parties



    engineering & law

  • were mainly of a commercial nature and rarely if ever of a custodial form. Since in most instances, the principal defaulting party was the local authority, the parties generally had little or no recourse to it, except for the occasional chest-beating and moaning, as an impregnable shield of statutory provisions and apparently jaundiced decisions of the lofty pinnacles of the palaces of justice seamlessly protected it.

    Liabilities Under The New CCC Procedure

    Local Authorities Now Have Additional Powers The new CCC procedure, though

    shifting the administrative and legal burdens onto the shoulders of the PSP, nevertheless, through the various amendments to the respective Acts and by-laws clothe the local authority with additional powers but without the attendant liabilities.

    These amendments, as a start, empower the local authority with an all-encompassing right to ensure that the construction of the buildings conform to the approved plans and the provisions of the SBDA and any by-law made there under (see section 70(22) SBDA (Amendment) Act 2007).

    Power To Require PSP To Comply

    If it appears to the local authority that non-compliance with the approved plans and provisions of the SBDA or any by-laws made thereunder by the PSP has occurred, it may issue to the PSP a notice in writing requiring compliance within the period specified in the notice as it thinks fit in order that the non-compliance be rectified and a directive in writing to withhold the issuance of the CCC until such non-

    compliance has been rectified (see section 70(23) SBDA (Amendment) Act 2007). If the PSP fails to comply with the directive given, the local authority may itself cause any work to be executed or any measure to be taken if it considers such work or measure necessary to rectify the non-compliance (see section 70(211) SBDA (Amendment) Act 2007). The cost of executing such work or taking such measure shall be borne by the owner of the building (see section 70(25) SBDA (Amendment) Act 2007).

    Local Authori t ies St i l l Immune From Suit These amendments do not

    derogate the existing immunities given to the local authority and i ts officers against suit either statutorily, or per the relevant j ud ic i a l pronouncemen t s as adverted to hereinbefore (see section 97, SBDA). Hence, the sum total of these is that the local authority carries little or no liability whatsoever should the CCC process be flawed and the ultimate certificate delayed or wrongly or negligently or fraudulently issued.

    Neither the developer nor third parties such as purchasers, lenders, etc. can look to the local authority for any remedy or recourse, save perhaps for a claim for economic loss premised on the local authorities breach of the applicable statutory duties i.e. if the Court of Appeals recent judgment in the case of UDA Holdings Bhd v Koperasi Pasaraya Malaysia Bhd [2007] 6 MLJ 530 at 561 were to be sustained.

    No Change Of Liabilities For Developer

    As for the developer, owner or vendor, there is no marked change in liabilities either to the

    purchasers/third parties, or to the authorities, although the sanctions to any breaches of the amended statutory provisions and/or by-laws carry heavier fines and, in rare situations a custodial sentence.

    PSP Has More Liabilities The bulk of the l iabi l i t ies

    apparently fall on the professionals i.e. the PSP. With regard to his s tatutory l iabi l i ty, the recent amendments to the relevant laws and in particular the SDBA, impose additional duties and responsibilities with attendant sanctions which are heavier in terms of nature and content for e.g. custodial/penal in certain instances (see section 70(27) SBDA (Amendment) Act 2007 where an imprisonment of up to 10 years may be imposed where the PSP permits to be occupied any building without a CCC to be occupied.

    Liabilities Arising From CCC Issued Wrongly

    Under these new amendments, if a person who is not the PSP issues a CCC; or if the CCC is issued without all the relevant forms prescribed by the by-laws made under the SBDA; or issues a CCC in contravention of a direction given by the local authority to withhold such issuance pending rectification of any non-compliance; knowingly makes or produces or causes to be made any false or fraudulent declaration, certificate, application or representation of any form prescribed in any by-laws made under the SBDA knowing the declaration, certificate, application or representation has been forged, altered or counterfeited; or permits to be occupied any building or any part of a building without a CCC shall be liable or conviction to a fine not exceeding RM250,000 or


    engineering & law

  • to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or both (see section 70(27)(a) to (f), SBDA (Amendment) Act 2007).

    Liabilities Arising From Failing To Deposit CCC Furthermore under the amended

    UBBL, where the PSP fails to deposit a copy of the CCC or PCCC (as the case may be) and the Forms G1 to G21 within the period stipulated in by-law 25(3) with the local authority and the Board of Architects, Malaysia or Board of Engineers, Malaysia (as the case may be); or fails to comply with the notice issued by the local authority in respect of the rectification of any failure to the building or non-compliance with the by-law 25(4), shall be guilty of an offence (see By-law 28(1), UBBL (Amendment) 2007).

