LEMBAGA JURUTERA MALAYSIA

KDN PP11720/1/2009(020604) ISSN 0128-4347 VOL.39 SEPT - NOV 2008 RM10.00

BOARD OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA
Engineering
Practice
c o n t e n t s
Volume 39 Sept - Nov 2008
4 Presidents Message
Editors Note
6 Announcements
Publication Calendar
Call For Registration ACPE
7 Update
Federal Court Sets Rule On Discipline Of Professionals
Cover Feature
8 Mitigation and Rehabilitation Of Natural Disasters
In Malaysia (Part 1)
16 Updates On Route To Professional Engineer
22 Should Professional Indemnity Insurance For Engineers
Be Mandatory?
25 How To Deal With Challenges In
Civil Engineering Practice
30 Introduction To Code Of Ethics For Young Engineers
Engineering & Law
32 The Certifcate Of Completion And Compliance In
The Building Industry Bugbear Or Bunkum? (Part 2)
Feature
43 A Recollection Of 1961 Landslide, Cameron Highlands
Guidelines
46 FAQs On Certifcate Of Completion And Compliance
Engineering Nostalgia
56 Aspects Of Life During The Emergency
17
32
56
9
presidents message
The construction activity of the nation as reported in
the Ministry of Finance (MOF)s Economic Report remains
positive, although the forecast growth for 2009 is expected
to contract to 3.1% from the estimated 4% in 2008. Some
local engineering firms and property developers have
ventured overseas after having made names of themselves
in the Engineering service sector locally.
This issue on Engineering Practices offers readers some
insight into Engineering services in Malaysia. An article by a senior practicing
engineer examines in detail the challenges vis--vis the code of ethics in the
civil engineering arena. The question of professional indemnity insurance
(PII) that has been debated lately is discussed further in a paper by a local,
experienced consultancy practitioner.
The subject of Certifcate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) that
was commonly discussed since it was launched in April 2007 is further
elaborated in FAQs and an article on legal responsibilities of Professional
Engineer (PE) as submitting persons.
May I wish all our Muslim readers Selamat Hari Raya.
Ir Fong Tian Yong
Editor
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA
(BEM) 2007/2008
President
YBhg. Dato Sri Prof. Ir. Dr. Judin Abdul Karim
Registrar
Ir. Dr. Mohd Johari Md. Arif
Secretary
Ir. Ruslan Abdul Aziz
Members
YBhg. Tan Sri Prof. Ir. Dr. Mohd Zulkifi Tan Sri Mohd Ghazali
YBhg. Datuk Ir. Hj. Keizrul Abdullah
YBhg. Lt. Gen. Dato Ir. Ismail Samion
YBhg. Dato Ir. Ashok Kumar Sharma
YBhg. Datuk (Dr.) Ir. Abdul Rahim Hj. Hashim
YBhg. Datu Ir. Hubert Thian Chong Hui
YBhg. Dato Ir. Prof. Chuah Hean Teik
Ar. Dr. Amer Hamzah Mohd Yunus
Ir. Henry E Chelvanayagam
Ir. Dr. Shamsuddin Ab Latif
Ir. Prof. Dr. Ruslan Hassan
Ir. Mohd. Rousdin Hassan
Ir. Tan Yean Chin
Ir. Ishak Abdul Rahman
Ir. Anjin Hj. Ajik
Ir. P E Chong
Jaafar Bin Shahidan
EDITORIAL BOARD
Advisor
YBhg. Dato Sri Prof. Ir. Dr. Judin Abdul Karim
Secretary
Ir. Ruslan Abdul Aziz
Chairman
Ir. Tan Yean Chin
Editor
Ir. Fong Tian Yong
Members
Ir. Prem Kumar
Ir. Mustaza Salim
Ir. Chan Boon Teik
Ir. Ishak Abdul Rahman
Ir. Prof. Dr. K. S. Kannan
Ir. Prof. Madya Dr. Eric K H Goh
Ir. Rocky Wong Hon Thang
Executive Director
Ir. Ashari Mohd Yakub
Publication Ofcer
Pn. Nik Kamaliah Nik Abdul Rahman
Assistant Publication Ofcer
Pn. Che Asiah Mohamad Ali
Design and Production
Inforeach Communications Sdn Bhd
Printer
Art Printing Works Sdn Bhd
29 Jalan Riong, 59100 Kuala Lumpur
The Ingenieur is published by the Board of Engineers Malaysia
(Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia) and is distributed free of charge to
registered Professional Engineers.
The statements and opinions expressed in this
publication are those of the writers.
BEM invites all registered engineers to contribute articles or
send their views and comments to
the following address:
Publication Committee
Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia,
Tingkat 17, Ibu Pejabat JKR,
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin,
50580 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: 03-2698 0590 Fax: 03-2692 5017
E-mail: bem1@streamyx.com; publication@bem.org.my
Website: http://www.bem.org.my
Advertising
Advertisement Form is on page 55
KDN PP11720/1/2009(020604)
ISSN 0128-4347
I note with gratitude this Autumn Issue centres on
Engineering Practice, the core-business of the BEM. It is
perhaps an opportunity for registered engineers, and the
public, to refect on the prevailing paradigm in which
Malaysian engineering practice prevails.
The BEM has come a long way these 40 odd years
since the Registration of Engineers Act was passed
by Parliament in 1967. From just being the domestic
registrar of engineers from the beginning; we are today
the Profession Regulatory Authority (PRA) for Malaysian
engineering practice in a fattened borderless and globalised knowledge-
economy wherein trade liberalization is the order of the day. The BEM,
besides being the traditional guardian of public interests over engineered
facilities and assets, is further challenged by both domestic and international
push-pull factors, among which include the roles of:-
A facilitator to improve the Government public delivery system vis--vis
the CCC policy;
An acknowledged authority in the formation of knowledge workers
(equipped with engineering, technology and innovation skills) certifed
and bench-marked to international best-practice standards in line with
the aspiration of the nation; and
The Malaysian trade-in-engineering services ambassador to the various
international trade fora, such as those at the WTO, the ASEAN Economic
Community (AEC) underpinned by the ASEAN Charter, other bi-lateral,
plura-lateral, multi-lateral FTAs and others; Malaysias interests for both
the export of engineering services, an certain national safeguards leading
to Non-conforming Measures for in-bounds have to be championed
and balanced respectively; and unenviable position.
I am confdent, with the support of all concerned stakeholders, the BEM
will rise to the occasion to provide the leadership, and point the future
direction for 21
st
century engineering practice in Malaysia.
Dato Sri Prof Ir. Dr. Judin bin Abdul Karim
President
BOARD OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA
Vol. 39 Sept - Nov 2008
editors note
4 THE INGENIEUR
6 THE INGENIEUR
The following list is the Publication Calendar
for the year 2008 and 2009. While we
normally seek contributions from
experts for each special theme,
we are also pleased to accept
articles relevant to themes listed.
Please contact the Editor or the
Publication Offcer in advance
if you would like to make such
contributions or to discuss details
and deadlines.
December 2008:
environment
March 2009:
EMERGING ENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGY
June 2009:
PUBLIC AMENITIES
announcement
Call for Registration
ASEAN CHARTERED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
Registration Fees for Asean Chartered
Professional Engineer (ACPE) will be
waived until 2009.
Application Form for registration is
available on BEMs website
www.bem.org.my
The Board of Engineers Malaysia wishes all readers
Federal Court Sets Rule On Discipline Of Professionals
Courtesy of The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd
Putraj aya: Di sci pl i nary bodi es of prof essi onal
organisations have fexibility to conduct proceedings
against their members provided the rules of natural
justice are not violated.
The Federal Court provided this guidance when it
allowed an appeal by the Board Of Engineers Malaysia
to revoke the registration of engineer Leong Pui Kun. The
unanimous decision would affect architects, surveyors,
accountants and doctors.
Judges Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi, Tan Sri Alauddin
Mohd Sheriff and Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul
Rahman who heard the appeal made the ruling on Aug
1. The judgement written by Nik Hashim was made
available yesterday.
On Nov 11, 2006, the Apex Court granted the
Board leave to appeal and two key questions were
posed whether the Registration of Engineers Act 1967
required the Board to follow adversarial system of justice
and whether the Board could act against an engineer
without a complaint.
Nik Hashim said the High Court and the Court of
Appeal were erroneous in holding that the rules of natural
justice under the Act must be governed by the adversarial
system of justice. He said it was also wrong for both
courts to hold that procedures with features similar to
criminal court proceedings must be followed.
Nik Hashim said the Act did not expressly require
a complaint for the Board to exercise its powers
and it may act on its own volition to prosecute an
errant engineer.
Any requirement on complaint will limit the
appellants ability to regulate the engineering
profession, he said. Nik Hashim said the Boards
decision against Leong was based on his admission
and findings that there were flaws in the design and
lack of supervision.
On Sept 16, 1995, a 32-metre span of partly-
const ruct ed st eel t russ l i nkway bri dge at t he
Matsushita Television Co Sdn Bhd factory in Shah
Alam collapsed and a person died while five others
were injured. The Board found there was deficiency
in the linkway bridge designed by Leong and that
he failed in the supervision when the construction
was under progress.
On July 13, 2000, the Board ordered that Leongs
registration be revoked. Following an application for
judicial review, the High Court quashed the Boards
decision and ordered Leong be reinstated as an
engineer.
It held that there was a non-compliance with the
Act and a breach of natural justice. The court of
Appeal also dismissed the Boards appeal in 2004.
update
MASTER JAYA ENVIRONMENTAL SDN BHD (201551-K)
Products & Services
Cyclone,Bagflter,Scrubber,
OilMistFilter,AirCleaner
Fan,Blower,IndustrialVacuumCleaner
IndustrialSilencer,AcousticEnclosure
HeatExchanger,Heat/EnergyRecovery
FilterBags,Cages,PulsingValves,
Controller
PneumaticConveying,
CentralVacuumCleaning
Steel&AluminiumGrating
SteelMillEquipment,Rolls,
RollerGuide,SteelHandlingSystem
Design, Consult, Manufacture, Supply, Install, Test & Commission,
Parts & Service, Upgrade & Modify and Training
Air & Steel Technology
Ofce & Factory Address:-
Wisma Master Jaya, 20, Jalan Taming 3, Taming Jaya Industrial Park,
43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Tel: 03-8962 6233 Fax: 03-8962 6211
Email: info@masterjaya.com.my Website: www.masterjaya.com.my
THE INGENIEUR 7
By Ir. Dr Ooi Teik Aun
Mitigation And Rehabilitation
Of Natural Disasters In Malaysia
cover feature
Flooding, Landslides, Debris Flow and Tsunami are some of the disasters experienced in Malaysia.
The fooding of Kuala Lumpur in the 1970s caused serious damage to lives and properties and
called for food mitigation schemes in Kuala Lumpur. Over the years despite the repeated dredging
and canalization of foodwater in Kuala Lumpur, there were repeated incidences of severe fooding
in the city centre. As part of the overall solution to the frequent fooding problem, the diversion
tunnel project known as SMART was constructed and completed in June 2007. The tunnel is
dual-purpose designed to cater to fow of water and ease traffc congestion in the city of Kuala
Lumpur.
In recent times, climate change has brought about severe fooding in many parts of Malaysia
with increased frequencies. The landslide that caused the collapse of Block 1 of the Highland
Towers condominium in December 1993 claimed 48 lives. The landslide occurred during 10 days
of incessant rainfall. In November 2002, another landslide occurred and buried a bungalow at
the foothill within the vicinity of the Highland Towers site. The incidence also occurred during
the period of incessant rainfall and eight people were killed. Drainage of the Highland Towers
area has been unsatisfactory as there were numerous complaints from the residents to the local
authorities prior to the disastrous landslides.
Debris fow occurred at the Genting Highlands area emerging from the mountainside fanking
the access road and causing debris to fow onto the highway on June 30, 1995 and caused
temporary closure of Kuala Lumpur-Karak Highway. In the incident, 20 people were killed and
23 people were injured.
