By Engr. Dr. Teoh Seng Giap, incorporating comments from Engr. David N. Welch, Engr. Dr Aminuddin Mohd Baki & Engr. Nor Hisham b Mohd Ghazali.
1) Clause 8: Only Professional Engineer and Engineering consultancy practice may submit plans, drawing, etc.
1.1) Interpretation:
1.1.1) Who is qualified to do submission?
1.1.2) Submissions of products of engineering services (e.g. plans, drawings, design, and etc. al.) are exclusive to qualified Professional Engineer (PE) or Engineering Consultancy Practice (ECP).
1.1.3) Except otherwise provided under other written law and sub-clause (4).
1.2) Intent:
1.2.1) To ensure engineering services are delivered with predetermined standards by qualified personnel.
1.2.2) To safeguard public from misled by unqualified personnel.
1.3) Review:
1.3.1) There are engineers without Ir., but are qualified in technical experience. Perhaps the Act could be amended to differentiate this group of engineers from recent graduated engineers. The contributions of these experienced engineers toward mentoring and training the recent graduated engineers in technical areas are worth noticing. Also, these experienced engineers surely could perform many “professional engineering services”.
1.3.2) Currently the submitting person is responsible for the submitted plans, design, etc. al., and not the ECP. Perhaps ECP could be made to share responsibility, just like a PE. In my opinion, ECP has an essential role in ensuring the quality of engineering services. This is just another corporate social responsibility.
1.3.3) A variation to the above Item 1.3.2 is a suggestion for the rules to state that the submitting body (person or company) be the entity named by the Client in the Agreement as the Consulting Engineer. If this is an individual, said individual should undertake all submissions in compliance with the ACT; if on the other hand the service provider in the Agreement is an ECP, then the ECP should undertake the submission, not a staff of the ECP in his individual capacity. Who can represent and be held responsible for the ECP should also be clearly spelt out.
1.3.3.1) Incidentally, this suggestion is somewhat inline with "Universal Declaration of Engineers' Rights" by Walter L. Elden, i.e.” ... Further, as nearly all Professional Engineer licensing laws provide that there is an "industry exemption" from those laws, employee engineers engaged in industry have no recourse to these regulatory bodies either when their employment is threatened as they attempt to "protect the public", in opposition to some wish or dictate from their employer to the contrary....”.
1.3.4) The Clause implies that any of the listed “professional engineering services” should be signed on handover by a PE. This means, say, a resident engineer representing ECP on site must be a PE because only then he can perform “professional engineering services”, and sign and submit as-built plans to the ECP on completion of works (as he is employed by the ECP). The ECP will subsequently engage another staff (a PE) to submit the plans to the Authority (as very often the resident engineer is not the first or original submitting person). Is this the correct interpretation?
1.3.4.1) If yes, it also implies that as-built plans must be submitted by more than one qualified person, namely, M&E PE to submit M&E as-built plans and C&S PE to submit C&S as-built plans.
1.3.4.2) Item 1.3.6.1 is further complicated by various sub-disciplines that the PE is qualified. E.g. a resident engineer may be a qualified structural PE, but not necessary qualified geotechnical PE or drainage PE or highway PE.
1.3.5) The liability for the submission should not be carried indefinitely but for a stipulated duration, say 10 years.
1.3.6) Submitting person is normally fully responsible for the plans submitted to Authorities. In today’s practice, contractors often propose alternate design to the original design that has been submitted. Currently, if the alternate design is accepted either “at-will” or being “coerced into accepting” by the first original design engineer, the first design engineer will have to take a huge responsibility. Because of this and other commercial reasons, the first design engineer and the second alternate design engineer often spend quite a bit of time in resolving the acceptance. Sometimes, the second design engineer is overly simplified and optimistic (and occasionally overly commercial), while the first design engineer could be conservative and unreasonably demanding on the second design engineer. The Client often has to mediate between the two and it is not always easy to find an agreement (especially if the Client is not technical incline).
1.3.6.1) I propose second design engineer ought to take full responsibility of the alternate design and be allowed to re-submit to Authority, and hence discharge the first design engineer of his duty.
2) Clause 9: Registered Engineers, etc., subject to this Act.
2.1) Interpretation:
2.1.1) Who is bound by the Act?
2.1.2) All registered engineers and ECP must comply with this Act.
2.1.3) The Act stipulates who is permitted to provide “professional engineering
services”; they are essentially those who are registered with the Board and thereby required to comply with the provisions of the Act. The exceptions to this are those listed in Clause 8 (4)(a) to (4)(d).
2.2) Intent:
2.2.1) To regulate engineers and ECP.
2.3) Review:
2.3.1) Consequences for unqualified personnel or ECP submitting plans and providing professional engineering services are stipulated in Clause 24. However, bringing public awareness on the matter, policing and enforcement machinery and procedure of enforcement on non-engineers (or companies engaging engineers) are silent. Perhaps the revised Act could improve on this.
