Debated in Parliament on 11 Sep 2017.
*Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A Professional Engineer (PE) is an engineer certified by the Professional Engineers Board (PEB) as being qualified and competent to undertake professional engineering work. Such work includes planning for and designing complex structures and machinery, supervising their construction, as well as maintaining their safe operation.
The Professional Engineers Act provides for the registration of PEs, regulates their conduct, and licenses entities supplying professional engineering services in Singapore. The Act regulates the four prescribed branches of engineering which are directly relevant to our built environment. These are civil, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering. Not only do these PEs design and oversee the construction of structures, systems, plants and facilities, but they are also responsible for conducting regular checks. The Act provides a basis to hold PEs legally accountable for the important work that they do. All this contributes to ensuring public safety.
The Act was last amended in December 2005. Since then, the number of registered PEs has increased by 20% to around 3,900 today. The number of licensed entities providing professional engineering services has grown to two and a half times, from 76 to over 200.
The operating environment is also different. Globalisation has opened new overseas markets but also brought in new players. Singapore has been making a big push to raise productivity and quality in the built environment. The Construction Industry Transformation Map (ITM) which will be launched later this year will set out strategies to help our construction industry move up the value chain and capture growth opportunities in Singapore and abroad. PEs will play an instrumental role in this effort.
To address the changing needs of the industry, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the PE Board (PEB) undertook a comprehensive review of the Act. We have proposed three sets of amendments to strengthen the profession so that our PEs can do their work well. One, raising the standards and professionalism of PEs. Two, helping Singapore-registered PEs capture overseas opportunities. Three, making existing requirements more enterprise-friendly.
As part of the review, we also sought the views of industry associations, Government agencies, institutes of higher learning and PEs, and received support for the proposed amendments. Allow me to go through each of these categories.
The first set of amendments is intended to raise the standards and professionalism of PEs. Given the crucial role played by the PEB, several are designed to strengthen the Board's role as an advocate and regulator.
First, we are proposing to expand the PEB's scope of functions to allow the Board to undertake more activities to develop the PE profession. Today, PEB is limited to promoting learning and education in connection with engineering. The amendment in clause 6(b) will expand that role to include more development and advocacy. For example, PEB will now be able to work with the Institution of Engineers and other industry associations to support the Construction ITM and assist with its implementation. This includes championing initiatives to push for the adoption of digital engineering, as well as pooling resources and conducting courses on relevant skills. This will help to strengthen the capabilities of the profession.
Second, we want to give PEB the flexibility to appoint any person to its committees to assist the Board. Currently, committee members can only come from PEB or be a PE or allied professional. This can limit the work of some committees. The amendment in clause 7 will allow the Board to tap on a wider range of expertise, such as lawyers and accountants, where necessary and appropriate.
Third, we want to provide the Board with a wider range of tools to carry out its regulatory role. This includes greater flexibility to calibrate penalties according to the severity of infringements of the Act. Currently, PEB is faced with rather binary choices. It can either impose a penalty of up to S$20,000, or it can revoke licences to practise. Clause 18(b) will now increase maximum financial penalties to S$100,000 for serious infringements with public safety implications. This is in line with those of other specialised professions, such as architects. At the same time, the Board will have the option of taking a lighter touch through censuring errant firms for minor infringements where monetary penalties or licence revocation is too severe.
Fourth, we are proposing to allow the Board to appoint investigators to conduct more in-depth investigations for serious offences. Currently, the Board relies on statements and evidence voluntarily provided by parties. But sometimes, cooperation may not be forthcoming from parties concerned. The amendment in clause 21 will allow investigators to apply for warrants from Magistrates to search premises for evidence. There will be conditions and limitations imposed on the investigators to ensure that these powers are not abused.
Finally, clause 11 makes explicit that clients who unknowingly paid for professional engineering services supplied by unauthorised persons may recover their money through the Courts. This is not explicitly stated in the current Act.
The second broad set of amendments is designed to help Singapore-registered PEs capture overseas opportunities. Singapore-registered PEs seeking to practise in another country generally need to go through the qualification process in that country. This could include having practical experience in that country. But Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) can help streamline this process. Clauses 9 and 10 will help to facilitate and support the execution of such MRAs, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) MRA which was signed in 2005. ASEAN countries have been working together to implement the MRA's terms. The MRA framework is expected to be fully in place in all ASEAN countries by the end of this year. With these amendments, Singapore-registered PEs who meet the requirements specified in the MRA can be recognised as ASEAN Chartered PEs (ACPEs).