    Liabilities Of PSP Under Other Laws

    The PSP carries further liabilities under other laws that have been amended , in par t i cu la r, the Housing Development (Control

    and Licensing) Act 1966 ( the HDA). Under Section 22F of the HDA, any architect or engineer, as the case may be, who issues a progress certification knowing that the works therein referred to have not been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Sale and Purchase agreement, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine which shall not be less than RM10,000 but shall not exceed RM100,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.

    PSP Open To Disciplinary Action

    Quite apart from the statutory liability adverted to hereinbefore, the PSP, being a professional, may a l s o b e s u b j e c t e d t o disciplinary action by the Board of Architects, Malaysia or the Board of Engineers, Malaysia as the case may be (see sections 17 to 19, the Architects (Amendment) Act 2007), etc. Should there be wrongful or negligent or false certification by the PSP of the CCC or any other disciplinary offence

    committed by the PSP in the process of implementing the CCC procedure, under the Architects Act 1967 (Amendment) Act 2007 or Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Amendment) Act 2007, these professional bodies are empowered to investigate and take the necessary disciplinary action against him (for e.g. under Parts IV and V; sections 17 to 19, the Architects (Amendment) Act 2007).

    Regulatory Bodies Can Impose Heavier Penalties The relevant regulatory bodies

    concerned can mete out heavier penalties in the form of bigger fines, longer periods of suspension of registration and even custodial sen tences ( see sec t ions 7A, 5(d), 24 and 25, Registration of Engineers (Amendment) Act 2007). As part of the self-policing or self-regulating obligation, these professional bodies have been given more clout in the process and ultimately the sanctions they can mete out for disciplinary breaches and offences committed


    engineering & law

    Housing estate

  • under the respective Acts by a professional of the like of PSP. Presumably, there are avenues for interested and affected parties such as purchasers , lenders , etc. and even developers to lodge direct complaints against errant PSPs with the respective professional boards.

    Liabilities Not The Same As Under Previous CFO Regime At first blush, the PSP carries

    similar responsibilities and liabilities as the qualified person in the previous CFO regime in terms of civil liability. However, it is in fact far from the truth in practice. No doubt that the PSP still owes a duty of care both in contract and the law of the tort to his employer; breach of which would incur similar consequential ramifications but in practice this is not the case.

    PSP Has More Administrative Obligations Under the CCC procedure, the

    PSP has much more administrative obligations to perform vis--vis the other building professionals namely, mechanical & electrical engineers and quant i ty surveyors , main contractors, trade/subcontractors, etc. to ensure that s tatutori ly prescribed Forms G1 to G21 are duly signed/endorsed, collated and checked before the CCC is issued, quite apart from his personal duty to supervise the construction process.

    PSP Reliant On Employer For Help

    Having no direct contractual control over such parties, to fulfill his statutory liability especially in regard to the Forms G1 G21, the PSP has to look to the employer for help in sanctioning del inquent or di la tory th i rd

    parties so that the CCC procedure is not derailed. Hence, though ultimately directly liable to his employer, the scope of his duty of care is considerably wider with more duties and liabilities.

    PSP Liable To Other Interested Parties Furthermore, as for the previous

    CFO regime, the PSP is potentially liable to other interested parties such as purchasers, lenders, etc. for any breach in his duties vis--vis the issue of the CCC. Here again he can be subjected to cla ims under the to r t of negligence; a very real possibility in view of the PSP undertaking self-certification. In the event of either the non-issue or late issue of the CFO under the previous procedure, aggr ieved par t ies rarely ever proceeded against the local authority concerned as the latter was protected by immunities granted statutorily and under the relevant case law.

    PSP Has No Immunity However, under the CCC

    procedure, since the PSP has no such immunity, many an aggrieved party would be tempted to proceed against him either directly or as a joint defendant with the developer or vendor under the law of tort should he defaul t in his prescr ibed certification duties. It is even more likely when the PSP is seen to have deep pockets and/or is adequately covered by a Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy. The sum total of which would be the opening up of the flood-gates of cases much to the detriment of the professionals, however more to the benefit of long suffering aggrieved parties such as purchasers.


    Although much touted as the ult imate solut ion to the contemporary inef f icient and unsavory CFO regime, the CCC procedure in its current form, nevertheless is far from perfect and suffers from a host of deficiencies, vary ing f rom mere ly t r iv ia l shortcomings at one end of the spectrum right up to very serious lacunae that may render the procedure in practice a minefield of disputes and claims.

    CCC Procedure Does Not Resolve Non-Technical Issues

    For a start, the very core of the CCC procedure is only meant to deal with technical issues such as health, safety and essential services within the ambit of the PSPs scope of responsibility. Non-technical issues have to be resolved between the developer/vendor and the local authority concerned, initially at the planning and building approval stage, or through other suitable mechanisms to be worked out between the parties.