2.3.2) Interesting question that needs to be answered is whether the Act enables criminal proceedings to be brought against those (engineers or non-engineers) unregistered with the Board (and not in the list mentioned in Clause 8 (4)) who have provided “professional engineering services” in Malaysia. If so who initiates actions.
2.3.3) Hypothetically, an engineer recently graduated from University and currently practicing engineering, but does not registered with the Board. What will happen next? Does the Act entrust the Board to take actions and stop the engineer from continuing the service?
2.3.4) Another scenario. Say a sale person is promoting an engineering product. In the process of promoting sales, the sale person extends additional service to the potential purchaser. The sale person advises the purchaser on the usage of the product from the engineering perspective and claiming performance of the product in resolving issues at hand. However, the sale person is not a qualified engineer and does not register with Board. Does the Act entrust the Board to take actions and regulate the engineering service?
3) Clause 10: Qualifications for registration.
3.1) Interpretation:
3.1.1) Who is qualified to register with the Board?
3.1.2) Briefly, Graduate Member of IEM or person with the recognized qualification may register with the Board.
3.1.3) Who is qualified to register as PE?
3.1.4) Person who complies with the requirements of the Board and passes the professional assessment examination or a Corporate Member of IEM.
3.2) Intent:
3.2.1) To regulate engineers (with or without Ir.) and ECP.
3.3) Review:
3.3.1) In between Graduate Engineer and PE, perhaps there should be another group of engineers, namely those who have graduated many years and have adequate technical experience but no Ir. (See Item 1.3.1 above).
3.3.2) Person who is holding a position carrying the title “engineer” perhaps should be registered with Board (e.g. sale engineer). This is to ensure the word “engineer” is used in appropriate context. Likewise, all graduate engineers ought to register with the Board.
4) Clause 10A: Registration of Temporary Engineers.
4.1) Interpretation:
4.1.1) Can foreign engineers register with the Board?
4.1.2) Foreign engineers with the necessary qualification and reside in Malaysia for not less than 180 days may registered as Temporary Engineers and perform the function of PE.
4.2) Intent:
4.2.1) To regulate foreign engineers.
4.3) Review:
4.3.1) As worded in Clause 2(a), it implies that a foreign engineer becomes eligible for consideration if “he possesses the necessary qualification which is recognized for the practice of engineering as a professional engineer in the country where he normally practices”. Therefore
4.3.1.1) the person need not be currently registered in his country to practice (he may have allowed his registration to lapse, or perhaps have had his registration revoked temporarily or otherwise for one reason or another).
4.3.1.2) it could be any country, regardless of whether Malaysia recognizes their standards for licensing professional engineers.
4.3.2) A suggestion for alternative wording on Clause 2(a):
4.3.2.1) “he holds a current registration for the practice of engineering as a professional engineer in a country in the Board’s list of approved countries.”
4.3.3) Clause 2(b) excludes a resident representative of a local based foreign company from providing “professional engineering services” unless the foreign company is in a joint venture with a local company? Is this by design?
4.3.4) Can the Board (or any other body) impose and enforce the Act on a Temporary Engineer who has submitted plans, design, and etc. al. or perform engineering services and left the country (or after their temporary registration has lapsed, especially since it would seem from Clause 15 (1), that Board can only take action against engineers registered with it)? Legal help may be necessary to clarify this and tighten loose ends, should there be any.
4.3.5) Incidentally, concern described in Item 4.3.4 also applies to local engineers, who have retired or decided to discontinue with their Board’s registration (like if they suspect some very drastic action could be pending).
5) Clause 10B: Registration of Accredited Checker
5.1) Interpretation:
5.1.1) Who is qualified to register as Accredited Checker?
5.1.2) A person with a recognized standing in the profession may be registered as
Accredited Checker.
5.2) Intent:
5.2.1) To regulate the Accredited Checkers.
5.2.2) To ensure Accredited Checker could perform their function to predetermined standards.
5.3) Review:
5.3.1) It would seem from 10B (1)(b) that the services of Accredited Checkers are only anticipated for review of structural works, particularly with respect to “design and construction of buildings”. What about infrastructure and geotechnical works or for that matter for disciplines other than civil? Even if the present intention is have accredited checking only for limited applications, why be restrictive in the Act. Why not allow now for future expansion of the scope for Accredited Checkers, as and if the need arises? Suggest wording as follows for 10B (1)(b):
5.3.1.1) “he has at least 10 years practical experience satisfactory to the Board in the relevant branch and discipline of engineering.”
5.3.2) The scope for accredited checkers is not clear and needs to be explained. Elaboration of Clause 10B (2) is necessary.