ACPEs can apply to the professional authorities of other ASEAN countries to practise in collaboration with their local PEs there without having to go through the full qualification process. These amendments make it easier for Singapore-registered PEs to offer their services in other ASEAN countries.
As with all agreements of this nature, the benefits will be reciprocal. Foreign engineers registered in ASEAN states can also be authorised by the Board to supply professional engineering services in Singapore, provided they do so in collaboration with our Singapore PEs. But ultimately, our PEs stand to benefit, as they gain easier access to larger markets in our region. That said, we will monitor our PEs' internationalisation experience through the MRA and work to resolve any issues that may arise.
The last set of amendments is pro-enterprise changes that make existing requirements less onerous. Let me go through two of these.
The first proposal will allow professional engineering companies to engage specialist PEs as consultants so that they can take on more complex projects. Currently, companies can only provide professional engineering services that PEs in their direct employment are qualified to offer. As most firms do not have PEs in every discipline as permanent staff, this may limit their scope to bid for more complex projects. Clause 15(c) will now allow firms to expand their capabilities by subcontracting specialised professional engineering works to qualified specialist PEs. For instance, a company licensed in civil engineering could engage a specialist PE in geotechnical engineering as a consultant, thus allowing the firm to provide end-to-end services for projects involving underground geotechnical building works.
The second proposal, which is in clause 9(d), will allow builders to directly employ PEs to undertake low-risk professional engineering works pertaining to their own projects. These include works of a temporary nature, like site offices or workers' quarters. Currently, builders cannot undertake any professional engineering work, unless they are licensed by the Board to do so. But most builders are unable to meet the requirements to qualify for a licence from the Board. As a result, they have to engage external engineering consultancies for their projects, which may incur additional costs. This amendment will streamline work processes for some builders, while maintaining safety standards by limiting the scope to certain low-risk temporary works.
Taken together, the proposed amendments will raise standards, help our PEs capture overseas opportunities, and provide a more pro-enterprise environment for local professional engineering firms and contractors. The amendments will also put PEB in a stronger position to support the industry in its development, and to uphold higher standards of professionalism. Through these efforts, we hope that PEs in Singapore will continue to thrive both in our domestic market and overseas. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
*Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. May I begin by declaring my interest as a PE. I am also currently serving on the PEB.
I am pleased that the Bill will expand the functions of the Board to allow it to promote the development of Professional Engineering in Singapore. That is very progressive. We are moving into an era where engineering is, once again, leading the charge, be it in driverless motor vehicles, smart homes or even environmental protection.
But every so often, we hear of the waste of talent when those who are trained in engineering choose to go into other sectors, like the financial industry or into the corporate world.
I have spoken about the pay and career progression of engineers. The Government has started to remedy that, which will hopefully have a knock-on effect on the private sector. But we also need to improve the "image" of engineering. I will highlight two ways we can do so.
First, scholarships. As our Prime Minister pointed out, the trend among top scholarship holders has shifted to economics and liberal arts. I hope the Government will recalibrate the compass and point more students to take up subjects that support its Smart Nation projects. This will send a message to all students that engineering is an attractive and interesting career.
The Institution of Engineers Singapore and myself have been making calls publicly for more top students to be channelled into engineering. But when we saw this year's President's Scholars, our hopes were dashed again. None of the five scholars studied engineering. I would like to ask, for the last 10 years, how many President's Scholars studied engineering? If I can recall, there was only one in 2015. Whenever I bring up this question in Parliament, the answer has always been "they lump engineering and science together." I would like to say that engineering and science, they are "same-same" but different. If we really think that engineers are important, and the President's Scholarship being the most prestigious scholarship on this island, I look forward to seeing a change in the next round of scholarship awards.
Second, media coverage. We often read in the media about local medical discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. However, we hardly read about engineering breakthroughs. For example, we get excited about driverless vehicles but not much said about the persons working behind the project. We talk about tech startups but the focus is often on the founder, not the engineers and coders.
