Ensuring Ageing Private Estates and Commercial Buildings are Properly Maintained

Mr Speaker, building owners have a duty to ensure that their buildings are well maintained. There are legislative or regulatory requirements currently in place. For example, BCA requires building owners to appoint a professional engineer to inspect the building on a regular basis, and to rectify any structural defects that are found. SCDF requires owners of buildings with higher safety risks, such as publicly accessible buildings with higher occupancy, to appoint a professional engineer to audit a building’s fire safety measures annually. EMA requires building owners to appoint a licensed electrical worker to conduct regular inspections to ensure that electrical installations are fit for operation.

PUB requires building owners to engage a licensed plumber to inspect their potable water tanks annually to ensure that the water is fit and safe for use. NEA requires building owners to dispose of their refuse properly, such as by maintaining refuse chutes and also to prohibit any person from creating conditions favourable to the propagation of vectors.

I know the Member is concerned about building maintenance but if buildings are not properly maintained, the respective agencies can direct building owners or management corporations (MCs) to make rectifications where necessary. For example, BCA can issue a Notice to Maintain to building owners or MCs to compel them to repair defects.

Failure to comply with regulatory requirements or directions is an offence under the respective Acts and Regulations, and the relevant public agencies can take enforcement actions against the building owners, MCs, or building occupants accordingly. Penalties for non-compliance include fines or imprisonment or both.

Public agencies maintain the infrastructure on public land under their respective purviews across Singapore, including public infrastructure within private residential estates. Members of the public can provide feedback on maintenance issues directly to the agencies or via the Municipal Services Office, using the OneService app.

Sir, I have one question for the Minister of State. There are quite a number of condominium in my constituency. The frequent feedback that I got from the Managing Council is that they are all laymen, not familiar, so they appoint the managing agent. So, they are asking whether will MND rank the managing agents because many of them also run into problems with their managing agents. Will MND rank the managing agents, that means categorise them?

Currently, a Management Corporation or MC can appoint an MA for up to a term of three years. So, the MAs' performance can be reviewed by the residents themselves and they can change the MA if they do not perform. So, technically, the measures are there. If the MAs are not performing, the residents can certainly take action. Because, ultimately, as the Member knows as well, you can rank an MA by company, but it is still down to the persons that they appoint, the persons that they hire to run every condo. You can rank an agency but it really depends on the team that they put in place. To ensure quality, we have got an Accredited Managing Agent scheme (AMA), which is administered by both the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV), and the Association of Property and Facility Managers (APFM). So, the accreditation scheme exists, it is just that the details are important, that we pick the right managing agent and appoint them. For many MAs, you also have termination clauses if they are not performing too.

So, it is not fair or feasible to rank every MA out there because by firm, some may qualify. But again, it is down to the person that they appoint in the condo. So, it is down to the MCs or managing councils to decide.

Yes, Sir. Three years is a long time if your MA is not performing and then the MC will have to fight with the MA almost every other day. So, what MC is asking if MND can come up with certain qualifications, so that they can rank the MA accordingly, then at least it is a table of approved or accredited MAs for them to choose. The feedback is that a lot of the MCs told me that they are very disappointed with a lot of the MAs in the market. It is just, if I may put it in their language, in Hokkien "tan jiak, tan jiak", but then who suffer? Residents suffer, MC suffer.

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier, we have the AMA scheme which accredits MAs. Do refer to the scheme and maybe the MCs can work closer with the organisations – SISV as well as APFM who manage the scheme – to see how we can improve the accreditation scheme. But to get into ranking, the tricky part is, as I said, that it depends on the performance of the MA on the ground and, ultimately, it is down to procurement.

In terms of procurement, you have the option of terminating if they do not meet certain KPIs. It is important to set the expectations upfront before you procure the services, and set what are the requirements, what are the specifications, that the MAs need to fulfil. The challenge is, again, ranking may work at firm level but it does not necessarily work on the ground. That is always a challenge but, really, if the condos would like to have some sense of which ones are accredited, perhaps if the AMA scheme is not well-known, then we can certainly work to keep condos more aware of what are the accredited MAs out there.