Monday, June 30, 2008
A new and fit-for-purpose Malaysian “Engineering Act”
By Engr. HT Wong
A new and fit-for-purpose Malaysian “Engineering Act” relevant for the time and the 21st Century borderless and competitive global market; a primer by Engr. Rocky HT Wong for the proposed IEM Blog to enable exchange of views and ideas among IEM members – with a view to float up a consensus towards a brain-storming session among the IEM membership:-.
In the early 60’s when certain failures of engineering works occurred; especially the high-profile case of the collapse of a shop-house, under construction, in Jalan Raja Laut K.L, which resulted in fatalities – a Royal Commission of Enquiry was formed to look into the causes.
Typically of the “pendulum-swing theory” and in response to the public out – cry, the call to regulate the practice of engineering, among other reasons, resulted in the “Registration of Engineers” Act (REA) passed by Parliament in 1967.
However, the Board of Engineers, Malaysia (i.e BEM) was only operationalised on 22nd August 1972; and that too, was after an amendment was made to the REA on 7th July 1972.
The original intention of the Act was to register all Malaysians who practice engineering (one way or another, either in private practice, or in employment). Hence, the BEM was effectively the “Register” of Malaysian engineers who were expected to follow a set of “Do’s” and “Don’ts” rules; with additional guidelines for those natural persons, the engineers, in private practice as Consulting Engineers such as “Model Forms” of Agreement etc.
Then in 1987, by Act A662 (of 16th January 1987), the REA (1967) was amended to also register “Bodies Corporate” (in other words, legal persons) with the introduction of Clause 7A.
With WTO coming into being in 1995-following that and on the instruction from the Cabinet (the Minister of Works then was Leo Moggie instead of Sammy) the BEM was instructed to amend the REA to be relevant for globalization and trade liberalization.
It was a long time in coming among the various reasons given was that the consisting REA was a “mosquito act” but frankly, the “powers that be” did not understand “globalization”; and that the Board consisting of too many government servants, who were not in private-practice, and hence their views were not in sign with the realities of the market practice.
However, for all the “long and the short”, and with much “cut and paste” and the Act still remaining in its original forum, the “major” amendment was finally approved by Parliament on 1st December 2002 via Act A1158 – with “Bodies Corporate” being replaced by Engineering Consultancy Practices; ie ECP’s - applying to natural and legal persons.
Then with the Prime Minister’s call to improve the public delivery system (after the 2004, 11th general elections) – with the introduction of the “CCC” the REA (1967) was promptly amended by Act A1288 on 1st April 2007.
All the amendments to date (there were 6 in total) kept the REA in its original form but has since shifted from purely a “Register” of natural persons – the engineers – to be both a “Register” of natural persons – the engineers, and the “Licensing Board” of ECP’s (be they natural or legal persons).
The Board’s Amendments to the REA Committee (or Engineers Act Committee), has been tasked since 2004, to look into the “re-vamp” of the REA to be relevant for the time and the globalized economy which is highly competitive.
Then, the Board (i.e the BEM) at its meeting held on 15th April 2006, resolved to embark on a major effort to critically and comprehensively review the current Act and to propose necessary changes to note; it is not going to be a “revamp” of the Act! Well, well.
There is a recommendation to the Board to solicit feedback and inputs from various stakeholders; and accordingly, the IEM (which has representations to the Board of the BEM, the Engineers Act Committee as well as the Committee’s Working Group) in tern is now, by way of its blog, seeking feedback and inputs from the IEM membership at large.
The Position-to-Date
To date, work by the various parties and the BEM’s and EA Committee’s WG have gone through the fundamentals of a relevant Act for the practice of engineering from the dual stand points of:
- Protect public interests; and
- The practice of the full spectrum of engineering and integrated engineering services in a competitive market environment.
- To look at the safety of the public
- To emphasis more on the qualification regulation
- To emphasis more on the professional services application
- To emphasis more on the consultancy license
- Do wee need to register the graduate engineers?
- Issues of safety and competency
- CPD requirements; is it necessary?
- MRA
Request:-
Please post your views on any or all of the above areas, or other areas, which you believe, are of importance to the practice of engineering and to the profession of engineering.
A new and fit-for-purpose Malaysian “Engineering Act”
By Engr. HT Wong
A new and fit-for-purpose Malaysian “Engineering Act” relevant for the time and the 21st Century borderless and competitive global market; a primer by Engr. Rocky HT Wong for the proposed IEM Blog to enable exchange of views and ideas among IEM members – with a view to float up a consensus towards a brain-storming session among the IEM membership:-.
In the early 60’s when certain failures of engineering works occurred; especially the high-profile case of the collapse of a shop-house, under construction, in Jalan Raja Laut K.L, which resulted in fatalities – a Royal Commission of Enquiry was formed to look into the causes.