    It is feared that once the CCC has been issued and vacant possession given to the developer/vendor, there is no effective means for the local authority to ensure that the former meets his obligations vis--vis the relevant non-technical issues. This is a serious lacuna that needs to be addressed forthwith. Furthermore, just l ike in the previous CFO regime, quality problems in the finished project are not a matter that can preclude the issuance of the CCC. These have to be resolved at a different forum, perhaps, as a cause of action in breach of contract or tort of negligence through arbitration or litigation.


    engineering & law

  • Lack Of Flexibility In Implementation

    It is a recognised fact that in the implementation of a typical building project, owing to changes in circumstances occurring during the duration of the project cycle (which in some instances can span a good number of years), there may be a need to undertake a review of technical and non-technical conditions imposed by the Local Authorities as part of the Building Plan Approval process. Under the previous CFO procedure, the Local Authorities as the ultimate issuers of the relevant CFOs, had the necessary power to review these conditions prior to the issue of the CFOs and, in some cases, grant waivers, exemptions or dispensations as necessary.

    With self-certification, the PSP has no such power, even in regard to the technical conditions. For non-technical conditions, perhaps, the Local Authorities still retain some residual power as to the same but its ambit appears to be unclear. Hence, the sum total of this is that the new regime does not afford the flexibility that is so essential to building projects which are subjected to vagaries and ever-changing circumstances over their lifespan from initial approval to ultimate realisation.

    Consultants Site Supervisors Not Included In CCC Procedure

    Another area of concern is non-inclusion of the consultants site supervisors from the matrix of responsibility. It is an undeniable fact in pract ice that the s i te supervisors play a crucial role during the execution and construction stage of a building. They are the

    eyes & ears of the respective consultants who often are able to provide only nominal or part-time supervision. The latter rely heavily on such site staff in carrying out the ultimate certification.

    To leave these key personnel out of the matrix of responsibility waters down the very essence of the CCC procedure which is to make all parties inclusive of the PSP fully responsible and accountable for their respective scope of works. Not only should such parties be included in the matrix of responsibility but steps should be immediately initiated to have them properly registered and regulated either by the particular professional board or the Construction Industry Development Board (in short the CIDB), as appropriate.

    Matrix Of Responsibility Not Effective

    Furthermore, the instant matrix of responsibility appears to be hastily constituted without having sorted out its effectiveness as to its enforceability. No doubt the professionals are well registered

    and r e gu l a t ed t h rough t h e Registration of Engineers Act 1967 and the Architects Act 1967, the same cannot be said of the other parties involved in the matrix of responsibility e.g. contractors, sub-contractors, etc. It is the current practice for the CIDB to only license contractors under the Construction Industry Development Board Act 1994, but not to regulate their conduct or practice.

    Contractors Are Not Statutorily Regulated

    For the CCC procedure to have a proper bite, all such part ies , not only contractors should also be statutorily regulated in terms of their registration, conduct and practice; breaches of their obligation being statutorily penalised as for the professionals instead of merely being subject to commercial penalties as is the present practice. Under the current procedure, breaches of such parties obligations vis--vis the matrix is met merely by the developer or vendor withholding payments contractually


    engineering & law

    New houses for sale

  • due, imposing l iquidated and ascertained damages (LAD), etc. In this area, much work needs to be undertaken by the authorities to cure this deficiency, and this has to be expedited, as the CCC procedure is already officially in place as of April 12, 2007.

    Possible Conflict Of Interest Of PSP And Developers

    Particular professionals and the developers/vendors have apparently welcomed the launch of the CCC procedure. On the other hand, the public at large would be justified to view this new procedure with suspicion and cynicism as it is tainted with a potential for conflict of interest between the PSP and the developers/vendors.

    As the developers/vendors in all instances would be the ultimate paymasters of the PSP, there could be instances when developer/vendors would use arm-twisting tactics or economic duress to ensure that the CCC is issued, perhaps prematurely so as to obviate developers/vendors from defaulting from their obligations of delivering the buildings on time. The PSP will be under considerable pressure in such circumstances. Such conflict of interest can only be overcome if the law imposing the more onerous statutory and disciplinary penalties is enforced without fear or favour and the liabilities more evenly distributed among the various parties. It is not clear if that will be the case in practice.

    Professional Bodies Disciplinary Proceedings

    On the other hand, professional bodies have pointed to the recent strengthening of the disciplinary

    proceedings vis--vis any complaint pertaining to breach of the CCC procedure as an answer to the publics fears. However, this has not attempted to assuage any of the concerns of the public as they tend to view the disciplinary proceedings, even after the amendments, as a mere internal process comprising the oft suspected old-boys club of a self-serving nature, of which such professionals are perceived as helping each other.