Debris fow also occurred in the Gunong Tempurong area along the North-South highway,
causing debris-comprising boulders, timber logs and mud to impact on the beams of a bridge,
necessitating closure of a stretch of the highway. This paper reports three cases of landslides
including the rehabilitation of a massive landslide of a tipped-fll slope that was unstable since
construction. Climate change is believed to be a factor contributing to this landslide.
(Part 1)
8 THE INGENIEUR
T
he assessment of the risk
of a natural disaster and
the mitigation thereof are
of foremost importance in an
engineering design. Failure to
assess the risks appropriately could
spell disaster to the completed
works. What is of concern to
the geotechnical engineer is the
prevention and mitigation of
disasters as well as rehabilitations
of failures in geotechnical works.
In Malaysia, major disasters
arising out of geotechnical failures
in uncontrolled earthworks are:
the repeated fooding of Kuala
Lumpur since 1971, the collapse
of Highland Towers Condominium
in 1993, the Genting Highlands
access road debris fow in 1995,
landslide burying a bungalow at
the foothill within the vicinity
of the Highland Tower site in
2002, debris fow in the Gunong
Tempurong Highlands area
along the North South Highway.
The tsunami that struck Pulau
Langkawi, Kuala Kedah and Penang
on December 26, 2004 (Ooi &
Ting 2005) was a wake up call to
examine the impact of earthquake
events from neighbouring country
on Malaysia. Climate change has
resulted in more incidences of
fooding throughout Malaysia in
recent years.
Mitigation, rehabilitation
and prevention of disasters are
important considerations for
any geotechnical design. The
SMART project was born out of
the disastrous fooding of Kuala
Lumpur in 1971 and the subsequent
fooding events as shown in Table
1 and is believed to be the frst
of its kind in the world where the
tunnel is used as a dual purpose
tunnel for both food control and
to ease the traffc congestion of
Kuala Lumpur City Centre. Fig. 1
shows the alignment and cross
section of the tunnel.
The Highland Towers
Condominium collapse (Fig. 2)
shows that it is important for a
designer to consider all aspect
of foreseeable possible danger
to the buildings in relation to
the environment including future
maintenance. Slope stability and
the structural foundation of the
building are integral in the design
analysis process. Professionals
must put health and safety above
all other factors in the design
consideration. The need to get
rid of surface and subsurface
water from site is clear from this
tragedy.
Debris fow type of slope
failures will increase with more
Table 1. Kuala Lumpur Flood Events
1926
January 4, 1971
1982, 1986, 1988
June 7, 1993, December 21, 1995, 1996, 1997
April 30, 2000
April 26, 2001, October 29, 2001
June 11, 2002
June 10, 2003
June 11, 2007
Fig.1 Schematic alighment and cross section of SMART Fig.2 Collapse of Block 1 Highland Tower
THE INGENIEUR 9
cover feature
development in the Highlands and
mitigating measures recommended
must consider hydraulic factors
that dominate the impact of the
debris fow, whilst geotechnical
factors determine the formation
of the natural barrier and the
materials of the debris.
The tsunami catastrophe that
struck the Indian Ocean on
December 26, 2004 brought
about the urgent need from the
geotechnical community in the
region and Malaysia in particular
to look at the mitigation by
way of design provision and
consideration.
The programme of public
education in awareness and training
in handling of such disasters
must also be implemented as has
been done in Japan for tsunami
(Ohta, 2005) and Hong Kong for
slopes (Mak et. al. 2007). This
paper deals with some aspects of
landslide disasters due to tipped-
fll slope in Malaysia.
THE LANDSLIDE INCIDENCES
Ooi (2004) i n hi s speci al
lecture on Earthwork Practice in
Malaysia discussed the effects of
the water factor in the occurrences
of landslides. Table 2 shows the
case histories of major landslides
in Malaysia. All these landslides
occurred during the period of
incessant rainfall.
GASING HEIGHT
DEVELOPMENT

The incessant rainfall in the
December 1970 and January 1971
caused the tipped-fll materials
over the slope of the Gasing
Height Development in Petaling
Jaya to move down the slopes on
January 4, 1971 and destroyed
two Government quarters at the
bottom of the slopes in two
separate locations of the same
Date Location Landslide Details
January 4,
1971
Bukit Gasing,
Petaling Jaya
Gasing Height Development. Perimeter drains collapsed during
one week of incessant rain. Tipped-fll Flow slide damaged two
Government Quarters completely. The slope reconstructed with
proper compaction and quarters rebuilt.
Case settlement out of court. PWD internal report (Ooi, 1971).
Kuala Lumpur fooded.
September
1988
Ulu Kelang,
Ampang Jaya
Slope failure due to excavating neighbouring land during
prolonged period of incessant rain. Damage to bungalow and
swimming pool
High Court decided Engineer has a duty of care that he owed to
the house owner
House owner was awarded economic loss amounting to about
RM360,000
December
1993
Ulu Kelang,
Ampang Jaya
Collapse of Block I of Highland Towers on December 11, 1993
during prolonged period of incessant rain. 48 people were
killed.
Technical committee report of investigation by MPAJ (MPAJ,
1994)
High Court decided Engineer failed in his duty of care he owed
to the plaintif
June
1995
Genting,
Selangor
Debris fow, Genting Highlands on June 30, 1995 caused
closure of Kuala Lumpur Karak Highway
20 people were killed
23 people injured
Economic losses, destruction of several vehicles, destruction of
roadway and disruption of trafc.
May
1999
Ulu Kelang,
Ampang Jaya
Bukit Antarabangsa flled slope failure during prolonged period
of incessant rain.
Access road to Bukit Antarabangsa cut-of.
Residents of the area were evacuated. No loss of lives but
economic loss and anxieties.
Rehabilitation by installation of horizontal drainage system.
November
2002
Ulu Kelang,
Ampang Jaya
Landslide occurred at 6.00am during prolonged period of
incessant rain.
Landslide buried the bungalow at the foothill and eight people
were killed.
November 2003 Bukit Lanjan,
NKVE
Rockslide occurred during prolonged period of incessant rain.
Rockslide caused closure of NKVE Highway at Bukit Lanjan for
six months. Rock slope stabilised and slided materials were
blasted and removed.
May
2006
Taman Zooview,
Ulu Kelang,
Ampang Jaya
Massive landslide of an old tipped-fll slope with terrace
houses on top of the slope.
Continuous heavy rainfall in the month of April and May 2006
before the landslide. Long houses at the bottom of the slope
demolished by the landslide materials and four persons in the
long houses were killed. Residents of the terrace houses on top
of the slope evacuated.
Local authority directed slope rehabilitation by the Developer
for the bottom of the slope.
Table 2. Case histories of earthwork failures due to water.
10 THE INGENIEUR
cover feature
development as shown in Figs.3
and 4. The loose tipped-fill
materials were of residual soil
of sandstone and shale origin
known geologically as Kenny
Hill Formation with inter-bedded
quartz-veins obtained from
leveling of the insitu sandstone/
shale hills to create a platform
for the buildings. The height of
the slope was about 30m. The
continuous rainfall has fully
saturated the soil and the slope
resulting in debris flow down the
slope and caused severe damage
to the two Government quarters.
In Fig. 3 it can be seen that the
debris had entered the quarter
from the back portion of the
two-storey house and emerged at
the front of the house where the
lounge was located. Fortunately,
the incident happened at about
6am when the family members
were still sleeping in their
bedrooms located on the other
half of the house. Because the
damaged portion of the house
was not being used at that time,
no lives were lost and no one
was injured but the two-storey
building suffered severe damages.
In Fig. 4 it can be seen that
the debris came to rest against
the single-storey building and
the roof was nearly overtopped.
Again because the landslide event
occurred at about 5am the family
members were still sleeping
in their rooms. The damaged
portions of the building were
the kitchen and storeroom that
at the time of the landslide were
not being used. Consequently no
lives were lost and no one was
injured except that the building
was damaged beyond repair.
The Government took the
developer to the Court but the
parties agreed to settle the matter
out of court when the developer
undertook to reconstruct the
slopes with proper compaction
and reinstate the damaged
quarters all at its own cost.
At the same rainfall event
the Kuala Lumpur city centre
was flooded on January 4, 1971
with basements of banks and
commercial buildings all under
water. The previous recorded
flooding of Kuala Lumpur
happened in 1926.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE
HIGHLAND TOWERS
On December 11, 1993 at
1.30pm, after a period of 10
days of incessant rain, Block 1
of Highland Towers Condominium
collapsed resulting in the loss of
48 lives and the loss of use of the
remaining two Tower Blocks that
are still unoccupied. The local
authority (MPAJ, 1994) set up a
Technical Committee of Enquiries
and the findings are as follows:
Th e Hi g h l a n d To we r s
Condominium was sited mainly on
fill ground over granitic formation.
The maximum depth from the
ground surface to bedrock is
about 19m. Granitic rocks found
in and around the areas were
not highly soluble minerals to
adversely affect the stability of
the foundations.
Soils overlying the granitic
bedrock were very loose to loose
silty sand and highly permeable.
The foundation for all the three
Tower Blocks were supported on
rail piles designed to take only
vertical loads.
Sur f ace dr ai nage s ys t em
provided was not in accordance to
approved plan. Situations worsen
when earthwork activities changed
the drainage pattern on the hill-
slope behind the Condominium
Blocks and available drainage
systems were not maintained.
Clearing of trees on upper
catchments resulted in increased
runof f t hat f l owed down t he
terraced hill-slope immediately
behind the towers
R e t r o g r e s s i v e s l i d e s
progressively moved uphill starting
from loss of toe mass at the back
of the Condominium Block 1 (see
Fig. 5).
Fig.3 Landslide at Quarter 1276 Fig.4 Landslide at Quarter 1280
THE INGENIEUR 11
cover feature
The fallen debris accumulated
behi nd t he back t er r ace of
Condomi ni um Tower Bl ock 1
caused t he l andsl i p t o occur
beneat h t he ent i r e rai l pi l e
foundation that brought down
the Tower Block 1 Condominium
within minutes of the landslide
occurrences. (This mode of failure
has been precluded by the High
Court hearings. Yee (2008) has
analytically shown that this mode
of failure is inadmissible).
It must be pointed out that
the MPAJ 1994 report was
accepted by the High Court only
on the factual data contained in
the report. The fndings in the
report were excluded as during
the course of the High Court
hearings, certain fndings, based
on evidence, were arrived at.
The rotational retrogressive slope
failure was accepted as the cause
of the collapse of the Block 1 of
the Highland Towers and water
from up-slope development and its
drainage system and maintenance
were the major factors contributing
to the slope failure.
The Resident Association took
the case to the High Court (Steve
Phoa Chen Loon & Ors v Highland
Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors,
2000) and the High Court found
that the landslide that brought
down Block 1 of the Highland
Towers Condominium was due
to a rotational retrogressive slide
emanating from a high retaining
wall behind the second tier of
the three-tiered car parks. Water
was found to be the principal
factor that caused this high wall
to fail.
Lessons learned from the
decision of the High Court in
August 2000 are as follows:
The Engineer was liable in
negligence for (i) not having
taken into account the hill or
slope behind the Towers, (ii) not
having designed and constructed
a foundation to accommodate
the lateral loads of a landslide or
alternatively to have ensured that
the adjacent hill-slope was stable,
(iii) for not having implemented
that approved drainage scheme,
(iv) for colluding with the
First (Developer) and Second
(Architectural Draughtsman)
Defendants to obtain CF without
fulfilling the conditions imposed
by the Fourth Defendant (Local
Authorities) and also in nuisance
as he was an unreasonable user
of land. An appeal was filed
by the Defendants and the
Appeal Court in December 2002
maintained the fact findings of
the High Court. The case went
further to the Federal Court and
in the judgment of February
2006; economic loss claim of
the residents was rejected.