Typically of the “pendulum-swing theory” and in response to the public out – cry, the call to regulate the practice of engineering, among other reasons, resulted in the “Registration of Engineers” Act (REA) passed by Parliament in 1967.
However, the Board of Engineers, Malaysia (i.e BEM) was only operationalised on 22nd August 1972; and that too, was after an amendment was made to the REA on 7th July 1972.
The original intention of the Act was to register all Malaysians who practice engineering (one way or another, either in private practice, or in employment). Hence, the BEM was effectively the “Register” of Malaysian engineers who were expected to follow a set of “Do’s” and “Don’ts” rules; with additional guidelines for those natural persons, the engineers, in private practice as Consulting Engineers such as “Model Forms” of Agreement etc.
Then in 1987, by Act A662 (of 16th January 1987), the REA (1967) was amended to also register “Bodies Corporate” (in other words, legal persons) with the introduction of Clause 7A.
With WTO coming into being in 1995-following that and on the instruction from the Cabinet (the Minister of Works then was Leo Moggie instead of Sammy) the BEM was instructed to amend the REA to be relevant for globalization and trade liberalization.
It was a long time in coming among the various reasons given was that the consisting REA was a “mosquito act” but frankly, the “powers that be” did not understand “globalization”; and that the Board consisting of too many government servants, who were not in private-practice, and hence their views were not in sign with the realities of the market practice.
However, for all the “long and the short”, and with much “cut and paste” and the Act still remaining in its original forum, the “major” amendment was finally approved by Parliament on 1st December 2002 via Act A1158 – with “Bodies Corporate” being replaced by Engineering Consultancy Practices; ie ECP’s - applying to natural and legal persons.
Then with the Prime Minister’s call to improve the public delivery system (after the 2004, 11th general elections) – with the introduction of the “CCC” the REA (1967) was promptly amended by Act A1288 on 1st April 2007.
All the amendments to date (there were 6 in total) kept the REA in its original form but has since shifted from purely a “Register” of natural persons – the engineers – to be both a “Register” of natural persons – the engineers, and the “Licensing Board” of ECP’s (be they natural or legal persons).
The Board’s Amendments to the REA Committee (or Engineers Act Committee), has been tasked since 2004, to look into the “re-vamp” of the REA to be relevant for the time and the globalized economy which is highly competitive.
Then, the Board (i.e the BEM) at its meeting held on 15th April 2006, resolved to embark on a major effort to critically and comprehensively review the current Act and to propose necessary changes to note; it is not going to be a “revamp” of the Act! Well, well.
There is a recommendation to the Board to solicit feedback and inputs from various stakeholders; and accordingly, the IEM (which has representations to the Board of the BEM, the Engineers Act Committee as well as the Committee’s Working Group) in tern is now, by way of its blog, seeking feedback and inputs from the IEM membership at large.
The Position-to-Date
To date, work by the various parties and the BEM’s and EA Committee’s WG have gone through the fundamentals of a relevant Act for the practice of engineering from the dual stand points of:
- Protect public interests; and
- The practice of the full spectrum of engineering and integrated engineering services in a competitive market environment.
- To look at the safety of the public
- To emphasis more on the qualification regulation
- To emphasis more on the professional services application
- To emphasis more on the consultancy license
- Do wee need to register the graduate engineers?
- Issues of safety and competency
- CPD requirements; is it necessary?
- MRA
Request:-
Please post your views on any or all of the above areas, or other areas, which you believe, are of importance to the practice of engineering and to the profession of engineering.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Shape shifting skyscraper
Imagine a skyscraper with floors that each rotate independently at different speeds. That's the idea behind architect David Fisher's Dynamic Tower, which, once built, would be the world's first 'moving' building.
Because each floor of such a tower would rotate independently, the building would constantly change shape, resulting in a unique and evolving architectural structure.
The tower would also be designed to be self-powered, generating its own electricity, as well as power for other nearby buildings, with wind turbines fitted between each rotating floor. 'An 80-story building would have up to 79 wind turbines, making it a true green power plant,' Dr Fisher said.
The skyscraper itself could be built entirely from prefabricated parts that are custom made in a workshop, resulting in cost savings. The approach - known as the Fisher Method - requires far fewer workers on the construction site, lowering costs.
Indeed, Fisher believes that construction of one tower would require only 600 people in an assembly facility and 80 technicians on a construction site, instead of the 2,000 workers usually required to erect a traditional building of a similar size.
The Rotating Tower might make its first appearance in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, if Fisher has his way. This week, he said that a 420 metre, 80 floor tower would be be constructed there housing apartments ranging in size from 124 to 1,200 square metres. But although he has received a development license for construction in Dubai, he has not disclosed the site of the building, according to CNN reports.
fr: http://www.theengineer.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)