    Poor Conduct Of Disciplinary Proceedings

    This content ion i s fu r ther r e i n f o r c e d by t h e c u r r e n t unsatisfactory state of disciplinary proceedings conducted by such professional bodies. There i s hardly any publicity surrounding the number of pro fess iona l s charged and disciplined or having proceedings initiated against them. The popular perception is that the professionals, having been given the statutory power to self-police their profession, will be merely paying lip service to the disciplinary provisions and more often than not sweeping complaints under the carpet.

    Need For Transparency In Disciplinary Proceedings

    Here there is a need for the authorities and the professional bodies concerned to undertake a two-pronged strategy at both educating the public at large on their rights and also making the disciplinary proceedings fair and transparent instead of shrouding these in a veil of secrecy. Perhaps a cue should be taken from the legal profession where there is active lay participation in the disciplinary proceedings and a proper reporting

    of its proceedings from the initial filing of a compliant right up to its ultimate resolution.

    Need For Independent Complaints Body

    For this to be effective, there must be a positive political will on the part of authorities and the respective professional boards to reassure the public at large that all complaints are properly investigated and fairly heard in a transparent manner so that the rules of natural justice are not infringed. If public confidence cannot be restored by such mechanisms, it will then be imperative for the authorities to set up an independent auditing body to provide the necessary checks and balances on complaints aris ing f rom the cert i f icat ion undertaken by the PSP (see Azlinor Sufian, Certificate of Completion & Compliance: Towards Sel f -Certi f ication in the Malaysian Housing Industry. The Law Review 2007 at p. 211)

    PSPs Remuneration Need To Be Increased

    On a s e p a r a t e no t e , a s the profess ional carr ies sole responsibility for the issue of the CCC, which also entai l s additional duties and obligations, it is inevitable that there should be a commensurate increase in the quantum of professional fee that he should be remunerated with.

    Notwithstanding the assurances given by the authorities and the professional bodies that there will be no additional premiums to be paid by the ultimate purchasers with the implementation of the new CCC procedure, in all fairness this one-sided policy cannot be realised in practice as it is a mere commercial


    engineering & law

  • myth. Whatever is intended and has been said, the reality is that the professional fee has to be increased in tandem with the additional and more onerous duties and liabilities shouldered by the professional of the like of the PSP.

    It is high time that all parties inc lus ive of the author i t ies , developers/vendors and interested parties like purchasers and lenders accept this inevitable reality and give effect to it. Based on such premise, it is the duty of the respective professional boards to ensure that the scale of fees for such professional services is accordingly adjusted to provide a fair and reasonable remuneration to the PSP for his unduly onerous responsibilities and liabilities; failing which many a professional, save, perhaps for the ignorant or altruistic ones, will be deterred from undertaking the role of the PSP, thereby compromising the very purpose and objectives of this new building delivery process.

    Professional Indemnity Insurance

    Professionals, on the other hand, must carefully weigh the risks and rewards of the CCC procedure and make both a political/professional and commercial decision before agreeing to undertake it. As the likelihood of having monetary claims, possibly a multitude, if purchasers of a housing scheme are involved, made against the PSP is relatively higher with the CCC regime, it would be prudent for the PSP to procure adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance, although it is not mandatory at the moment. He should be prepared to pay the premiums involved and if he is not able to recover these as part of his professional

    fees, he must be ready to absorb these at no additional cost to his employer.

    Limitations Of Professional Indemnity Insurance

    However, he has to be cautioned on two consequential matters. Firstly, the Professional Indemnity Insurance policy may only partly cover him for any claim sustained against him depending on the quantum of cover and the presence of any excess clause; he being liable for the balance. A body corporate will have to pay it from its coffers. However, if it is a partnership or a sole proprietorship then personal liability will be the order of the day. Secondly, the Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy may serve as a double-edged sword; for the presence of such a policy may inevitably attract more claims as he is then perceived to have deep pockets and, therefore a capacity to meet such claims. Hence, these matters have to be well thought of and addressed appropriately prior to the acceptance of the role of a PSP.

    PSP Face Practical Problems In Collating Forms

    Be that as it may, the PSP has another insurmountable hurdle to overcome on a more practical level. The recent amendments to the SBDA make him solely statutorily l iable for ensuring that all the relevant Forms G1-G21 are properly collated and endorsed prior to the issue of the CCC and submitted together with the Form F to the authorities and the professional board concerned within 14 days of the issue of the CCC (see section 70(27) SBDA

    (Amendment) Act 2007, By-law 25(3) UBBL (Amendment) 2007).