This case has several important
implications for developers,
building professionals, local
authorities, absentee landlords
and developers of neighbouring
properties in Malaysia. As the
Court battle went on, the two
other towers that were declared
unsafe for occupation were left
vacant and unattended even till
today, some 15 years after the
incident.
In general, water has been the
principal cause of many slope
failures as can be seen in Table
2. The design should have taken
into account suitable surface and
subsurface drainage of slopes.
The use of tipped-fill materials
on slope and embankment
should never have been allowed
under any circumstances but this
practice remains unabated.
Rainfall Records
Since water and poor drainage
have been f ound t o be t he
principal factors of the causes
of collapse of the slope and one
of the towers, it is important
then to look at the cumulative
rainfall three months before the
collapse of the slope and the
tower. Fig. 6 shows the rainfall
di st r i but i on f r om Sept ember-
December 1993. On the same
figure, the cumulative rainfall
was al so pl ot t ed. I t can be
seen that the cumulative rainfall
on the day of the tragic event
was about 900mm. The annual
rainfall for 1993 was 2,604mm.
Thus the cumulative rainfall from
September to December 11, 1993
accounted for 35% of the annual
Fig. 5 Retrogressive Slope Failure
12 THE INGENIEUR
cover feature
rainfall. The intensity of rainfall
was sever e i n t he mont h of
December prior to the day when
the slope and the Block 1 Tower
col l apsed. The seepage f l ow
would have played a part in the
collapse of the slope since water
emerging from the rubble wall at
the slope toe can cause loss of
support as the material collapsed
locally leading to the rotational
retrogressive slope failure.
TAMAN ZOOVIEW LANDSLIDE
On May 31, 2006 at about
4.30pm, a landslide occurred at
the back of a row of terrace
houses located on top of the
slope of Taman Zooview. In the
incidence, the following damages
were reported to have incurred:
(a) A newly constructed Reinforced
Soil Wall of 6m high and
40m l ong l ocat ed at t he
boundary of the development
to Taman Zooview collapsed
and moved about 100m down
the slope.
(b) Extensive ground movement
on t he down s l ope s i de
of the wall resulted in the
dest r uct i on of t hr ee l ong
houses at the bottom of the
slope and loss of four lives.
(c) The sixteen units of terrace
houses l ocat ed on t op of
the slope in Taman Zooview
were subjected to evacuation
order by the local authority as
their houses were considered
unsafe for occupation.
The Geology
The geology of the entire
Taman Zooview area, including
the terrace houses at Taman
Zooview which were affected by
the landslide are underlain by
graphitic schist of the Hawthorden
Formation. This schist is exposed
at several localities on cut slopes
along the road leading up to Taman
Zooview from the Zoo entrance,
either as bedrock or residual soils.
The same schist is also exposed
in a major excavation just to the
east of the said terrace houses.
The Hawthornden schist can
be seen intruded by weathered
granite and quartz veins and
dykes in the major excavation for
the housing development at the
adjacent site to the site of the
landslide. Borehole investigation
showed that the terrace houses
are located on fll ground with
very low SPT blow counts. The
landslide involves the tipped-fll
material at the backyard of the
terrace houses that was built on
fll ground over the valley some
20 over years ago. Thus the
landslide is basically a classical
tipped-fll problem with poor
drainage system.
Tipped-fll slope
The sixteen units of terrace
houses located on top of the
slope were constructed on fll
of over 13m thick over a ravine
with loose tipped-fll slope at
their backyard that was constantly
slipping over the last 20 years
since the houses were built. The
drainage system has since not been
functioning. To make matter worst,
the residents have taken upon
themselves to indiscriminately
discharge domestic and storm
water over the slope from their
houses. Figs. 7 and 8 respectively
show photographs taken in 2004
on the condition of the slope
Fig. 6 Daily rainfall from 1/9/93 - 12/12/93 recorded at the DID
Ampang Station
Fig. 7 Condition of slope in 2004
Fig. 8 Drainage discharging in slope
in 2004
THE INGENIEUR 13
cover feature
with plastic sheet cover and the
drainage pipes sticking out of the
slope for one of the houses with
extension perching precariously on
the slope. Behind the plastic sheet
cover, all is not well. According
to the house owners, the fll-
slope at the backyard has being
slipping/eroding since completion
and has become critical when the
edge of the slope came close to
the houses. Water from the gutters
of the houses was connected by
plastic pipes to discharge further
down the slope.
Slope stability analysis shows
that the factor of safety for
localized slope failure to be
1.05. The slope is thus perching
precariously and failure can
be expected to happen at any
time, particularly with incessant
rainfall and poor drainage system.
The localized slope failure can
propagate upwards and eventually
cause the collapse of the entire
slope as had happened at the
Highland Towers Tragedy in
December 1993 where one of the
three blocks of Towers collapsed
as a result of the initiation of
localized slope failure that
led to rotational retrogressive
slope failure. Fig. 9 shows the
contour plan of the site after the
landslide. Two parts of the slope
are distinctively different; the
upper slope consists of tipped-fll
Hawthornden schist and the lower
half where yellowish materials are
visible are the original residual
soil of granite origin. At both sides
of the lower slope the materials
were also of tipped-fll over the
granite residual soil. At the lower
end of the lower slope there is
a layer of alluvium consisting
of organic material of about 1m
thick overlying the weathered
granite of SPT greater than 50.
The geology of the site can be
said to be complex. Photographs
showing the various layering can
be found in subsequent sections
during slope rehabilitation.
The Reinforced Soil Wall
When the residents of the
terrace houses complained to
the local authority on the slope
movement, a site meeting was
held at which the local authority
directed the developer on the
down slope to stabilize the slope
behind the terrace houses and a
40m reinforced soil wall supported
on reinforced concrete slab and
piles was built by a specialist
contractor. The global stability of
the slope and the wall was greater
than 1.4. The design was reviewed
and approved by the independent
reviewer appointed by the local
authority. The drainage condition
of the slope at the back of the
houses remained the same at the
time the wall was built. There
was an overall plan to connect
all the drains from the houses to
the monsoon drains of the new
development; unfortunately the
plan was too early to be effected
then. As there was a directive from
the local authority to complete
the wall urgently for fear of the
raining season, the construction
of the wall took about six weeks
to reach its full height. The slope
behind the terrace houses and the
wall collapsed 10 days after the
wall reached its full height of 6 to
Fig. 9 Contour Plan of Landslide Area
14 THE INGENIEUR
cover feature
7m on May 31, 2006. The landslide
material travelled approximately
100m down the slope and caused
massive upheaval of the ground
resulting in the destruction of
squatter houses and death of four
persons. Fig. 10 shows a general
view of the landslide.
Rainfall Record
The total amount of rainfall
during the consecutive months
of May 2006 and the 11 months
preceding it were very much
higher than the long term means.
It is evident that the area was
exceptionally wet and registered
Fig. 10 General view of Landslide
Fig. 11 Histogram of monthly rainfall record BEM
unusually high rainfall during
October 2005 to May 2006. The
prolonged period of rainfall
and/or the intense rainfall
is common denominator in
the incidence of monsoonal
and flash flood, mudflow
and landslide events. Such
phenomenon is believed linked to
climate change. Fig. 11 shows the
histogram of the rainfall record.
Rehabilitation of failed slope
As mentioned earlier, the 16
units of terrace houses were
declared unsafe for occupation
by the local authorities and the
residents were evacuated. There
was growing anxiety among the
residents and pressure on the
local authorities to restore the
safety of the terrace houses so that
the residents can move back to
their houses. The remedial works
considered the following factors:
(a) Safety of the terrace houses
during rehabilitation works
(b) Safety of the slope
(c) Design consideration of future
development of the land
(d) Economic consideration of the
rehabilitation works.
The following were carried out
prior to the commencement of
rehabilitation works:
(a) A condition survey of the 16
units of the terrace houses was
carried out.
(b) Owners consent to enter the
terrace houses to continue the
monitoring works during the
slope rehabilitation works.
(c) Local authorities approvals
for the proposed rehabilitation
works.
(d) Instrumentation to monitor
the movement of slope and
buildings using inclinometers
and set t l ement measuri ng
stations.
THE INGENIEUR 15
cover feature
By Ir. Prof Dr K. S. Kannan
Updates On Route
To Professional Engineer
cover feature
The purpose of this article is to provide guidance to registered Graduate Engineers who are seeking
registration as Professional Engineers based on the current requirements.
Professional engineering services
professional engineering services means engineering services and advice in connection with any feasibility
study, planning, survey, design, construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance and management of
engineering works or projects and includes any other engineering services approved by the Board;
The relevant extracts from the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Revised 2007) in respect of graduate/
professional registration is provided below:
Restrictions on unregistered persons, Graduate Engineers, etc.
7. (1) No person shall, unless he is a Professional Engineer-
(a) practise, carry on business or take up employment which requires him to carry out or perform
professional engineering services.
(aa) be entitled to describe himself or hold himself out under any name, style or title -
(i) bearing the words Professional Engineer, or the equivalent thereto in any other
language;
(ii) bearing any other word whatsoever in any language which may reasonably be construed
to imply that he is a Professional Engineer; or
(iii) using the abbreviation Ir. before his name or the abbreviation P.Eng. after his name or
in any way in association with his name;
(b) use or display any sign, board, card or other device representing or implying that he is a Professional
Engineer;
(c) be entitled to recover in any court any fee, charge remuneration or other form of consideration for
any professional engineering services rendered; or
(d) use the stamp as prescribed in the Second Schedule.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) -
(a) a Graduate Engineer may, subject to section 8, take up employment which requires him to
perform professional engineering services;
Only Professional Engineer and Engineering Consultancy Practice may submit plan, drawing, etc.
8. (1) Except as otherwise provided under any other written law, no person or body, other than a Professional
Engineer who is residing and practising in Malaysia, or an Engineering consultancy practice providing
professional engineering services in Malaysia, shall be entitled to submit plans, engineering surveys,
drawings, schemes, proposals, reports, designs or studies to any person or authority in Malaysia.
16 THE INGENIEUR
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION AS
A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
Any candidate who applies for registration as a
Professional Engineer must:
(a) be registered as a Graduate Engineer with BEM
(b) have obt ai ned t he pract i cal experi ence as
prescribed below
(c) have passed the Professional Assessment Examination
(PAE) conducted by BEM or is a Corporate Member
of the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM);
(d) has complied with all the requirements of the
Board; and
(e) has been residing in Malaysia for a period of not
less than six months immediately prior to the date
of application.
The Graduate Engineer shall carry out the practical
experience in the following manner as prescribed
in Regulation 22(1) of the Registration of Engineers
Regulations 1990 (Revised 2003):
(1) The practical experience that a Graduate
Engineer is required to obtain under section 10(1)(b)
of the Act so as to be entitled to apply for registration
as a Professional Engineer shall be carried out to the
satisfaction of the Board for a period of at least three
years, and shall include the following
(a) the Graduate Engineer must undergo
(i) at least two years of general training that
will provide a sound basis for professional
development; and
(ii) at least one year of professional career
development and training providing wide
exposure to the various managerial and
technical expertise in engineering practice
where at least one year of the training must be
obtained in Malaysia under the supervision of
a Professional Engineer in the same branch of
engineering as that practiced by the Graduate
Engineer, although Professional Engineers in
other related branches of engineering may be
acceptable with prior approval of the Board;
and
(b) the Graduate Engineer must have satisfactory
attendance in courses and professional development
programmes determi ned by the Board, and
conducted by the Board or institutions approved
or accredited by the Board.
Regulation 22 (1) (b) shall be applicable to
all Graduate Engineers registered after January 1,
2005.
Details of the courses and professional development
programmes are provided below.
The Professional Assessment Examination (PAE)
that a Graduate Engineer has to pass under Section
10(2)(i)(b) of the Act in order to be entitled to be
registered as a Professional Engineer consists of:
(a) a professional interview conducted by not less
than two examiners appointed by the Board
(b) a written paper on any relevant subject related to
the practical experience which he has obtained
(c) a written paper on his understanding of the Code
of Professional Conduct; and
(d) any other examination, written or otherwise, to
be determined by the Board.
