Building Control (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare my interest as a passionate engineer and a Board Member of Professional Engineers Board. The Minister of State has taken a long stride in the right direction in implementing policies that make our buildings more environmentally sustainable. In line with our continuous nationwide campaign to encourage and embrace the green revolution, this amendment has come at a timely moment.

In recent years, we have observed in the global news, and experienced firsthand, nature's wrath in the form of extreme, unpredictable climates that are largely attributed to global warming and other environmental problems.

Page: 625

Singapore has done reasonably well over the years in advocating a green building culture. Industry stakeholders by and large have been quite receptive towards the green buildings and energy efficiency movement.

I believe that some small form of legislation could be inevitable. However, I hope that BCA would continue to work rigorously towards and without let up on incentives and education to facilitate and encourage stakeholders to embrace Green.

Imposing a requirement on building owners to conduct a three-yearly energy audit on the cooling system of their buildings is a wise move. However, I note that the energy auditors may be conducted by a non-Professional Engineer, so long as he is a suitably qualified personnel registered with BCA. Based on my experience, energy auditing qualifies as engineering work and it should be carried out by a Professional Engineer in accordance to the Professional Engineers (PE) Act in Singapore.

My question is, if an auditor seeks registration, should this be done through the Professional Engineers Board (PEB), or at least approval be obtained from PEB so that the PE Act is not infringed? For that matter, any agency that wishes to form any registers to accredit any person to perform engineering services should consult and obtain approval from the PE Board according to the PE Act, rather than each agency sets up their own register and bypassing the PE Board. Then, what is the use of the PE Act?

Another issue I would like to raise is clause 4 which amends section 9 on the removal of the requirement to be a practising Qualified Person to assess an alternative solution. A Qualified Person is either a registered architect or professional engineer. While I understand that an alternative solution need not have any relevance to engineering, but if it does, then such specialist person should be registered by the Professional Engineers Board again.

The PE Act requires that only persons who are registered with the PE Board are allowed by the PE Act to practise professional engineering and conform to the ethics and conduct like any other professional engineers. I suggest that the Minister look into this compliance.

The BCA has always been highly efficient and persistent in getting building owners to conduct periodic structural inspections of their buildings. I commend BCA for their effort and dedication for the safety of the building occupants. In the meantime, I believe more can be done to ensure that all building owners are getting their notices through the most convenient and practical channels. I know building owners can claim that they did not receive the documents sent to them by the BCA via normal post and were only aware when they received fax copies later. We have a reliable postal service, but it is not faultless, and there have been complaints every now and then that people do not receive their mail on time, or mail delivered to the wrong address. I receive that feedback very often from my residents as well.

Fax transmission is another popular mode for serving notices, yet it is not entirely reliable. In the past, companies would leave their fax machines switched on 24 hours. These days, as people begin embracing the importance of saving energy, they stop allowing their fax machines to run for the entire day. Many companies are now phasing out fax machines, which are replaced by emails and express couriers. So, is serving notices by fax still relevant? Is BCA going to charge the building owners if they did not receive the fax message from BCA?

Page: 626

Talking of phasing out, I would like to reinforce my point on qualified persons, namely that of registered professional engineers. People often mistake engineers to be some sort of scientist or technologist. They are not completely wrong in identifying the relevance, but they are also not entirely right. The work of an engineer does not stop there.

Allow me to quote Sir Eric Ashby, a British academic who has described the work of an engineer with great accuracy, and I quote, "The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labour to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the needs of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."

Engineering to society is like collagen to our body. Engineering races alongside technology to keep society mobile and progressive. Without engineering to strengthen the health and sustainability of our environment, we will eventually experience a slowdown and lots of problems.

We need engineering to cushion the consequences of technology, just as we need collagen to cushion the consequences of our daily activities. As such, given the essential role that engineers play, I am disappointed to learn that none of the five President Scholars awarded this year will be studying engineering. This is the sixth successive year that no engineering student has received a President Scholarship.

Mr Matthias Chew made a sound observation on the online political wing of The Straits Times Singapolitics. Young Singaporeans are less interested in engineering. Engineering faculties are now populated by foreign students and have even lowered their admission grades. This is a worrying trend. It would be too late if we wait until one generation later when we discover the consequence of lacking leaders who truly understand technology and engineering.