    PSP Has No Direct Contracts With Named Parties

    Since the PSP has no direct contracts with the parties named in the Forms G1 to G21, i.e. the other consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, etc, he carries liability apparently vicariously for these parties without having any control or power in the event of their default or omission to act. He has to look to the developer/vendor as the employer of such parties and their ultimate paymaster to sanction them for any of their defaults/omissions (if proven) to ensure that the said Forms G1-G21 could meet the requirements necessary for the issuance of the CCC.

    Standard Forms Of Contracts Need To Be Amended

    This obl igat ion has to be expressly provided for in the various contracts between the employer and these parties. Currently none of the so-called Standard Forms of Conditions of Contract have such stipulations included (for e.g. PAM 1998 and 2006 Forms; CIDB 2000 Form; IEM CEI/89 Form, etc). To give clout to the enforcement of the CCC procedure, it is imperative for all the said contracts to be suitably amended or have custom-made clauses to be drafted and expressly incorporated into the terms of such contracts.

    Possible Contractual Sanctions In Case Of Default

    These provisions should not only spell out in clear terms the procedure to be adopted but also the contractual sanctions that may


    engineering & law

  • be imposed in the event of a default/breach e.g. withholding of payment due, deduction of liquidated and ascertained damages, holding back of the Certificate of Completion, etc.

    Back-To-Back Indemnity Provisions

    Such a mechanism may not relieve the PSP of his statutory liability but will certainly help to ameliorate the extent of his civil liability. Taken a bit further, to help in lessening his civil liability to third parties arising out of the breaches/defaults of the other contracting parties for e.g. delay in endorsing the Forms G1 to G21, also, wrongful and negligent certification, the PSP can insist on having indemnity provisions on a back-to-back basis built into the contracts of all such parties or, failing which he may join them as co-defendants in the event of any litigation. Here the input of the construction lawyers is crucial and the positive co-operation of the developer/vendor essential.


    CCC Procedure Is Radical Change

    The CCC procedure is a radical change in the building industry. It is aimed at removing the perennial complaints of delay in the issuance of the CFO by shifting the responsibility of certifying completion from the administratively inefficient and compromised local authorities to the professionals. On the face, it seems a bold step. Whether it helps to make the building delivery system transparent and efficient is an open verdict.


    Virtues Of CCC Oversold

    Exponents and promoters of this new building delivery system have grown hoarse in singing its praises and extolling its virtues. We believe that the virtues have been apparently over-sold as the ultimate solution to the woeful situation that is currently pervading the construction industry vis--vis the authorities especially towards the tail end of a typical building project.

    Need To Address Deficiencies

    However, the real picture is not all that rosy. It is time to take stock. The CCC regime does have a number of deficiencies and limitations that are material in nature. If these deficiencies are not invest igated and addressed in time, they can potentially compromise and dera i l t he ve ry object the CCC was meant to overcome. We have attempted to highlight some of the areas of c o n c e r n a n d proposed certain s o l u t i o n s t h a t may be possibly adopted.

    It is now left to the various parties involved in the delivery system i.e. the Government, the local authorities, the professionals, developers/vendors, contractors, sub-contractors, etc. to take stock of the situation and objectively review

    it and rectify its deficiencies. It should be implemented with some sensibility to avoid claims, wastage, disputes and litigation f a i l i ng which i t shou ld be scrapped in lieu of a procedure, which allocates risk according to appropriate parties ability to shoulder responsibilities and liabilities. Just because the local authorities are generally perceived to be inefficient does not mean that their core responsibilities be shifted to building professionals. It is not clear if such an approach will reduce the rising plethora of claims and complaints. In the final analysis, it is for the public at large to be the ultimate judge as to its effectiveness as they were stated to be the main beneficiaries for which the CCC procedure was mooted in the first place.


    H O T L I N E : 6 0 3 - 2 1 7 1 1 5 6 3 / 4


    NEW ZEALAND Live, Work & Study indefinitely Free Education for children & adults Free Medical Care for whole family Excellent social & unemployment payment Retirement payment Dual Nationality


    D-9-3, Megan Avenue 1, No. 189, Jalan Tun Razak,50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

    Tel: 603-21711563/

    Fax: 603-21711560ec@emigration-center.com42 THE INGENIEUR

    engineering & law

  • By Ir. Liaw Yew Peng

    during the Second World War.

    The availabil i ty of a s i te doctor, trained nurses and hospital assistants together with two ambulances and emergency medical supplies and equipment at the two nearby site hospitals, one in Habu and the other in Jor.

    The availability of manpower and machine, both heavy and light together with search lights and generators etc.