In accordance with item (d) above, the Board has
decided that from June 1, 2008 all graduate engineers
have to sit for a Competency Examination to qualify
for registration as a Professional Engineer.
The above is represented diagrammatically in
Figure 1.
THE INGENIEUR 17
cover feature
COURSES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES FOR GRADUATE ENGINEERS
To comply with Regulation 22(1)(b), Graduate
Engineers have to fulfl the following:
1. Satisfactory attendance in the following courses
conducted by BEM or institutions approved by
BEM
(i) Code of Ethics - 12 hrs
(ii) Health and Safety at work - 12 hrs
(iii) Engineering management practice - 12 hrs
and
(iv) Courses related to graduates branch of
engineering - 24 hrs
2. Completion of not less than 30 units of Professional
Development which includes attendance at
technical talks, seminars, society/association
meetings and community services (excluding
attendance at courses and in-house training). One
unit of Professional Development is equivalent to
one hours participation in the above-mentioned
activities subject to a maximum of four units in
a day.
18 THE INGENIEUR
cover feature
(a) Interview
(b) Essay on Practice
(c) Essay on Code of Ethics
(d) Competency Examination
Registered Graduate Engineer
Corporate Member of IEM Professional Assessment Examination
Professional Engineer
Figure 1
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
GRADUATE ENGINEERS
This period of training in a local environment is
greatly emphasized by BEM as it is of paramount
importance for the prospective Professional Engineers
to be familiar with the local conditions and by-laws
so that they can comply and practise effectively in
Malaysia.
Notwithstanding the above, regulation 22(2)
stipulates that if the Board is satisfed for suffcient
cause or reason, the Board may in any particular
case exempt either wholly or partially, or enhance the
requirements as to the practical experience required to
be obtained in Malaysia or the requirement as to the
supervision by a Professional Engineer in Malaysia;
Where there is no Professional Engineer of the
same or allied discipline as the candidate in the
organisation in which the candidate is working,
he may seek the approval from BEM to obtain a
Professional Engineer from outside his organisation
to supervise his training.
After the candidate has completed the required
prescribed training, he may apply to sit for the
Professional Assessment Examination conducted by
BEM.
APPLICATION TO SIT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL
ASSESSMENT EXAMINATION
A Graduate Engineer shall submit an application
for registration as a Professional Engineer within
one year from the date he is informed by the Board
that he has passed the Professional Assessment
Examination.
The Graduate Engineer shall provide details of the
organisations he has worked in, positions held, his
duties and responsibilities and experience gained.
There shall be a balance of experience gained in site/
field, design/office and management/planning works.
For those involved in teaching and research, at least
one year of practical experience is necessary.
Gui del i nes on t he Prof essi onal Assessment
Examination (PAE) and the preparation of documents
for the PAE are available from the BEM.
THE INGENIEUR 19
cover feature
Other Services
Skid mounted dosing systems
Chemical preparation system
Flocculator and Mixer
Design and Build
- Water Treatment Plant
- Waste Water Treatment Plant
- Sewage Water Treatment Plant
HYTRAN SDN BHD ( 779146W)
No 6, Jalan Anggerik Vanilla,
AC31/AC, Sek 31, Kota Kemuning,
40460 Shah Alam
Tel:603-5121 9734, 36, 39,
Fax:603-5121 9769
Http://www.myhytran.com
Email:enquiry@myhytran.com
Hydraulic Surge Analysis
Replaceable to
(Capital Control Spare Part)
Hydro Instruments Chlorinator
Jesco
Metering
pump
RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION AND
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
A Professional Engineer desirous of renewing his
registration shall
(a) Submit to the Board
(i) an application for renewal of registration
in the prescribed form on or before
January 31 of the year following the
year of expiration of registration.
(ii) A renewal fee of RM 200 (age below
60 years) or RM 100 (age 60 years and
above)
(b) Satisfy such conditions as determined by the
Board.
Continuing Professional Development
The Board has introduced Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) programme for Professional
Engineers who renew their registration with effect
from the year 2005. The objective of the CPD
for Professional Engineers is the maintenance of
technical knowledge and skill (i.e. competency) to
do a job. At the same time it requires all engineers
to stay abreast of new engineering developments in
their field and changes in the relevant codes and
regulations.
The CPD shall be an average of 50 hours per
year over a three-year period.
The CPD programme for Professional Engineers
will comprise six major groups of activities:
(i) Formal education and training
(ii) Informal learning
(iii) Conference and meetings
(iv) Presentation and papers
(v) Service activities
(vi) Industry involvement (for
academicians)
Details are available in the www.bem.org.my
COMPETENCY EXAMINATION FOR
GRADUATE ENGINEERS
To be registered as a Professional Engineer with
the Board, a Graduate Engineer who has passed his
interview and essay writing will have to pass a written
competency examination (w.e.f. June 2008)
The examination will be conducted in the broad areas
of Civil/Structural, Chemical, Electrical and Mechanical
engineering with option for specifc branches within
these broad areas. The written examination will provide
a standardised method of assessment, tests broad-based
knowledge and assesses application of engineering
applications. The examination will consist of two
papers (one in the broad area and one in the specifc
branch) on Practice of Engineering and one three-hour
paper on the Engineers Act and relevant By-laws.
Graduate Engineers are expected to attain a set
competency level in these examinations.
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
Application shall be made in Form B1 as provided in
the regulations. The application shall be accompanied
by a processing fee of RM 50 and a registration fee
for the amount of RM 300.
A Graduate Engineer applying for registration
as a Prof essi onal Engi neer shal l submi t wi t h
his application proof in writing of his practical
experience. Such submission shall include details
and description of the practical experience and a
statement by the supervisory Professional Engineer
in the case of experience obtained in Malaysia or
by an Engineer acceptable to the Board in the case
of experience obtained outside Malaysia, that the
Graduate Engineer has satisfactorily completed his
practical experience.
On approval of the application, a certificate
of registration will be issued. The certificate
will indicate the branch of engineering. If the
application is not approved, the registration fee
will be refunded. BEM
20 THE INGENIEUR
cover feature
cover feature
By Ir. Khoo Choong Keow
Liabilities attributable to his error or negligence
wi l l be bor ne by t he engi neer and/ or hi s
practice. The question arises as to whether the
engineer and his practice will have the fnancial
capability to meet successful claims against him.
Professional Indemnity Insurance
For Engineers
PII is intended to cover such claims. In this
respect, it is similar to other types of insurance in
its main function, i.e. to spread the risk amongst a
large group of people having identical interests in
protection against the fnancial impact of such risks
if they materialise, e.g. personal accident, house
owner, motor, life, etc.
In a claim against professional liabilities of an
engineer the amount can run to millions of Ringgit,
which is well beyond the means of the average
engineer to bear personally, through his practice or
even PII. Thus in determining the quantum of PII he
should carry the engineer will have to consider:
(1) His own capacity to meet claims;
(2) His fee income and the amount he can allocate
from this towards PII premium;
Should Professional Indemnity
Insurance For Engineers
Be Mandatory?
W
hen an engineer renders professional
services and is found to be negligent he
becomes liable to his client as well as
third parties for damages. To his client (with whom
he has entered into a contract) he is also liable for
failure to perform in accordance with his obligation
under the contract.
If the engineer practises through a body corporate,
the body corporate is also jointly liable.
Extent Of Liability
The engineers liability has no limits in quantum
and in time.
In some countries for damages arising from
negligence time is limited by what is called the long
stop of 10 to 15 years, from the time the services
were performed, after which period the engineer
will not be held liable. In Malaysian law we have
no long stop but it is felt among most professions
that this would be desirable.
As for quantum, this depends on the nature
of the project, e.g. collapse of a tall building or
a major bridge would obviously have far greater
consequences than a (minor) slope failure on a
road embankment or cracks in a single residential
building.
The following paper was presented at Seminar on Professional Indemnity Insurance on July 28,
2005. The paper explains in a simple way the purpose and the practical application of Professional
Indemnity Insurance (PII) on the liability of engineers and engineering practices and leads to the
authors conclusion that PII should not be mandatory but is desirable for the practising Engineers
own protection.
The author also suggests some essential provisions in a mandatory PII scheme (if implemented)
involving both owners and engineers which would provide effective protection for all stakeholders.
22 THE INGENIEUR
(3) The risks attached to the type of work he carries
out.
Usually the first two factors dictate, since Factor
(3) is practically impossible to cover due to high
premiums.
Factor (1) is dealt with by opting for a self-
covered amount called the excess e.g., RM50,000,
RM100,000, etc which will constitute the first
resort in any claim. When this amount is exceeded
recourse will be made to PII for the excess. An
engineer may cover himself and his practice for
sums of e.g. RM250,000 and above, depending
on his annual turnover. There used to be a rule
of thumb figure for PII i.e. the annual turnover.
However, this may now not be practical due
to escalating costs of premiums, and it is more
common now for engineer to fix their PII quantum
based on what he can afford to buy, e.g. for 1 to
2% of his annual fees.
By and large typical sums insured range from
RM500,000 to RM2 million for Association of
Consulting Engineers (ACEM) members.
PII : Philosophies And Hopes
When a claim succeeds against an engineer
the first recourse will be to the excess, and the
second recourse to the PII. Concurrent and co-
existent with these will be recourse (if required)
to the engineer and his practice. An example is
given below:-

Sum of damages awarded = RM5,000,000 met by:
Amount(RM) Cumulative(RM)
Excess 100,000
PII 1,000,000 1,100,000(A)
Engineers personal assets 500,000 1,600,000(B)
Engineers practice assets 700,000 2,300,000(C)
I n t hi s exampl e t he successf ul cl ai m wi l l
not be totally met and the engineer will face
bankruptcy and his practice will be wound up.
Thus the fervent hope of the engineer, when
he pays for PII, is that any claim that succeeds
will not exceed amount (A) above, which will be
duly met and life can go on as before, except
that he may have his PII premium uprated.
Perhaps, if the amount does not exceed amount
(B) and his practice remains intact, he can still
carry on and rebuild his life and career through
his practice. However, if the successful claim
requires recourse to amount (C), then the engineer
will have to give up his practice.
From the above, a common fallacy about PII
can be dispelled. The notion of PII covering
multi-million Ringgit projects for the protection of
clients is simply not true. In the above example
the maximum protection in monetary terms is
RM2,300,000 attended by the complete ruin of the
engineers career and practice and the livelihood of
his employees. If that is so, one asks, why PII?
As mentioned earlier, the fervent hope of the
engineer is that any claim will not (as in the
above example A) exceed RM1,100,000. The
claim can then be met, and the engineers life,
career and practice will not all lie in ruins.
As for the multi-million Ringgit claims, they
simply do not lie within the purview of PII, nor
the capacity of an engineer to bear.
Thus the philosophy of PII is that it gives
comfort to both the engineers and the small
pr oj ect owner s and not t he l ar ge pr oj ect
proponents. How then, are the latter taken care
of? They will need to, and have the ability to,
cover themselves. Therefore if they wish to have
protection of PII, they will need to make their
own arrangements, perhaps through the engineer
and pay the premiums.
I t shoul d al so be borne i n mi nd t hat t he
BEM Scale of Fees had been fixed without any
consideration of PII costs.
Should PII Be Compulsory?
Ther e had been s ome t hought s t owar ds
compulsory PII, as in the case of lawyers.
However the lawyers compulsory PII scheme
was launched some years ago. And since then
the insurance industry has gone through some
traumatic changes such as:-
Slope failure
THE INGENIEUR 23
cover feature
911
Collapse of major insurers in Australia and
Europe
Large hikes on premiums
If PII is to be made compulsory, then other
questions arise:-
If the amount of cover is fixed, what is the
premium and can the engineer afford it?