I quote a Chinese saying, "十年树木，百年树人". It takes a very long time to nurture our own pool of talents. We cannot be dependent on foreign students, nor can we expect to import foreign engineers to fill the important need when it arises. We need to encourage local students to take up engineering. We need to impress upon our youngsters the career prospects and satisfaction of serving mankind that comes with engineering. We need to embrace the indispensable nature of engineering. We can start by acknowledging that professional engineers are irreplaceable in the Building Control Act and I would like to suggest to the Minister to work with the Professional Engineers Board for any engineering related registers to ensure consistency and that engineers' efforts are truly recognised. With that, I support the Amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, I am a Chartered Builder. I wish to declare my interest as a Board Member of the Singapore Environment Council and also my family is involved in the construction and development business.

Page: 627

Sir, in 20 years' time, Singapore's built environment will be dense comprising skyscrapers in the business district, 20 to 40 storeys high-rise residential buildings in HDB towns and private estates, big and complex shopping centres, and extensive road networks. Buildings will be closer to one another and more buildings will be installed with high technology communication, mechanical and electrical, and air-conditioning and heating systems. Older simple buildings will be upgraded or rebuilt into high-rise complex buildings for different purposes. Together with new buildings, the intensity of our built environment will increase further thus posing risks of the "heat island" effects in Singapore.

Sir, skyscrapers and tall buildings will affect cross wind ventilation of our built environment. Exhaust fumes and haze will be trapped in our built environment. Extensive road networks will have more vehicle emissions into our built environment. More complex buildings with higher capacity or more air-conditioning, thus emitting exhaust hot air into our built environment.

Sir, buildings consume about 30% of Singapore's total electricity consumption, and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Although BCA has implemented the BCA Green Mark Scheme in 2005, the take-up rate has been slow.

As at today, very few new buildings have attained the highest energy efficient and environmentally-friendly award, that is, the Platinum Award. Similarly, the BCA Green Mark Scheme for existing buildings did not see a surge of building owners applying for the incentives or Green Mark certification.

Sir, as highlighted by Senior Minister of State, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, and I quote, "We still have some way to go before we achieve our target to green 80% of our buildings by 2030 under our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint."

Sir, the proposed Bill is a step in the right direction in greening our built environment. But I am concerned that the take-up rate by building owners will be slow thus increasing our energy security risks and "heat island" effects.

Sir, we need to understand why developers and building owners are not taking up ownership to implement sustainable and environmentally-friendly features into our buildings? I wish to highlight three barriers faced by developers and building owners in going green and propose some suggestions for the Minister to consider.

First, lack of Government incentives. The existing BCA Green Mark Gross Floor Area (GFA) incentive of 1% and 2% for GoldPlus and Platinum Awards are inadequate to increase take-up rate to build more green buildings. I would propose to the Ministry to revise the GFA incentive scheme.

In addition, the authorities should also consider providing more flexibility for change of use to further incentivise existing building owners to upgrade or develop their environmentally inefficient buildings. Sir, I would like to propose that the Government revise the plot ratio of older buildings so that owners can be encouraged to redevelop their buildings to meet Green Mark standards.

Page: 628

Sir, as the initial capital outlay for environmentally-friendly buildings is high; there is a greater need for Government to provide more support in terms of financial incentives, services, or legislations. For example, many states in the US have tax benefits for green buildings.

In Japan, the Osaka government provides advice to developers on energy efficient measures from pre-design to construction stage. In Tokyo, the government provides subsidies to homeowners to purchase solar panels. Thus, I would urge the Government to revise the incentive schemes for Green Mark Schemes.

Two, difficulty to get Subsidiary Proprietors' consent. Sir, in strata titled buildings; it is often difficult to get consent from subsidiary proprietors to invest in green features during upgrading or retrofitting works. Many subsidiary proprietors cannot see the value of green buildings, and thus are unwilling to pay for environmentally-friendly features.

Therefore, if we were to wait for "major energy-use change" as proposed by clause 8 of the Bill, it may take many years to convert these existing buildings into green buildings. As the lifespan of cooling systems of buildings varies due to different make, maintenance and usage, the pace of greening existing buildings will be slow.

Thus, introducing a mandatory requirement for cooling system may not expedite the growth of green buildings in Singapore. I would urge the Ministry to consider providing a "green grant" based on per metre square for existing owners to attain the BCA Gold or higher awards, instead of the existing 50% cash incentive for installing energy efficient cooling equipment and professional services. In addition, tax incentives can be granted to owners who carry out retrofitting works to green their buildings. In this way, building owners can introduce more green features to their buildings, including adopting green lifestyle among its users.