    A Recollection Of 1961 Landslide, Cameron Highlands


    of the victims were young children and the elderly. The majority suffered injuries. The main reasons were:

    Many of the able residents were out at work at their farms or at the nearby construction site at that fateful hour.

    The presence of foreigners like the Germans and the British technical staff who were all well trained in using first aid facilities and rescue work


    A t about 3.45 in the afternoon of May 11, 1961 a huge chunk of a high mountain behind the Ringlet village, Cameron Highlands came crushing down like a thunderbolt and buried almost the entire township of about 120 residents. The Authority said it was the heavy rain during the past week that caused the whole slope of the mountain to crumble but some villagers blamed a developer who was clearing the jungle at the top for a housing project.

    We, a big group of foreign and local engineers with technical supporting staff and workers were building the nearby Ringlet Falls Dam in Bertam Valley heard the tragic news at about 4.00pm. Our Chief Engineer, Mr Campbell and the German Project Manager, Mr Beck immediately mobilised their machines and manpower and any equipment that we could use to the tragic site to do the rescue work. I was one of them and was shocked to see that all the familiar timber houses and the shops had disappeared. They were buried under a huge pile of boulders, lateritic soils, mud, and debris. This dreadful scene still remains in my mind until today!

    Fortunately, by the grace of God only a small number of the residents lost their lives, but most

    Photo 1 - Taken at night on May 11, 1961. Photo taken by Mr Chew Yit Fong of Snow Ball Foto, Tanah Rata.Rescue workers were searching for victims throughout the night. Staff and workers of Joint Venture Hochtief A G & Philipp Holzmann A G Germany and CRE Cameron Highlands Hydro Electric Project were seen helping the rescue operations to find victims buried under the thick layer of earth and debris.



    Almost immediately, a few teams of men with the help of machines such as bulldozers, shovels and trucks were formed to do the search and rescue work. At the same time, first aid stations were set up and manned by a site doctor and trained personnel, and search lights were installed to help in the rescue work. Within minutes man and machine were busy removing all the injured victims from the disastrous site for treatment at the first aid station before sending them to hospitals in Tanah Rata, Tapah or Ipoh depending on the degree of their injuries.

    Although the landslide had wreaked havoc in the lives of the residents, many of them were thankful to our rescue teams. Even YB Tan Siew Sin who visited the site at about 9.30 pm was full of praise for our good work. At about midnight the rescue operation was called off when all the missing people were accounted for. The last count we had was six dead and 31 injured. Among them, 17 were seriously injured but eventually survived.

    Photo 2 - May 12, 1961The Landslide from the top of the mountain behind Ringlet Town. Almost the whole township and houses below the mountain including part of the Tapah/C.H main road were buried. A lucky house could be seen standing in solitude on the right corner of the photo! Houses at the opposite side of Sg Ringlet valley were unaffected.

    Photo 3 - May 12, 1961A general view of the landslide from the opposite side of the Sg Ringlet valley. Many curious onlookers were seen standing on the main road gazing with awe at the magnitude of the landslide.

    Photo 4 - May 12, 1961On the second day, workers and machine from the PWD were clearing the spoils and debris from the ill-fated site and many Ringlet residents were seen searching or looking for their lost belongings and valuables!

    Note: Photos 2, 3 and 4 were taken by Ir. Liaw Yew Peng of CRE Office. BEM

  • FAQs On Certificate Of Completion And Compliance


    The two-day Conference to improve the delivery system of Government services - to improve the development processes as well as property management, held at Sunway Lagoon Hotel Ballroom, was launched by the Hon. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on April 13, 2007. The issuance of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) by professionals was launched on the same day.

    1. When do the new laws enabling professional Architects/ Engineers to issue CCC come into force?

    The CCC system came into force effective April 12, 2007.

    2. What does this mean?

    The CCC replaces the Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) previously issued by the local authority (PBT). The CCC is issued by the projects Principal Submitting Person (PSP) who is a Professional Architect, Professional Engineer or a Registered Building Draughtsman.

    3. What is the reason for the Government to implement this change?

    It is the Governments view that CCC will cut down red-tape and ensure that house buyers and building owners get to move in as quickly as possible without compromising their safety. This is consistent with the Governments desire to encourage self-regulation, which was introduced in the National Economy Growth Planning strategy to continuously enhance the delivery system. Previously, a Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) was issued by the local authority after it has received Form E (UKBS) which is an application for the issuance of the CFO. This system posed many problems, such as delay in certification by technical agencies, additional conditions imposed by PBT at the time of CFO application and lack of technical officers to process the CFO. It is to be noted that CCC will only address technical aspects and so far as these are complied with and there is no apparent threat to health and safety issues, then CCC can be issued.