Will fees be increased to meet the cost of
premiums? (In this recessionary market the
answer could be No).
If the amount of cover is not fixed, and instead
the engineer is required to allocate, say 1 to
2% of his fees to cover PII, how much cover
will it buy? This year, next year, and later?
Given the philosophy of PII as stated above,
compulsory PII may achieve little purpose, if the
intention is to cover the larger projects. It would be
a more positive approach to do the following:-
Advise engineer to take PII for their own
comfort (as illustrated in the example given
above). Guidelines to be given as to the amount
of cover. (this may be difficult to fix for the
reason given above.)
Educate engineers on the consequences they
face if they are negligent in performing their
services, even if they are covered by a limited
amount of PII.
Advise clients of large projects to arrange and
pay for their own PII, through the engineer
if they wish. Insurers will probably require
this as they would like to know who the
engineer is and assess their risks and premiums
accordingly.
A long stop for liability should be enacted in
Statute - hopefully this will help to lower PII
premiums.
It may be useful to consider the French system
of a centennial (10 year) cover to be taken
by project owners which includes all risks
including PII and third party damages.
If PII is to be compulsory it would be practical
and effective only if:-
The mandatory PII amount should be reasonable
and within the Engineers means, and BEM
Scale of Fees should be uprated to cover the
cost of insurance.
An alternative must be provided - otherwise
premiums can go through the roof, e.g. the
whole or part of PII can be substituted with
a Bank Guarantee or Insurance Bond against
security provided by the engineer.
Project owners be required to buy PII and all
risk cover including damages to third parties.
If a project owner does not take such cover,
then the engineers liability for damages
should be limited to the engineers fee for the
defective part of their work, and excluding
any consequential or economic loss. Such a
scheme will encourage project owners to insure
for their own protection. This makes sense as
project owners have the means to bear the
premium (or pass on the same to consumers)
as well as the financial clout to negotiate with
insurers for the best deal.
For their own comfort engineers may elect to
cover for amounts over and above the minimum
mandatory cover.
A long stop is enacted in Statute.
BEM
Construction in progress
24 THE INGENIEUR
cover feature
By Ir. Chester Ho
MSc, DIC, FICE, FIEM, PEng
THE INGENIEUR 25
How To Deal With Challenges In
Civil Engineering Practice
who yield to pressures from stingy
business interests to lower fees
are undermining the livelihood
and earnings of Engineers from
the mandatory Scale of Fees, with
no feelings of regret about the
havoc they create. None of them
would admit their impropriety
against the mandatory fees. They
persist without remorse as they
could get away with it.
A bad case is where a sharp-
witted draftsman teamed up
with a Professional Engineer
(PE) to open a firm purportedly
for project management. The
engineer is said to also provide
consulting engineering services
through the firm. Under the Code
of Ethics all the owners of a
consulting firm must be registered
Professionals. If the PE and the
draftsman are both shareholders
in the same firm the arrangement
would violate the Code of Ethics.
If the engineer practices under
a firm that he owns with other
professionals, he could also own
a separate firm which could do
project management. This would
then be in order. As a non-
professional is not allowed to
share in a consulting firm, he
would also be prohibited from
taking any profit that is earned
from consulting work. A PE may
have too much work so that he
needs his chosen draftsman and
to encourage him to stay and
cover feature
that clients are depressing to the
level of wages paid to directly
employed staff. The heavy
responsibilities borne by engineers
are not compensated for. In better
days, the scale fees ensured that
engineers would have comparable
earnings and standing that other
professionals, such as lawyers,
doctors, bankers, accountants
and managing directors receive.
Fees for engineers must provide
for wages, continuing education,
learning new technology, visits to
engineering schemes locally and
overseas to study larger projects,
training young graduates and
draftsmen from raw recruits,
payments for seminars and
conferences, purchase of
computer software and hardware,
improving office facilities,
organised holidays and trips for
the bonding of personnel, bonus
payments and retirement benefits.
The engineers who do not have
the standing to procure work
other than by lowering their fees
are selfish and care little for the
damage they are causing the
profession. They run their offices
on shoe-string budgets and
contribute little to an honoured
profession.
To counter this tendency the
mandatory Scale of Fees of the
Board of Engineers is meant to
beneft Engineers with satisfactory
remuneration. Those Engineers
C
ivil engineering in private
practice in Malaysia faces
serious challenges that must
be addressed for it to survive. The
challenges faced are of concern
for all engaged in engineering,
who should contribute in detail
their encounters with diffculties to
inform their experiences to improve
practice of an honoured profession,
which has benefted mankind with
countless achievements to make
living comfortable and expedient.
Although many eminent engineers
have been honoured, they feel
even more rewarded that they
have resolved with their great
skills the challenges they meet
to create marvelous works of
engineering. These include major
dams, bridges, highways, levees,
irrigation drainage water and
sewerage schemes etc. They are
honest professionals, who do not
take on work that fall outside their
expertise. They cherish integrity
and uprightness. Engineers today
need to emulate these ideals, as
the situation is being made worse
by the lure of proft and laxity in
self-control. Moral fbre and pride
in their profession are essential
to prevent such a decline and
loss of respect, appreciation and
remuneration by society for the
engineer.
Those engineers who do not
respect their own expertise sell
their services for the low fees
26 THE INGENIEUR
work diligently, he could pay the
draftsman part of the profit from
the firm as a bonus instead of a
divided. If the draftsman has the
contacts for sourcing work but
needs the PE to do the consulting
work, the draftsman would want
to own majority shares in the firm
while the Engineer also wants
his shareholding so he cannot be
sacked. The draftsman need not
use the scale fees, as he cannot
be held to be in violation, not
being registered with the Board
of Engineers. The set-up is still a
violation of the Code of Ethics.
The draftsman could however
procure the project and employ
the PE, to be in compliance.
Does the code prohibit non PEs
from procuring work, to be done
by a PE he will employ? As to
who is exploited is anybodys
guess. Their arrangement is safe
as no evidence could be obtained
because confidentiality would be
maintained, as the businessman
employer is more than happy
with non-scale fees.
Some other PEs are also by-
passing the Scale of Fees by taking
on work at lower than Scale of
Fees, while other engineers share
fees with project managers to
secure projects for them.
These engineers have garnered
a great deal of the work in a State
and have caused fees to fall to
about 0.7%. No complaint could
be lodged as evidence is hard
to obtain. Businesses argue that
there should be no Scale of Fees
at all in the publics best interest.
Another country has abolished
scale fees, with the firm belief
that meritocracy and competition
would correct fees to the minima,
which would be best for the
public. Many years later their
universities face a drastic drop
in the numbers of applications
for study of engineering. Now
seriously concerned that there
could be a shortage of engineers
a counter measure is being sought
by emphasizing engineering to
be an interesting and fulfilling
career even without scale fees.
But reward is the plank of choice
of career in Eastern societies,
especially in todays rapidly rising
prices and inflation. Businessmen
who oppose scale fees as being
too high, consider that engineers
do not run high risks and should
therefore not prosper from the
scale fees they consider to be
too high.
What is the situation for
developers of housing? Are
they correct to hold the same
view? A deeper examination
of the circumstance of housing
developers reveals that they need
not be repressive on fees. Rubber
land during the 1960s could be
bought for RM5,000 per acre
or 11.8 cents per square foot.
From 1970 land converted for
residential housing could get
between RM12 and RM30 per
square foot, i.e. 63 to 152 times
increase of their investment, even
after land for roads, green areas
and public areas are deducted.
Also outlays for bank interest on
capital, wages for plantation staff,
operation and maintenance are
offset by reasonable and in some
years lucrative incomes from the
plantations. Business interests do
not appreciate the engineering
profession as they do lawyers,
doctors and accountants for
their indispensable services that
relate to life, death, health and
bankruptcy. Moreover engineers
must remember that business
interests heavily influence
decisions by officialdom.
Engineers must also realize they
are not receiving a fair share of
the cake.
Another consideration is
whether the countrys development
and progress would be adversely
jeopardized, if there were no
local engineers? Not so, because
there are many engineers in
other English-speaking countries,
who would come, although their
costs could be higher. If the local
business sector were unhappy
at such higher costs, it only is
to be blamed as it should have
taken responsibility to sustain
the local engineering sector
by accepting scale of fees. Its
answer is NO, because it has to
face a fiercely competitive and
unfriendly business environment
without any help. The willing
engineers, by offering low fees,
are siding with the businessmen
not to use scale fees. As no one
is brought to task, let those who
wish to be engineers beware
and ask themselves whether
it is worthwhile to go through
all the difficult studies and
hard work and later shoulder
heavy responsibilities for less
remuneration than those being
paid to other professions.
Next, one should examine the
placing of responsibility for the
proper construction of engineering
works. The construction contractor
must take full responsibility for
building the works correctly,
while the engineer bears full
responsibility for his designs.
The contractor is handsomely
paid some 5% to 15%, or even
50% for demanding and difficult
work. His reward far outstrips
the fees of 0.7% to 5% being
paid to consulting engineers. Yet
society, having no confidence
in contractors, demands that
the engineer must oversee
construction by the contractor.
In many legal suits, damages
for improper construction are
apportioned to the engineer
on the basis that the engineer
provided overseeing supervision.
Does this mean that the contractor
is hopelessly incapable of proper
cover feature
THE INGENIEUR 27
cover feature
construction without overseeing
by an engineer but is still allowed
to undertake the work? Society
accepts that the contractor need
not be professionally qualified to
do construction but must need
overseeing by an engineer. Would
a medical patient be willing to
be operated on by a surgeon who
must be supervised? The answer
is obviously NO. Why then is
such an anomaly applied to the
engineers role? At present anyone
who has the money, gumption,
daring, brash confidence and
some knowledge of construction
could set up a contracting outfit
even if he does not believe in
professionalism, because he
believes that professionalism
would diminish his profit. Less
defects, better job management,
reduced site problems, less
delays, prompt execution and
timely completion of projects by
professional contractors would
grossly benefit society. Yet there
are no counter measures for
change. The emergence of some
well organised contracting firms
headed by directors, who are
qualified engineers is a welcome
change. Hopefully more such
firms will be established to
displace old-fashioned daring-
do contractors. An old fashioned
contractors attitude caused 60
mm cracks in the walls of his
tall cement silos. His cement
silos were built with 75 mm and
larger stone aggregates at his
specific behest as owner. To him
standards and codes of practice
carried little meaning. The
repairs did cost him unnecessary
expenditure, which he was happy
to meet with the profit he gained
from lower initial investment. He
was lucky that the silos did not
collapse totally! Monetary success
does cause mental myopia.
The Code of Ethics forbids
an engineer from earning
commission by job referrals.
A grey area does exist. Civil
engineering encompasses many
disciplines: highways, hydropower,
water supply, sewerage, drainage,
irrigation, bridges and structures.
Large frms in frst world
countries may have several
specialist divisions in a single
frm but few have divisions
for all specializations. Locally,
engineers who are trained for
structural engineering usually stay
in that feld though some may be
afforded opportunity to delve in
civil engineering. Even after many
years they could not likely gain in-
depth civil engineering knowledge,
not having studied the other civil
engineering subjects. No system is
in place for checking how much
knowledge in civil engineering
these structural engineers could
have gained. They could learn
using formulae to do some design
but may not grasp the basic
principles. They could make errors
in more complicated situations, as
has happened. Polytechnics issued
a certifcate for Civil Engineering
because structural engineering is a
discipline under civil engineering.
A registration authority would
accept such a certifcate, on
face value although the subjects
studied were only in structural
and geo-technical engineering, to
register the applicant under civil
engineering. Society is then put
at risk, because such engineers
could engage in all felds of
civil engineering not studied by
him. His self-control to do only
structural work would be brushed
aside by a greed for the better
civil engineering fees. A serious
failure is known to have occurred
from this dubious registration.
In this case, a structural
engineer obtained a PE
registration for civil engineering
because his certifcate stated
civil engineering. This structural
engineer deftly manoeuvred to
take over as principal for his
frm, with seeming confdence.
