ACEM wish list for "Revamp of REA"

By Ir. TL Chen

No.	Proposed Wish List	Rationale
.1	Re-examine or re-establish the purpose of the Registration of Engineers Act and determine its Prime/Principal objective(s): · Serve and protect public interest? · Regulate the practice of professional engineering? · Regulate the qualifications and conduct of professional engineers? · Regulate corporations which supply professional services? · Regulate the practice of engineering consultancy profession?	If the Act is to protect public interest by regulating the engineers, then the Act should be steered towards the practising engineers.
.2	To clearly define and differentiate between ‘Practising Engineers’ and ‘Practising Engineering’.	To enable the Act to achieve its Prime/Principal objective(s).
.3	The BEM Board should comprise more than 50% practising engineers. The President or Deputy President of BEM should be a practising engineer.	If the principal objective is to regulate practising engineers, then majority of the Board members should be conversant with practice issues to understand the in’s and out’s of the industry. It should be worth noting that in Canada, the regulation and licensing of consulting engineers is by its Association of Consulting Engineers established under an ACT! To consider the Singapore model of the entire Board being elected by members including the position of President.
.4	There is need to either forget totally about registering engineers or clearly define distinct categories of engineers who wish to sell their services and those who prefer other vocation, related or unrelated to engineering.	All engineers have a choice of either upholding the profession in providing service or not to practise. Perhaps these can be segregated with the use of Ir. for both categories, and P Eng. for those electing to practise. 1)
.5	Registration of engineers and licensing should be separated. A registered engineer should have at least 10 years relevant experience before he/she could be licensed to practise as a sole-proprietor, partner or Director in a body corporate.	The Act does not uphold the status of engineers – the entry qualification to P.Eng status enables ‘automatic’ licence to practise, which has led to a decline in practice standards. The present Professional Interview format must be reviewed. Consider adopting the format of registration for: 2) Graduate Engineers (similar to issuance of Birth Certificates) to ascertain that their degree are bona fide; 3) Non Practising Professional Engineers (akin to Identity Cards) for those with 4 years experience and pass the Board’s ‘existing format of’ professional examination; 4) Practising Engineers (practising licence similar to driving licence) for Category 2) Non Practising Engineers who pass the Board’s competency tests.
.6	Limitation of Professional Liability to be included in the Act.	The issue has been documented in the paper prepared by BEM Working Group on Long Stop Liability, which is still pending AG approval.
.7	Registration of Accredited Checkers should include body corporates, not just individuals.	An individual may not have Professional Indemnity Insurance coverage, whereas a firm would likely obtain PII coverage when acting as a Checker. Moreover, an individual would need technical support from his firm to carry out the tasks as a Checker.
.8	Disciplinary action needs to be dispose off expeditiously. It is suggested that BEM’s disciplinary proceedings to follow along the lines of the Bar Council for their method of expedient disciplinary hearings and decisions. The Bar Council’s Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board dispose off a case between 6 months to 3 years depending on the complexity of the case. As such BEM must have the power to summon people to appear before the Investigation Committees.	Board members must also be appointed from members who are willing and ready to give priority to the function of the Board during the period that they agree to serve. Perhaps typically busy corporate figures should be exempted from such regulatory service to the nation. Without resolving this issue, even if the disciplinary quorum is reduced further to 3, there will still be no quorum. And worst still, if there is no regular meeting, there is no case to dispose of.
.9	Right to arbitrate to be included in the Act.	The Act should empower BEM to arbitrate on fee disputes between Clients and Engineers, which are relatively simple and straight forward to resolve.
.10	The Act should empower BEM to take action against engineers not registered with BEM and non-engineers.	The current Act can be termed as discriminating against registered engineers, and the Act has no clout against others who flout its laws.
.11	Review the registration of engineering consultancy practices (sole proprietorship, partnership and body corporates).	The current Act can only regulate individuals. As such, the need to register engineering consultancy practice is meaningless, apart from fee collection. Registration of ECP can be made relevant by mandating that engineers can only practise consulting services through approved ECPs.
.12	Definition of engineering services should cover all aspects of the engineering fraternity and not leave loopholes for others to attempt to exploit/monopolise any engineering sector.	Any loophole in the definition of engineering services allow for others such as the Valuers/Building Surveyors, to attempt to exploit/monopolise as is currently being debated for Facility Maintenance.
.13	The Act should empower BEM to enforce the Scale of Fees.	It is crucial that engineers get a fair fee for their services to ensure a high standard of engineering services.