    4. What then is the role of PBT?

    The PBT will receive, process and approve planning permission and building plans (under a more efficient and expeditious regime of OSC that was launched on the same date by the Hon. Prime Minister). PBT can also authorise site inspection on their own initiative or act on complaints to check the works in progress, issue a notice (in writing and through the OSC) to the PSP not to issue the CCC if breaches and divergence are not rectified, take action to rectify any continuous breach or divergence including reporting to Professional Boards. The PSP can rectify changes or variations either by complying on site or in the form of as-built drawings.

    Compiled by Ir. Chen Thiam Leong


  • 5. Can CCC be issued for projects with Building Plan approved before April 12, 2007?

    No, CCC can only be issued for projects that have obtained their Building Plan approvals after April 12, 2007. This is because under the new CCC system, a responsibility process matrix is introduced. Each construction process needs to be verified by professionals and contractors or trade contractors. Twenty-one stage certification forms need to be endorsed along the entire process. These are included as new schedules (Form Gs) under the revised UKBS 1984 (Amendment) 2007 (Uniform Building By-Laws).

    6. What must be done for a project that has already obtained building plan approval to come under CCC?

    The building plan must be resubmitted for approval under the new (CCC) system. Projects where works have commenced on site will not be able to use the new CCC system.

    7. Can a CCC be issued if any or several of the Forms Gs are not certified by the stated parties?

    No. The PSP must ensure that all Form Gs are duly filled and certified and all the conditions have been fulfilled before CCC can be issued. Failure to comply is a serious offence. It is advisable to ensure that CIDB registered contractors and licensed tradesmen (e.g. electrician and plumber) are informed of their obligations as early as possible from the time of tender and award of works, and their respective certification is obtained immediately upon satisfactory completion of their respective scope of works. It is not prudent to leave all such certification to the end of the project or just when the PSP is about ready to issue the CCC.

    8. What are the conditions, certification, or clearances required before a PSP can issue the CCC?

    The project works need to be completed in accordance with the approved Building Plans (or subsequent revised approved building plans or as-built plans) and the PSP has supervised the works accordingly. All Form Gs are duly filled and certified, clearances and or confirmation of supply/connection to six essential services department TNB (confirmation of electricity supply), water authorities (confirmation of water supply), JPP (confirmation of connection to sewage treatment plant or mains), JKKP (clearance from factories and machinery department for lifts if applicable), Bomba (clearance for active fire fighting systems except for residential buildings not more than 18 m height), and Roads & Drainage department. With these clearances in place, the PSP can then issue the CCC.

    9. What are the tasks required of the professional as the PSP?

    The PSPs task is to :- prepare and present planning and building plans to the PBT for approval- inform PBT of the commencement of construction works on site- supervise construction works at site and ensure that laws and technical conditions of the PBT are

    followed- report any building breaches, explain reasons of breach and perform recovery action in the event of

    breach during construction- present work-resumption notice to the PBT- ensure Form Gs are duly certified at the various stages of works- issue CCC to the owner upon satisfactory completion of the works and obtaining clearances or

    confirmation from the six essential service departments- present a copy of the CCC (together with all Form Gs) to the PBT and the Professional Board within

    14 days of its issuance



  • 10. There seems to be a lot more things that the PSP has to do. Is there any change to the level of responsibility required of the PSP?

    There is no change to the responsibility or liability on the PSP as under the old system the PSP was already fully liable and responsible for the entire project even though the PBT approved it and issued the CFO for it. There could be an increase in the tasks involved such as the need to compile the 21 Form Gs under the matrix of responsibility. However this process helps to identify and call to attention the various parties responsible in the complex delivery process of buildings today. The CIDB registered contractor and licensed specialist trade contractors will now be called upon to take responsibility for their respective portion of works. There is however, possible time saved from previously having to attend to the submitting of Form E and applying for the CFO.

    11. What other changes will CCC bring?

    The CCC system also ensures that Vacant Possession (VP) can be issued together with CCC. This will overcome problems previously associated with CFO where homebuyers receive the house keys (upon submission of Form E) but cannot move into the houses because the CFO has not been issued. With the introduction of the matrix of responsibility (Form Gs), there will also be an improvement in the accountability and responsibility aspect as action can be taken on the responsible party in the event of failure or flaws in the building. Thus, work quality can improve.

    12. Are there any changes to the regulation of the PSPs?

    All professionals are reminded of their responsibility and role to protect the community and the profession. There is no reason for any professional to succumb to pressure by any party to flaunt the independent certifying role that has been entrusted to the profession. Professionals must carry out their duties with due care and diligence and together with the other parties including fellow professionals and the registered contractors, ensure that CCC works for the good of all.