Did we miss out on something here? Is this because the research work carried out in the universities here is not getting the recognition, or is it because they are not courting the media to get exposure on their work? Or is it because the subject is too dry or too technical that it is difficult to have interesting articles?
Perhaps, we need a concerted effort to build up the image and correct any wrong perception of the engineering profession. We need to promote the profession as one that offers a career, with rewards that commensurate with responsibilities and opportunities to move up the ladder. The Smart Nation project should be an awakening to parents, students and others.
Another point I would like to make is that in the interest of upskilling, I hope the institutions of higher learning and others look into more specialised courses on a part-time basis. It will be even better if they can collaborate with the various engineering bodies on this, and SkillsFuture fund can be used to pursue those specialised courses module by module. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have talked about salaries and promotion opportunities for engineers before. Today, I would like to put my focus on the "face" issue of the engineering sector.
Many students still feel that engineering is difficult to study, the work is hard and yet the salary is not high; worse still, it is not respected. Hence, many engineering graduates go into other industries to work.
In order to reverse this trend, the Government should go back to the old practice of giving more scholarships to engineering students, just like what we did in the early years of our nation-building. Many scholarship holders have studied engineering and made great contributions to our country. We have talked about this issue for so long, yet amongst this year's President's Scholars, none studies engineering. I hope that next year will be different.
There should be more media coverage on engineering, too. In fact, without engineers, we will not be able to build a Smart Nation. However, what we often see is the technology itself or the founder of the tech company, not the engineers who work behind the scenes. If we can work on these two areas, I believe our students will develop a different perspective of engineering.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill's amendments.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Mr Speaker, we are at a juncture when we are encouraging the growth of the engineering profession and looking to retain expertise within the field of practice. It cannot be more timely to review expanding the functions of the PEB and enhance the scope of professional services. This will help to deepen expertise within the industry and bring about opportunities for more cross-disciplinary training. I note several key improvements in this amendment and would highlight a few here.
Firstly, PEB maintains a register of persons authorised to work with the PEs. With the increasing number of infrastructural projects and heightened awareness of workplace safety, provision of a new register of authorised persons who can work with the PEs will give rise to accountability and mitigate risks. Such a register, for example, the Registered Foreign PEs, also provides recognition and becomes a springboard for our engineers with broader job opportunities in another jurisdiction like the developing ASEAN market. This will be further facilitated under the existing ASEAN MRA on Engineering Services.
Secondly, it allows companies that are licensed to provide PE services to engage specialist PEs as subconsultants in cases where they lack the expertise. Indirectly, this enables the smaller companies to undertake more complex projects, scale up and be not only restricted to projects where they have the relevant inhouse PE expertise. Over time, when the companies are willing to invest in cross-training their staff, these workers can enhance their skills through on-the-job training as they work alongside other experts.
Thirdly, the role of advocacy that PEB needs to promote. Nothing beats having a known professional community to advocate for the profession, as it goes beyond the role of the registrar, regulating quality and the conduct of engineers. However, such advocacy must be shaped with the objectives of lending support to our engineers in the trade over time. PEB should be cognisant that such advocacy is not simply one with a focus on social presence but, more importantly, to develop the education front, continuous learning within the trade and building networks.
It is heartening to know that PEB organises events for accreditation of partners and recognition of exemplary engineers. Through this, I hope PEB can put more emphasis in working with the education and industry sectors to see how best to maintain cohorts of engineers and assist agencies like the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) to strengthen partnerships with employers who are willing to offer internships and job placements for our aspiring engineers. It would be of PEB's keen interest to creatively find avenues for engineers to have cross-discipline training throughout their career and take on challenges in new areas or advancement overseas. Thus, PEB must build the global and local networks to support the profession in scaling up over time. On this positive note, I have some questions and suggestions to raise.
One, under the current practice, PEB can only revoke the licence or impose a penalty up to $20,000. With changes in the Bill, PEB will have the power and discretion to censure licensed firms providing PE services. It is good that PEB is benchmarking the penalty against other industries.
The question is (a) under what circumstances, for example, how many warning letters would PEB issue before revoking the licence; (b) would the warning letters be issued against PEs or the companies that they work for; (c) when PEs undertake private contractual jobs and disputes arise, is the general public able to seek advice and recourse through PEB?