There resulted a major failure of
an earth slope, which ruptured
the water supply to a city of one
million people with a damage
assessed at RM2 million.
Many sewage treatment
plants have shown construction
defects and process operational
defciencies. The cause is that
the civil engineering consultants
had only simplistic knowledge.
Fortunately, the plants are small
plants.
The engineering profession
needs to adopt measures to counter
the several challenges mentioned
above. It needs to restore its image
of honesty, uprightness, integrity
and dependability, which must
not be sacrifced for proft. The
loss of fees is a serious challenge
not easily solved. Doctors save
lives, lawyers save clients against
injustice and accountants save
clients against fraud.
Engineers must demonstrate that
their expert skills save costs for
clients so that they would accept
the importance of the engineers
benefcial contributions and to
remunerate them with scale fees.
Engineers must comply fully with
the Code of Ethics by avoiding
duplicity and devious guiles to
bypass rules and requirements
for proft. Engineers must unite to
present a solid front to correct
a general misconception about
supervisory responsibility and
sharing damages for construction
failures. Engineers must not
fraudulently present incorrect
qualifcations nor undertake
projects beyond their trained
disciplines. Do engineers have the
moral discipline to do all these.
What is your view?
Note: The views expressed here
are those of the author.
BEM
Introduction To Code Of Ethics
For Young Engineers
cover feature
30 THE INGENIEUR
T
he Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) has, from time to time, received enquiries and complaints from the public
about the conduct of engineers in relation to the Registration of Engineers Act. BEM has, therefore, produced the
guidelines herein that outline the conduct expected of engineers. These guidelines are set out under a number
of broad areas relating to the engineering profession.
Dos & Donts
1) Registration
Under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138) and subsequent amendments, the most recent being year
2002, it is a requirement of the Law that any person providing engineering services be a qualifed person and
registered with the Board of Engineers Malaysia. This requirement extends to foreigners who are required to seek
registration as Temporary Engineers. The Dos and Donts below relate to the requirement of this Act.
DOs
1.1 An engineering graduate with accredited engineering degree must register with the Board of Engineers to take up employment as an engineer.
DONTs
1.1 An engineer should not be the Submitting Person for designs beyond his/her area of competency
1.2 An engineer should not endorse his PE Stamp and sign on reports or plans not prepared by him.(see also Consultancy - 2.3 of Dont )
1.3 An engineer should not enter into partnership with any party not permitted under the Engineers Act.
1.4 An Engineering Consultancy Practice should not provide professional services in any branch of engineering where none of its directors are registered to practise in that
branch of engineering.
1.5 An engineer must not practise in the branch of engineering he is not registered in.
2) Consultancy
In the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Revised 2002), provision is included for the registration of Accredited
Checkers and the requirement of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) beginning year 2005.
DOs
2.1 An engineer should be transparent and receptive to peer review or checking of his work if requestd/required by the client/authorities.
2.2 A checker engineer must be open to the views and design concept of the original designer and in areas of disagreement, the checker must give justifcation for his
disagreement.
2.3 A checker engineer should take full responsibility for the checking of the work himself.
2.4 An engineer should undertake continuing professional development to enhance his knowledge and capability.
2.5 An employer engineer should ensure that his employee engineers are bona fde engineers registered with BEM.
2.6 An engineer should report unethical practice to BEM.
2.7 An engineer who is a Submitting Person must ensure the accuracy of and be responsible for all works delegated to others by him.
2.8 An engineer should make optimum use of manpower, materials and money.
2.9 An engineer should be aware of Government requirement to use local materials, wherever possible.
DONTs
2.1 A checker engineer should not accept checking of work not within his area of competency as well as work that he is not familiar with.
2.2 An engineering consultant should not carry out projects for fees below the minimum outlined in the scale of fees.
2.3 An engineer should not endorse any work not performed and/or supervised by him.
2.4 An engineer should not supplant another engineer.
2.5 An engineer should not compromise on public safety.
2.6 An engineer should not ofer his opinion on engineering matters unless he has full facts to support the opinion.
2.7 An engineer should not base his design on unsubstantiated data, for example designing foundation without soil investigation.
2.8 An engineer should not have any confict of interest whatsoever in connection with the work he is undertaking unless prior approval from BEM and client are obtained.
2.9 An engineer should not accept work outside his regular work without the expressed permission of his employer.
cover feature
THE INGENIEUR 31
3) Supervision
The supervision of works designed by the Submitting Engineer is a requirement under the Uniform Building By-
Law 5 (UBBL 5). This By-Law states that supervision must be provided by the Submitting Engineer to ensure that
the works carried out are as intended in the design. Delegation of supervision is permitted but the responsibility
of this supervision still rests with the Submitting Engineer.
DOs
3.1 An engineer who is the Submitting Person should be responsible for the project regardless of whether it is self-supervised and/or delegated supervision.
3.2 An engineer must be meticulously proper and correct in certifcation of works.
3.3 An engineer must be familiar with and knowledgeable in the work he is to supervise.
3.4 An employer engineer shall ensure that his staf undergoes regular and proper skills-training.
3.5 An engineer supervising a project shall keep proper records of all documents and correspondence pertaining to the project.
3.6 An engineer must be conversant with time and cost implications in the issuance of any instruction.
DONTs
3.1 An engineer must not over or under certify progress of works.
3.2 An engineer must not make wrongful certifcations.
3.3 An engineer must not certify work not within his expertise.
3.4 An engineer must not accept site supervisory staf who are not qualifed or are incompetent.
3.5 An engineer must not delay approvals without justifcation.
3.6 An engineer must not intentionally delay inspection of works.
4) Regulatory Requirements
All engineers registered with the Board of Engineers Malaysia must be familiar with the requirements of the
Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138) and its subsequent amendments. Ignorance of the requirements of
this Act is no defense in the Courts of Law in Malaysia.
DOs
4.1 An engineer should notify the relevant authorities (within reasonable/statutory time limit) on changes in designs or withdrawal of services.
4.2 An engineer should submit completed forms in time for inspection and approval for Certifcate of Fitness / Certifcate of Completion and Compliance.
4.3 An engineer should be aware of environmental, health and safety matters during and after construction.
4.4 An engineer should ensure that environmental, health and safety measures are implemented as per drawings and specifcations.
DONTs
4.1 An engineer should not allow works to proceed before plans are submitted to and/or approved by the relevant authorities.
4.2 An engineer should not undertake a project for which the client is not going to fulfll statutory requirements.
5) Code of Ethics
All engineers are expected to uphold the integrity of the profession by behaving in a manner expected of him
in the Code of Conduct of Engineers.
DOs
5.1 An engineer must be conversant with the Code of Conduct of Engineers.
5.2 An engineer must understand the need for responsibility and liability as stipulated in the Code of Conduct.
5.3 An engineer must respond promptly to complaints and enquiries by clients /authorities.
DONTs
5.1 An engineer should not solicit/ tout.
5.2 An engineer should not knowingly mislead the public by giving misrepresented information so as to gain commercial advantage/mileage.
5.3 An engineer should not respond to an open advertisement to bid for provision of professional service if such provision for the service requires bidding fees or equivalent
as is usually imposed on contractors.
5.4 An engineer should avoid favoritism among vendors and other suppliers.
These guidelines are by no means exhaustive and will be updated from time to time to refect the changing needs of
the profession. All engineers are required to be fully familiar with the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138),
and its subsequent amendments, and the Code of Ethics. The requirements of this Act are to be upheld at all times
by the engineering profession.
BEM
The Certifcate Of Completion And
Compliance In The Building Industry -
Bugbear Or Bunkum?
This paper was presented on November 28, 2007 at the talk organised jointly by The Malaysian
Bar Council, The Society of Construction Law (SCL) and The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
(Malaysia).
By Ir. Harbans Singh K.S.
Chartered Engineer, Professional Engineer, Advocate & Solicitor (Non-Practising) and
Sundra Rajoo
Chartered Arbitrator, Advocate & Solicitor, Architect and Town Planner (Non-Practising)
engineering & law
(Part 2)
32 THE INGENIEUR
CHANGE IN LIABILITIES
Promoters Deny That There Is
Change In Liabilities
W
ith the move towards
self-certification, it is
inevitable that there is
a parallel shift in liabilities away
from the local authorities to the
professionals, in particular, the
PSP. Although the promoters of the
CCC and the respective professional
organisations vehemently deny there
is any change in the responsibility
or liability of the PSP as compared
with the previous CFO regime (see
Q10, CCC FAQ, www.pam.org.my),
it is an undeniable fact, as distilled
from the various amendments to the
applicable laws, that the duties and
obligations of the PSP have become
more onerous.
Liabilities Under The Previous
CFO Procedure
Under t he pr evi ous CFO
procedure, the liabilities were
split between the developer or
vendor, qualified person and the
local authorities as follows:
Apartment buildings
The failure of the developer to
ensure that the building works were
contracted out and/or completed
in time owing to any of his other
defaults (for e.g. failure to pay the
contractor or the professionals on
time, etc) and/or his obligations
under the various approvals were
met (for e.g., under the Building
Plan Approval which caused a
delay in the issue of the CFO)
opened him up to a cause of
action in breach of contract to
the various purchasers e.g. under
the Sale and Purchase Agreement
(though absolving the other parties
involved i.e. the local authorities
and the qualified person in the
process).
The qualified person carried
a multitude of liabilities anyway;
these being categorised under civil
liability, statutory liability and
professional liability:-
Civil Liability
With regard to the first category,
the qualified person owed a duty
of care both under his professional
services agreement and the law
of tort to his employer to ensure
t hat t he works were properl y
supervised (see Dr Abdul Hamid
Rashid & Anor v Jurusan Malaysia
Consultants & 4 Ors [1997] 4 MLJ
243), the works had been executed
in accordance with the applicable
laws and by-laws and that Form
E had been certified and issued
to the local authority concerned
on time.
Breach of the said duty of care
would presumably have also made
him liable to third parties such
as the purchasers, lenders, etc.
under the tort of negligence (see
Chin Sin Motor Works Sdn Bhd
v Arosa Development Sdn Bhd
& Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 23). More
often than not, this head of liability
was usually covered under the
Professional Indemnity Insurance
taken by most qualifed persons.
Statutory Liability
Per t ai ni ng t o t he s econd
category of the qualifed persons
statutory liability this was confned
only to wrongful or fraudulent
certification of the Form E. For
wrongful certification, it merely
attracted a monetary sanction in
the form of a nominal fne under
the UBBL and SBDA (see By-law
26, UBBL and section 127, SBDA).
Fraudulent certification, if there
were criminal elements involved,
could presumably have attracted
a custodial sentence under the
Criminal Procedure Code (CPC),
but in practice was hardly the
case.
Professional Liability
On a professional level, if a
disciplinary offence could have
been established arising out of
the qualifed persons certifcation
process, then the professional
involved could have been fned or
suspended depending on the gravity
of the offence and in a very serious
scenario, his registration cancelled
(for e.g. see sections 15(1), 25,
Registration of Engineers Act 1967
(Rev. 1987)).
Local Authorities Immune
From Suit
Where the local authority was
the defaulting party, there was
little recourse for the innocent
developers and/or purchasers, as
protection against suit had been
st at ut or i l y given t o t he l ocal
authorities and its officers for
personal liability under the SDBA
(see sections 95(1) and (2), SDBA).
This has been reaffirmed by the
Federal Court in the celebrated
but much criticized judgment of
Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya
v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors
[2006] 6 MLJ 389 and appears
to be the prevailing law (recently
affirmed by the Court of Appeal
in UDA Holdings Bhd v Koperasi
Pasaraya Malaysia Bhd [2007] 6
MLJ 530 ).