Three, lack of sinking fund. Sir, some owners of existing buildings may not have sufficient sinking fund to undergo green building retrofitting or upgrading works. This is another barrier which owners must overcome. Furthermore, many banks may not understand the value-add or yields of green buildings, and offer limited retrofitting loan, thus restricting the scope of works for greening. Thus, it may be useful if the Government can adopt a risk sharing scheme to secure higher retrofitting loans for green buildings.

Sir, I support that the Bill will empower the Minister for National Development to prescribe the types of buildings to be subject to the minimum Green Mark standards as and when building owners install or replace their buildings' cooling systems. As mentioned by the Minister, BCA will first focus on hotels, retail and office buildings with a minimum Gross Floor Area of 15,000 square metres.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, why start off with three building types with a minimum GFA of 15,000 square metres only? I understand that hospitals, universities and some mixed developments also consume large amount of energy. In fact, the 1.1 million residential dwelling units in Singapore also consume a significant amount of electricity and thus warrant attention too.

Page: 629

Thus, I would propose to the Minister to include all building types with floor area above 2000 square metres to comply with the minimum Green Mark standards when they carry out any major retrofitting works, instead of any "major energy-use change" works. This will align the BCA Green Mark Scheme for both new and existing buildings.

Sir, why only conduct three-yearly audit on the cooling system? Although the cooling system of buildings consume the most electricity, other electrical and mechanical components of the buildings, such as lightings, mechanical pumps, lifts and electrical appliances, also account for a significant proportion of electricity consumption.

Besides the mechanical and electrical components of the buildings, there are many other green features which can be incorporated into existing buildings to make them more energy efficient and green. These include energy efficient lightings, control blinds or sun shading to reduce heat transfer through building facades, air tightness of rooms to reduce air-conditioning leakages and insulation of walls to reduce heat transfer, thus reducing air-conditioning loads of buildings. All these features will enhance the energy efficiency performance of buildings.

Sir, recently HDB implemented the pilot Grid-tied Solar PV system in a few housing estates. Based on actual electricity bill readings, the Town Councils experienced about 30% in saving in their bills. The use of renewable solar energy will reduce the use of power generated electricity, thus indirectly reducing carbon footprints in Singapore.

Sir, many retail malls installed many types of lightings which are not environmentally-friendly. Thus, I would urge the Minister to adopt a more holistic approach to green our buildings, instead of the proposed piece-meal, that is, cooling system only method.

At this juncture, I wish to share that the 14 PAP Town Councils have already replaced 350,000 common area light tubes to LED lightings, and are in the second phase of replacing the remaining 500,000 light tubes. This project will reduce the electricity consumption by 40% to 50% and contribute towards greening our HDB flats. In addition, the 14 PAP Town Councils have taken the initiative to apply for Eco-office certification by the Singapore Environment Council. To date, 10 Town Councils' offices are Eco-office certified.

Sir, we must encourage building owners to take ownership and continue to green their buildings. They must also make concerted and continuous efforts to educate their users to adopt green habits. I hope the Minister will amend the Bill to mandate three-yearly Green Mark certification of the entire building instead of just certifying the cooling system. This will ensure that green buildings will always stay green. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to first thank the Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Dr Teo Ho Pin for speaking on the Bill. They shared our vision for a greener and more sustainable built environment. They both commented that with this Bill, we are heading in the right direction. I would also like to thank them for their very thoughtful suggestions, some of which we would need to further study their implications.

Page: 630

Before I address their specific questions, let me just make a few general points. To realise our vision, all our stakeholders must play their roles and work together. Members of the public at large must understand the need to care for our environment. Building owners must also own the initiatives to adopt energy efficient and green solutions in their buildings. Engineers, architects, facility managers and other professionals must constantly look out for and present cost-effective, technically advanced and commercially viable green solutions. The Government can come in to provide an overall conducive environment, one that would encourage the adoption of best practices, implement innovations and support standard-raising efforts. We do so by public educations, appropriate incentives and regulations.

Let me now address some of the specific points that the Members have raised. Er Dr Lee has highlighted the importance of incentives and education in encouraging industries' stakeholders to green their buildings. Dr Teo suggested that MND enhance the Green Mark Gross Floor Area scheme and consider other incentives like a green grant, tax incentives, green-sharing loans to help remove barriers faced by building owners.