Two, contractors can be exempted from applying for a licence to supply PE services if the PEs are providing services for the contractors' own projects. How can checks and balances be put in place to ensure endorsements and regulations are complied with?
Three, it is a positive move to remove the need for a three-year stand-down for deregistered PEs, especially those who were deregistered under current rules for minor violations, for example, no contact address provided in Singapore. This change would help those PEs under such circumstances to begin practising sooner lest their skills become irrelevant after being detached from the industry during the stand-down period.
On the other hand, discipline and upholding standards of a PE is critical. I suggest for PEB to create a clear listing of rules for those violations which fall under no disciplinary actions required and show a differentiated list by gravity of offence that warrants deregistration of PEs. With this, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The PEB was set up to safeguard life, property and the welfare of the public by setting and maintaining high standards for registering PEs, and by regulating and advancing the practice of professional engineering.
For PEB to take on the role of development of professional engineering is a natural progression as it has the resources and Government support that are required and the neutrality to allow the different engineering branches and professional engineering associations a platform to help brand and push forward the engineering profession such that customers and engineers alike recognise the value of a registered PE.
Continual upgrade of technical skills and project management skills and safety awareness education should be developed to help prevent engineering tragedies that lead to severe loss of lives. Sir, notwithstanding, I have the following clarifications.
One, that determines "Professional Engineering Work" and why is it that only certain branches prescribed under section 10(A) are required to register?
Two, the rationale to amend section 15(2), as the explanation notes point out, is to allow an undergraduate to be registered as a PE. Should there also be a qualification in terms of stipulated years of work experience and review of projects the engineer had managed or undertaken before allowing engineers to be certified?
Three, the re-enactment of section 35 and the new section 35A provides the necessary safeguards to encourage whistleblowing and eliminate any scapegoating behaviour that may be adopted by the management. This, indeed, will help protect the rights of PEs and prosecute the relevant parties that may be responsible.
In conclusion, there should be an ecosystem where professional engineering practitioners could thrive and progress. PEB should also work closely with other stakeholders, especially buyer of services, to ensure the PEs are subject to fair treatment and remunerations without being subject to undue commercial pressures, unfair and untenable contractual terms. Perhaps, there should be a watchdog to monitor industry practices on the above. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which will enhance the role of PEB and strengthen the engineering profession.
Much has been reported about the manpower crunch in the engineering sector due to the decreased attractiveness of the profession to young people. The expanded role of PEB will help to further advance industry development and broaden its appeal as a profession to address the skills gap that currently exists. We all know that engineers are important and it has also been reported that close to half of the economy relies on inputs from engineers.
Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications on behalf of members of the profession.
Firstly, it is a positive step forward for PEB to now help develop the engineering profession and promote engineering. However, the question is, why not do this for all branches of engineering since this is the PEB? Why exclude other engineering branches, such as aerospace, marine and transportation? Who then will help to regulate these branches of engineering?
Secondly, there are concerns about the new section 10(c) where a foreign engineer may now be authorised by PEB to engage in professional engineering work with a registered PE. I understand that this is under the existing ASEAN MRA on Engineering Services.
Mr Yew Hang, a Singaporean engineer, commented on Facebook and asked how we will ensure that PEs from different countries are of consistent quality and that they are familiar with local regulatory requirements.
I do understand that the Registered Foreign PE must work with a Registered PE but will there an established ratio for this? For example, will there be a case of 10 Registered Foreign PEs working with just one Registered PE?
Mr Yew Hang further raised, and I quote, "How do we ensure that companies and businesses do not overly favour foreign PEs over local PEs, creating too much competition and driving wages down? Will this lead to an erosion of our local engineering core, especially when we are already lacking in engineering talents and engineering is not seen as an attractive career for many youths today?"
I would be grateful if the Minister can provide clarifications about this and help assure the engineers in Singapore.
Sir, engineering has been described as the "backbone of the economy". We rely on engineers to design, operate, maintain and support the running of our economy in sectors ranging from manufacturing to finance and transportation. Also, developing a pool of talent in software engineering is an essential part of our push to become a Smart Nation.
This Bill is a welcomed step in revitalising engineering in Singapore. In addition to this legislative amendment, I urge the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the engineering core, such as through initiatives to deepen our public sector engineering capabilities. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
PAPERCUTS