Hence, any delay in the issue
of the CFO would only have made
the qualified person and/or the
developer directly liable to the
contracting parties and the affected
third parties. Be that as it may, the
sanctions on these defaulting parties
Factory
THE INGENIEUR 33
engineering & law
were mainly of a commercial nature
and rarely if ever of a custodial
form. Since in most instances, the
principal defaulting party was the
local authority, the parties generally
had little or no recourse to it, except
for the occasional chest-beating
and moaning, as an impregnable
shield of statutory provisions and
apparently jaundiced decisions of
the lofty pinnacles of the palaces of
justice seamlessly protected it.
Liabilities Under The New
CCC Procedure
Local Authorities Now Have
Additional Powers
The new CCC procedure, though
shifting the administrative and
legal burdens onto the shoulders
of the PSP, nevertheless, through
the various amendments to the
respective Acts and by-laws clothe
the local authority with additional
powers but without the attendant
liabilities.
These amendments, as a start,
empower the local authority with
an all-encompassing right to ensure
that the construction of the buildings
conform to the approved plans and
the provisions of the SBDA and
any by-law made there under (see
section 70(22) SBDA (Amendment)
Act 2007).
Power To Require PSP
To Comply
If it appears to the local authority
t hat non-compl i ance wi t h t he
approved plans and provisions of
the SBDA or any by-laws made
thereunder by the PSP has occurred,
it may issue to the PSP a notice in
writing requiring compliance within
the period specifed in the notice
as it thinks ft in order that the
non-compliance be rectifed and a
directive in writing to withhold the
issuance of the CCC until such non-
compliance has been rectifed (see
section 70(23) SBDA (Amendment)
Act 2007). If the PSP fails to comply
with the directive given, the local
authority may itself cause any work
to be executed or any measure to
be taken if it considers such work
or measure necessary to rectify
the non-compliance (see section
70(211) SBDA (Amendment) Act
2007). The cost of executing such
work or taking such measure shall
be borne by the owner of the
building (see section 70(25) SBDA
(Amendment) Act 2007).
Local Aut hori t i es St i l l
Immune From Suit
These amendment s do not
derogate the existing immunities
given to the local authority and
i t s of f i cers agai nst sui t ei t her
statutorily, or per the relevant
j udi ci al pr onouncement s as
advert ed t o herei nbef ore ( see
section 97, SBDA). Hence, the
sum total of these is that the
local authority carries little or no
liability whatsoever should the CCC
process be fawed and the ultimate
certifcate delayed or wrongly or
negligently or fraudulently issued.
Nei t her t he devel oper nor
third parties such as purchasers,
l enders, et c. can l ook t o t he
local authority for any remedy or
recourse, save perhaps for a claim
for economic loss premised on
the local authorities breach of the
applicable statutory duties i.e. if the
Court of Appeals recent judgment
in the case of UDA Holdings Bhd
v Koperasi Pasaraya Malaysia Bhd
[2007] 6 MLJ 530 at 561 were to
be sustained.
No Change Of Liabilities
For Developer
As for the developer, owner
or vendor, there is no marked
change in liabilities either to the
purchasers/third parties, or to the
authorities, although the sanctions
to any breaches of the amended
statutory provisions and/or by-laws
carry heavier fines and, in rare
situations a custodial sentence.
PSP Has More Liabilities
The bul k of t he l i abi l i t i es
apparently fall on the professionals
i.e. the PSP. With regard to his
st at ut or y l i abi l i t y, t he r ecent
amendments to the relevant laws
and in particular the SDBA, impose
additional duties and responsibilities
with attendant sanctions which are
heavier in terms of nature and
content for e.g. custodial/penal
in certain instances (see section
70(27) SBDA (Amendment) Act
2007 where an imprisonment of up
to 10 years may be imposed where
the PSP permits to be occupied
any building without a CCC to be
occupied.
Liabilities Arising From
CCC Issued Wrongly
Under these new amendments,
if a person who is not the PSP
issues a CCC; or if the CCC is
issued without all the relevant forms
prescribed by the by-laws made
under the SBDA; or issues a CCC in
contravention of a direction given
by the local authority to withhold
such issuance pending rectifcation
of any non-compliance; knowingly
makes or produces or causes to
be made any false or fraudulent
declaration, certifcate, application
or representation of any form
prescribed in any by-laws made
under t he SBDA knowi ng t he
declaration, certifcate, application
or representation has been forged,
altered or counterfeited; or permits
to be occupied any building or any
part of a building without a CCC
shall be liable or conviction to a
fne not exceeding RM250,000 or
34 THE INGENIEUR
engineering & law
to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years or both (see
section 70(27)(a) to (f), SBDA
(Amendment) Act 2007).
Liabilities Arising From
Failing To Deposit CCC
Furthermore under the amended
UBBL, where t he PSP f ai l s t o
deposit a copy of the CCC or
PCCC (as the case may be) and the
Forms G1 to G21 within the period
stipulated in by-law 25(3) with the
local authority and the Board of
Architects, Malaysia or Board of
Engineers, Malaysia (as the case
may be); or fails to comply with the
notice issued by the local authority
in respect of the rectifcation of
any failure to the building or non-
compliance with the by-law 25(4),
shall be guilty of an offence (see
By-law 28(1), UBBL (Amendment)
2007).
Liabilities Of PSP Under
Other Laws
The PSP carries further liabilities
under other laws that have been
amended, i n par t i cul ar, t he
Housing Development (Control
and Li censi ng) Act 1966 ( t he
HDA). Under Section 22F of the
HDA, any architect or engineer,
as the case may be, who issues a
progress certifcation knowing that
the works therein referred to have
not been completed in accordance
with the provisions of the Sale
and Purchase agreement, shall be
guilty of an offence and shall on
conviction be liable to a fne which
shall not be less than RM10,000
but shall not exceed RM100,000,
or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding fve years or both.
PSP Open To
Disciplinary Action
Quite apart from the statutory
liability adverted to hereinbefore,
the PSP, being a professional,
may a l s o be s ubj e c t e d t o
disciplinary action by the Board of
Architects, Malaysia or the Board
of Engi neers, Mal aysi a as t he
case may be (see sections 17 to
19, the Architects (Amendment)
Act 2007), etc. Should there be
wrongful or negligent or false
certification by the PSP of the CCC
or any other disciplinary offence
commi t t ed by t he PSP i n t he
process of implementing the CCC
procedure, under the Architects
Act 1967 (Amendment) Act 2007
or Registration of Engineers Act
1967 (Amendment) Act 2007,
t hese prof essi onal bodi es are
empowered to investigate and
take the necessary disciplinary
action against him (for e.g. under
Parts IV and V; sections 17 to
19, the Architects (Amendment)
Act 2007).
Regul atory Bodi es Can
Impose Heavier Penalties
The relevant regulatory bodies
concerned can mete out heavier
penalties in the form of bigger
fines, longer periods of suspension
of registration and even custodial
s ent ences ( s ee s ect i ons 7A,
5(d), 24 and 25, Registration of
Engineers (Amendment) Act 2007).
As part of the self-policing or
self-regulating obligation, these
professional bodies have been
given more clout in the process
and ultimately the sanctions they
can mete out for disciplinary
breaches and offences committed
36 THE INGENIEUR
engineering & law
Housing estate
under the respective Acts by a
professional of the like of PSP.
Presumably, there are avenues
for interested and affected parties
such as purchaser s, l ender s,
et c. and even devel oper s t o
lodge direct complaints against
errant PSPs with the respective
professional boards.
Liabilities Not The Same As
Under Previous CFO Regime
At frst blush, the PSP carries
similar responsibilities and liabilities
as the qualified person in the
previous CFO regime in terms of
civil liability. However, it is in fact
far from the truth in practice. No
doubt that the PSP still owes a duty
of care both in contract and the law
of the tort to his employer; breach
of whi ch woul d i ncur si mi l ar
consequential ramifcations but in
practice this is not the case.
PSP Has More Administrative
Obligations
Under the CCC procedure, the
PSP has much more administrative
obligations to perform vis--vis the
other building professionals namely,
mechanical & electrical engineers
and quant i t y sur veyor s, mai n
contractors, trade/subcontractors,
et c. t o ensur e t hat st at ut or i l y
prescribed Forms G1 to G21 are
duly signed/endorsed, collated
and checked before the CCC is
issued, quite apart from his personal
duty to supervise the construction
process.
PSP Reliant On Employer
For Help
Having no direct contractual
control over such parties, to fulfill
his statutory liability especially in
regard to the Forms G1 G21,
t he PSP has t o l ook t o t he
employer for help in sanctioning
del i nquent or di l at or y t hi r d
parties so that the CCC procedure
is not derailed. Hence, though
ultimately directly liable to his
employer, the scope of his duty
of care is considerably wider with
more duties and liabilities.
PSP Liable To Other
Interested Parties
Furthermore, as for the previous
CFO regime, the PSP is potentially
liable to other interested parties
such as purchasers, lenders, etc.
f or any breach i n hi s dut i es
vis--vis the issue of the CCC.
Here again he can be subjected
t o cl ai ms under t he t or t of
negligence; a very real possibility
in view of the PSP undertaking
self-certification. In the event of
either the non-issue or late issue
of the CFO under the previous
pr ocedur e, aggr i eved par t i es
rarely ever proceeded against
the local authority concerned
as the latter was protected by
immunities granted statutorily and
under the relevant case law.
PSP Has No Immunity
However, under t he CCC
procedure, since the PSP has
no such i mmuni t y, many an
aggrieved party would be tempted
to proceed against him either
directly or as a joint defendant
with the developer or vendor
under the law of tort should
he def aul t i n hi s pr escr i bed
certification duties. It is even
more likely when the PSP is
seen to have deep pockets and/
or is adequately covered by a
Professional Indemnity Insurance
Policy. The sum total of which
would be the opening up of the
flood-gates of cases much to the
detriment of the professionals,
however more to the benefit of
long suffering aggrieved parties
such as purchasers.
CCC PROCEDURE IS DEFICIENT
Al t hough much t out ed as
t he ul t i mat e sol ut i on t o t he
cont emporary i nef f i ci ent and
unsavory CFO regime, the CCC
procedure in its current form,
nevertheless is far from perfect and
suffers from a host of defciencies,
var yi ng f r om mer el y t r i vi al
shortcomings at one end of the
spectrum right up to very serious
l acunae t hat may render t he
procedure in practice a minefeld
of disputes and claims.
CCC Procedure Does Not
Resolve Non-Technical
Issues
For a start, the very core of the
CCC procedure is only meant to
deal with technical issues such as
health, safety and essential services
within the ambit of the PSPs scope
of responsibility. Non-technical
issues have to be resolved between
the developer/vendor and the local
authority concerned, initially at the
planning and building approval
stage, or through other suitable
mechanisms to be worked out
between the parties.
It is feared that once the CCC has
been issued and vacant possession
given to the developer/vendor, there
is no effective means for the local
authority to ensure that the former
meets his obligations vis--vis the
relevant non-technical issues. This
is a serious lacuna that needs to be
addressed forthwith. Furthermore,
j ust l i ke i n t he previ ous CFO
regime, quality problems in the
fnished project are not a matter
that can preclude the issuance of
the CCC. These have to be resolved
at a different forum, perhaps,
as a cause of action in breach
of contract or tort of negligence
through arbitration or litigation.
THE INGENIEUR 37
engineering & law
Lack Of Flexibility In
Implementation

It is a recognised fact that in
the implementation of a typical
building project, owing to changes
in circumstances occurring during
the duration of the project cycle
(which in some instances can span
a good number of years), there may
be a need to undertake a review
of technical and non-technical
conditions imposed by the Local
Authorities as part of the Building
Plan Approval process. Under
the previous CFO procedure, the
Local Authorities as the ultimate
issuers of the relevant CFOs, had
the necessary power to review
these conditions prior to the issue
of the CFOs and, in some cases,
grant waiver s, exempt i ons or
dispensations as necessary.