Sir, we already have several incentives for building owners to cap on in greening both new and existing buildings. For instance, we enhanced the Green Mark incentive scheme for existing buildings in July – just two months ago this year – in response to industry feedback. Previously, the scheme covered only 20% to 35% of the cost of energy efficient equipment. Since July, we have raised the co-funding level to 35% to 50%, and expanded the funding scope to include the supply and installation cost of energy efficient equipment. In return, building owners have to meet higher energy efficiency standards that is Green Mark Gold and above, to enjoy these incentives. BCA is also piloting a Building Retrofit Energy Efficiency financing scheme, which involves co-sharing of the risk of loan default by BCA and the participating financial institutions. This will help tackle the barriers cited by Dr Teo and unlock more commercial loans to building owners for their retrofitting purposes.

I thank Dr Teo for suggesting different types of incentives. As I said, we will study them further. I want to emphasise that under this Bill, the building owners are only required to meet the minimum Green Mark standard as and when they install and replace their buildings cooling systems. As even if there were no incentives available there is an inherent motivation for building owners to install more energy efficient equipment when they retire the old equipment, in order to enjoy energy savings for the next 15 to 20 years the life span of the new equipment.

For buildings going on to achieve higher Green Mark ratings, we have deliberately calibrated the incentive levels to speed up Green Mark adoption. Under the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for existing buildings, the incentive levels would be correspondingly enhanced. For Gold buildings, building owners will enjoy 35% of co-funding, GoldPlus is 40% and for Platinum buildings, up to 50% co-funding.

Dr Teo asked why we are starting the minimum standards only for buildings in the three sectors, office, hotels and retail. My short answer is prioritisation is to achieve the most impact for the staff. We have adopted a phased approach starting with these building types because they collectively consume up to 50% of the total energy used by the building sector. By targeting these buildings in Phase 1, the sector would have solved half its problems.

Page: 631

Next, developments where commercial components have Gross Floor Areas of 15,000 sqm or more, are also included in Phase 1. We have also taken a pragmatic approach so as to ensure a smooth implementation of the new legislation. There are different energy conservation considerations for different building types and sizes. Experience from implementing Phase 1 will help us calibrate our policy and requirements for the subsequent phases which could cover other building types as well as smaller buildings below 15,000 sqm, as mentioned by Dr Teo.

BCA will be collecting energy and building data from Phase 1 buildings as well as other energy intensive buildings, including the smaller hotels, office and retail buildings not covered in Phase 1 to better understand these buildings' energy use patterns. The data then would guide us in determining the possible approaches to address their energy efficiency. BCA will enlarge the scope of data collection to other building types at a later stage. Dr Teo also mentioned that 1.1 million residential dwelling units should warrant our attention. This, we agree. For the household sector, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and the NEA have put in place awareness programmes to inform and educate households of different types of ways to save energy. There are also regulatory measures, such as mandatory energy labelling schemes and the minimum energy performance standards, to ensure the use of energy efficient appliances in the households.

On the proposed energy audit, Dr Teo asked why we imposed a three-yearly audit on the cooling system only. From BCA's experience in assessing the performance of green buildings, the system efficiency of central air-conditioning plants can deteriorate quickly if it is not operated and maintained properly. Hence, it is critical to conduct regular audits on the efficiency of air-conditioning plants. We are mindful that other electrical and mechanical components, such as lightings and lifts, do consume a significant portion of the buildings' energy. But the efficiency of such equipment is not likely to deteriorate significantly during actual usage. For instance, a 28-watt fluorescent lamp would continue to draw 28-watt of electrical energy over its life-cycle. While it would still be a good practice to audit the efficiency of other building components, we must balance this with the cost and benefits, and the burden imposed on building owners. This is why we propose to start with the audit of the cooling system. We could consider extending these to other building components in future.

Er Dr Lee asked whether the registration of energy auditors should be approved or carried out by the Professional Engineers Board (PEB). Let me first explain the duties of energy auditors. The energy auditor is responsible to verify that the building's cooling system is performing in accordance with its design specifications, which meet the minimum system efficiency standards. This is done by taking readings from the instrumentations installed and preparing the audit reports to be submitted to BCA. As you can see, the energy audit does not involve any upgrading, design or professional engineering work. The audit has no direct impact on public health or safety such that it warrants a degree of supervision by a Professional Engineer.

Energy auditing is also not a new concept in Singapore. Many building owners engage facilities managers to manage and maintain the performance of their premises. Some of their functions, such as monitoring the performance level of the cooling system, are similar to what we are proposing the energy auditors to do. In fact, for many years, energy service companies whose personnel may not be Professional Engineers are already providing energy audit services to building owners. These personnel are Singapore-certified energy managers by NEA.