    As there is great need to strengthen the professionals ability to supervise works on site, the professional boards are working with the Ministry of Works and the CIDB to upgrade and regulate the important role of site staff / Clerk of Works.

    There are increased penalties for offences. Under the amendment to the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133), the penalty for the offence of not abiding by the orders of PBT is increased for general penalty and includes imprisonment for term not exceeding three years and a fine of up to RM10,000. Under the Uniform Building By-Laws, the parties that issue Form Gs and CCC without complying with the provision of the Acts can be sued and reported to the controlling professional bodies. Both the Architects Act 1967 (Act 117), Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138) have been revised to provide for stricter disciplinary action on professionals by increasing fines, extending the duration of membership suspension and cancellation of membership.

    13. What is the implication if a PSP passes away or is not contactable after issuance of CCC?

    The responsibility and liability for the safety of the building whether it is during construction or after it is completed, lies with the submitting person as per Section 71 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act, and this remains unchanged for both the old CFO or the new CCC system. Under the CCC system, a




    matrix of responsibility is put in place by means of stage certification (Form Gs), by the respective parties to ensure responsibility and accountability of all parties involved. The matrix of responsibility is also to introduce check and balance and to minimize risk. The situation is similar to the old CFO system which allows another PSP to be appointed to take over the project with the approval of the PBT. The owner or developer will need to appoint a new PSP and the new PSP who takes over shall resume all liability and responsibility.

    14. Does the PBT owe a duty of care to ensure that the building constructed is safe and suitable to be occupied?

    The PBT still has a duty of care under common law to ensure that the building constructed is safe and suitable for occupation. Under the new CCC system, the PBT still has a role and responsibility in the process of issuance of CCC as per sub-section 70 (23) and (24) of Street, Drainage and Building Act. The PBT is also empowered under Section 85A of the Act to direct inspection to be carried out on the building by the owner 10 years after CCC has been issued for the said building.

    15. Can civil action be taken against the PBT?

    Aggrieved parties can take any civil actions against the PBT. However, the PBT is given immunity under Section 95(2) of Street, Drainage and Building Act.

    16. Does the PSP need to submit Form G1 to G4 in stages to the PBT for their information or should these be submitted only when the PSP issues Form F (CCC) together with all the Forms G1 to 21?

    Based on provision of the UBBL, there is no requirement to submit Form G1-G4 to the PBT earlier or separately, as all the 21 Form Gs are only required to be attached with Form F/F1. However, at a recent meeting with Ministry of Housing and Local Government and as per their last published guidebook, the Ministry has requested for the PSP to notify the PBT upon certification of Form G1-G4 as an interim measure (so that the PBT can decide whether they would wish to inspect the site at those stages of completion). The PSP only needs to notify the PBT and there is no need to submit Forms G1-G4 earlier.

    17. Should the relevant Form Gs be endorsed by the main contractor or the building contractor who happens to be a sub to the main contractor of a project?

    The main contractor who enters into the contract to construct the building should be the party to sign the Form Gs. Please take note that the Board of Engineers Malaysia has since published a Guide to Filling Up Forms F/F1 and Form Gs where the signing parties are clearly identified.

    18. In a Turkey project/Design and Build project where the contractor is not the building contractor, who should endorse the Form Gs - the main contractor or the building contractor as both are CIDB registered contractors?

    The turnkey contractor who enters into the Design and Build contract, regardless of whether the PSP is engaged by him or by the owner, shall be the party signing the Form Gs. He can choose to employ any sub-contractor to carry out the various parts of the building construction but he will remain the party accountable.











    Editors note: Samples of CCC Forms are available on BEMs website

    Notes:1) PSP shall notify the local authority through OSC (in writing or using prescribed form) after Forms G1-G3 are certified (i.e. after completion

    of Earthwork, Setting Out and Foundations)2) Form F/F1 and Form G-1 to G-21 shall be forwarded to the Local Authority and BAM/BEM within 14 days of the issuance of Form F/F13) If Contractor or Trade Contractor is the same in multiple Forms, then attach only one (1) set of the required document/s.

    LegendBP = Building Plan LA = Local Authority NRIC = National Registration Identity Card SP = Submitting Person PSP = Principal Submitting Person ACP = Architectural Consultancy Practice ECP = Engineering Consultancy Practice PMA = Perakuan Mesin Angkat

  • engineering nostalgia


    Aspects Of Life During The Emergency

    Communal well at the new village in the 1950s.

    (Submitted by Mr Toh Seong Leng)

    Communal well behind the new village houses in 1948. Most houses were allocated space for livestock rearing.(Submitted by Ms Helen Tan Siew Keng)