Page: 632

Thus, in our view, it is not necessary for the PEB to approve or to carry out the registration of the energy auditors since no Professional Engineering services are involved in all these. More importantly, by allowing suitably qualified professionals to carry out the energy audits, we will be able to expand the pool of energy auditors available to the building owners, which can help keep the audit costs competitive in the long run.

Going forward, BCA will consult the professional bodies, such as PEB, Association of Consulting Engineers and the Institute of Engineers, to draw up the registration criteria for energy auditors, which we made into regulation under the Building Control Act. The principal consideration behind BCA's registration of the energy auditors is to ensure that they are competent in carrying out the audits. To this end, some registration criteria could include the relevant engineering or building related degree and work experience.

Er Dr Lee also asked whether the specialists in the alternative solutions should be registered by PEB if there are Professional Engineering works involved. Let me first reiterate the intent of clause 4 of the Bill. Currently, if there is a technology or knowledge which is new to Singapore, it is not possible to deploy it as an alternative solution if we were to insist that a Qualified Professional (QP) who is either a Registered Architect or Professional Engineer is allowed to design and certify this solution. So, the only choice left is to abandon the alternative solution. This is not good for the industry's development and progress.

Clause 4 would give the QP flexibility to get a specialist in the alternative solution but who is not a QP to certify it. The QP can, of course, continue with the current arrangement to get another QP who is a specialist in alternative solutions to certify it as well.

Let me illustrate it with an example. In a multi-storey car park, due to height constraints, it may not be possible to install ducts all over the car park to remove carbon monoxide from car exhaust, which is the standard method to comply with the requirements under the Singapore standard. In this situation, a QP may seek a specialist who is not a QP or one who is a QP to design and certify an alternative ventilation system for the car park. I would like to assure the Members that when the specialist is not a QP, he will not be allowed to practise in his own right, but can only work under the direction or supervision of the QP.

Er Dr Lee asked if serving notices by fax is still relevant as a way of serving notices under the Building Control Act. I believe facsimile is still one of the communication tools used by businesses and building owners. In other Acts, such as the Amusement Rides Safety Act and the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act administered by BCA, the service of notices by facsimile is allowed.

As for Er Dr Lee's concern whether BCA would take action against building owners if they did not receive the fax from BCA, I would like to point out that by providing their fax numbers as a means of contact, the building owners should be prepared to receive fax. Notwithstanding this, the primary mode of serving notices will still be by mail. Service of notice by facsimile will be a secondary mode when necessary, for instance, when the mail is returned.

Page: 633

Lastly, Er Dr Lee has expressed concern on the lack of interest among young Singaporeans in studying engineering. Trained as an engineer myself, I fully agree with her on the important roles played by engineers in our society. I would like to thank Er Dr Lee for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity wearing my other hat in the Ministry of Trade and Industry to share with Members that the Economic Development Board's efforts have been to promote the study of engineering. EDB has reached out to students of secondary schools and junior colleges to shape positive perceptions about engineering and encourage them to pursue this course of study. It has also profiled engineers in various industries to highlight their versatility and empowerment in their jobs to contribute and make changes. These efforts have resulted in higher first-choice applications for engineering courses at our Polytechnics in their recent enrolment exercise.

EDB, together with the Manpower and the Education Ministries, also worked with the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and the industry to review our engineering curriculum. The aim is to improve the structure and the relevance of the courses such that graduates are equipped with the skill-sets that meet both students and employers' needs, taking into account global trends in engineering education.

Similarly, our construction sector plays a critical part in attracting more into the engineering profession. BCA works with the industry to jointly offer undergrad scholarships to young people interested in a career in the built environment. Just last month, BCA launched its first diploma scholarships. In total, about half of the scholars under the undergrad and diploma schemes are taking up engineering courses. BCA also engages the industry to offer internship programmes to graduating "A" level students to expose them to diverse career options within the construction industry. In addition, BCA organises career talks involving successful industry young leaders sharing the exciting engineering career and achievements in the built environment industry to inspire the students. Hopefully, this will spur the young's interest in the engineering profession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, let me say that the proposed amendments will further enhance our existing standards in mandating and promoting Green Mark and Best Practices. While we are ahead of many countries in adopting Green Standards, we certainly can and should do more. Let us work together to achieve our vision of a more sustainable and even greener built-up Singapore.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*