With self-certification, the PSP
has no such power, even in regard
to the technical conditions. For
non-technical conditions, perhaps,
the Local Authorities still retain
some residual power as to the
same but its ambit appears to be
unclear. Hence, the sum total of
this is that the new regime does
not afford the flexibility that is so
essential to building projects which
are subjected to vagaries and ever-
changing circumstances over their
lifespan from initial approval to
ultimate realisation.
Consultants Site
Supervisors Not Included In
CCC Procedure
Another area of concern is
non-inclusion of the consultants
site supervisors from the matrix of
responsibility. It is an undeniable
f act i n pract i ce t hat t he si t e
supervisors play a crucial role during
the execution and construction
stage of a building. They are the
eyes & ears of the respective
consultants who often are able to
provide only nominal or part-time
supervision. The latter rely heavily
on such site staff in carrying out
the ultimate certifcation.
To leave these key personnel
out of the matrix of responsibility
waters down the very essence of the
CCC procedure which is to make
all parties inclusive of the PSP
fully responsible and accountable
for their respective scope of works.
Not only should such parties
be included in the matrix of
responsibility but steps should be
immediately initiated to have them
properly registered and regulated
either by the particular professional
board or the Construction Industry
Development Board (in short the
CIDB), as appropriate.
Matrix Of Responsibility
Not Effective
Furthermore, the instant matrix
of responsibility appears to be
hastily constituted without having
sorted out its effectiveness as to
its enforceability. No doubt the
professionals are well registered
and r egul at ed t hr ough t he
Regi st rat i on of Engi neers Act
1967 and t he Archi t ect s Act
1967, the same cannot be said
of the other parties involved in
the matrix of responsibility e.g.
contractors, sub-contractors, etc.
It is the current practice for the
CIDB to only license contractors
under the Construction Industry
Development Board Act 1994,
but not to regulate their conduct
or practice.
Contractors Are Not
Statutorily Regulated
For t he CCC procedure t o
have a proper bite, all such
par t i es, not onl y cont ract or s
should also be statutorily regulated
i n t erms of t hei r regi st rat i on,
conduct and practice; breaches of
their obligation being statutorily
penalised as for the professionals
instead of merely being subject
to commercial penalties as is the
present practice. Under the current
procedure, breaches of such parties
obligations vis--vis the matrix is met
merely by the developer or vendor
withholding payments contractually
38 THE INGENIEUR
engineering & law
New houses for sale
due, i mposi ng l i qui dat ed and
ascertained damages (LAD), etc. In
this area, much work needs to be
undertaken by the authorities to
cure this defciency, and this has to
be expedited, as the CCC procedure
is already offcially in place as of
April 12, 2007.
Possible Conflict Of Interest
Of PSP And Developers
Particular professionals and the
developers/vendors have apparently
welcomed the launch of the CCC
procedure. On the other hand, the
public at large would be justifed
to view this new procedure with
suspicion and cynicism as it is
tainted with a potential for confict
of interest between the PSP and the
developers/vendors.
As the developers/vendors in all
instances would be the ultimate
paymasters of the PSP, there could
be i nst ances when devel oper/
vendors would use arm-twisting
tactics or economic duress to
ensure that the CCC is issued,
perhaps premat urel y so as t o
obviate developers/vendors from
defaulting from their obligations of
delivering the buildings on time.
The PSP will be under considerable
pressure in such circumstances.
Such confict of interest can only
be overcome if the law imposing
the more onerous statutory and
disciplinary penalties is enforced
without fear or favour and the
liabilities more evenly distributed
among the various parties. It is
not clear if that will be the case
in practice.
Professional Bodies
Disciplinary Proceedings
On the other hand, professional
bodies have pointed to the recent
strengthening of the disciplinary
proceedings vis--vis any complaint
pertaining to breach of the CCC
procedure as an answer to the
publics fears. However, this has
not attempted to assuage any of the
concerns of the public as they tend to
view the disciplinary proceedings,
even after the amendments, as a
mere internal process comprising
the oft suspected old-boys club
of a self-serving nature, of which
such professionals are perceived
as helping each other.
Poor Conduct Of
Disciplinary Proceedings
Thi s cont ent i on i s f ur t her
r e i n f o r c e d by t h e c u r r e n t
unsatisfactory state of disciplinary
proceedings conducted by such
pr of essi onal bodi es. Ther e i s
hardly any publicity surrounding
t he number of pr of es s i onal s
charged and disciplined or having
proceedings initiated against them.
The popular perception is that
the professionals, having been
given the statutory power to self-
police their profession, will be
merely paying lip service to the
disciplinary provisions and more
often than not sweeping complaints
under the carpet.
Need For Transparency In
Disciplinary Proceedings
Here there is a need for the
authorities and the professional
bodies concerned to undertake
a two-pronged strategy at both
educating the public at large on
their rights and also making the
disciplinary proceedings fair and
transparent instead of shrouding
these in a veil of secrecy. Perhaps a
cue should be taken from the legal
profession where there is active lay
participation in the disciplinary
proceedings and a proper reporting
of its proceedings from the initial
filing of a compliant right up to its
ultimate resolution.
Need For Independent
Complaints Body
For this to be effective, there
must be a positive political will
on the part of authorities and the
respective professional boards to
reassure the public at large that all
complaints are properly investigated
and fairly heard in a transparent
manner so that the rules of natural
justice are not infringed. If public
confidence cannot be restored by
such mechanisms, it will then be
imperative for the authorities to
set up an independent auditing
body to provide the necessary
checks and balances on complaints
ar i si ng f r om t he cer t i f i cat i on
undertaken by the PSP (see Azlinor
Sufian, Certificate of Completion
& Compl i ance: Towards Sel f -
Certi f i cati on i n the Mal aysi an
Housing Industry. The Law Review
2007 at p. 211)
PSPs Remuneration Need To
Be Increased
On a s e pa r a t e not e , a s
t he pr of essi onal car r i es sol e
responsi bi l i t y f or t he i ssue of
t he CCC, whi ch al so ent ai l s
additional duties and obligations,
it is inevitable that there should
be a commensurate increase in the
quantum of professional fee that he
should be remunerated with.
Notwithstanding the assurances
given by the authorities and the
professional bodies that there will
be no additional premiums to be
paid by the ultimate purchasers with
the implementation of the new CCC
procedure, in all fairness this one-
sided policy cannot be realised in
practice as it is a mere commercial
40 THE INGENIEUR
engineering & law
myth. Whatever is intended and has
been said, the reality is that the
professional fee has to be increased
in tandem with the additional and
more onerous duties and liabilities
shouldered by the professional of
the like of the PSP.
It is high time that all parties
i ncl us i ve of t he aut hor i t i es ,
developers/vendors and interested
parties like purchasers and lenders
accept this inevitable reality and
give effect to it. Based on such
premise, it is the duty of the
respective professional boards
to ensure that the scale of fees
for such professional services is
accordingly adjusted to provide a
fair and reasonable remuneration
to the PSP for his unduly onerous
responsibilities and liabilities;
failing which many a professional,
save, perhaps for the ignorant or
altruistic ones, will be deterred
from undertaking the role of the
PSP, thereby compromising the
very purpose and objectives of this
new building delivery process.
Professional Indemnity
Insurance
Professionals, on the other hand,
must carefully weigh the risks and
rewards of the CCC procedure and
make both a political/professional
and commercial decision before
agreeing to undertake it. As the
likelihood of having monetary
claims, possibly a multitude, if
purchasers of a housing scheme
are involved, made against the
PSP is relatively higher with the
CCC regime, it would be prudent
for the PSP to procure adequate
Professional Indemnity Insurance,
although it is not mandatory at the
moment. He should be prepared
to pay the premiums involved
and if he is not able to recover
these as part of his professional
fees, he must be ready to absorb
these at no additional cost to his
employer.
Limitations Of Professional
Indemnity Insurance
However, he has to be cautioned
on two consequential matters.
Firstly, the Professional Indemnity
Insurance policy may only partly
cover him for any claim sustained
against him depending on the
quantum of cover and the presence
of any excess clause; he being
liable for the balance. A body
corporate will have to pay it from
its coffers. However, if it is a
partnership or a sole proprietorship
then personal liability will be the
order of the day. Secondly, the
Professional Indemnity Insurance
Policy may serve as a double-
edged sword; for the presence
of such a policy may inevitably
attract more claims as he is then
perceived to have deep pockets
and, therefore a capacity to meet
such claims. Hence, these matters
have to be well thought of and
addressed appropriately prior to
the acceptance of the role of a
PSP.
PSP Face Practical Problems
In Collating Forms
Be that as it may, the PSP has
another insurmountable hurdle
to overcome on a more practical
level. The recent amendments
to the SBDA make him solely
st at ut ori l y l i abl e f or ensuri ng
that all the relevant Forms G1-
G21 are properly collated and
endorsed prior to the issue of the
CCC and submitted together with
the Form F to the authorities and
the professional board concerned
within 14 days of the issue of the
CCC (see section 70(27) SBDA
(Amendment) Act 2007, By-law
25(3) UBBL (Amendment) 2007).
PSP Has No Direct Contracts
With Named Parties
Since the PSP has no direct
contracts with the parties named
in the Forms G1 to G21, i.e. the
other consultants, contractors, sub-
contractors, etc, he carries liability
apparently vicariously for these
parties without having any control
or power in the event of their
default or omission to act. He has
to look to the developer/vendor as
the employer of such parties and
their ultimate paymaster to sanction
them for any of their defaults/
omissions (if proven) to ensure that
the said Forms G1-G21 could meet
the requirements necessary for the
issuance of the CCC.
Standard Forms Of Contracts
Need To Be Amended
Thi s obl i gat i on has t o be
expressly provided for in the various
contracts between the employer
and these parties. Currently none
of the so-called Standard Forms of
Conditions of Contract have such
stipulations included (for e.g. PAM
1998 and 2006 Forms; CIDB 2000
Form; IEM CEI/89 Form, etc). To
give clout to the enforcement of the
CCC procedure, it is imperative for
all the said contracts to be suitably
amended or have custom-made
clauses to be drafted and expressly
incorporated into the terms of such
contracts.
Possible Contractual Sanctions
In Case Of Default
These provisions should not
only spell out in clear terms the
procedure to be adopted but also
the contractual sanctions that may
THE INGENIEUR 41
engineering & law
be imposed in the event of a default/
breach e.g. withholding of payment
due, deduction of liquidated and
ascertained damages, holding back
of the Certifcate of Completion,
etc.
Back-To-Back Indemnity
Provisions
Such a mechanism may not
relieve the PSP of his statutory
liability but will certainly help to
ameliorate the extent of his civil
liability. Taken a bit further, to
help in lessening his civil liability
to third parties arising out of the
breaches/defaults of the other
contracting parties for e.g. delay
in endorsing the Forms G1 to
G21, also, wrongful and negligent
certifcation, the PSP can insist on
having indemnity provisions on a
back-to-back basis built into the
contracts of all such parties or,
failing which he may join them
as co-defendants in the event of
any litigation. Here the input of
the construction lawyers is crucial
and the positive co-operation of the
developer/vendor essential.
CONCLUSION
CCC Procedure Is
Radical Change
The CCC procedure is a radical
change in the building industry. It
is aimed at removing the perennial
complaints of delay in the issuance of
the CFO by shifting the responsibility
of certifying completion from the
administratively inefficient and
compromised local authorities to
the professionals. On the face,
it seems a bold step. Whether it
helps to make the building delivery
system transparent and effcient is
an open verdict.
BEM
Virtues Of CCC Oversold
Exponents and promoters of
this new building delivery system
have grown hoarse in singing its
praises and extolling its virtues.
We believe that the virtues have
been apparently over-sold as the
ultimate solution to the woeful
situation that is currently pervading
the construction industry vis--vis
the authorities especially towards
the tail end of a typical building
project.
Need To Address Deficiencies
However, the real picture is
not all that rosy. It is time to
take stock. The CCC regime does
have a number of defciencies and
limitations that are material in
nature. If these defciencies are not
i nvest i gat ed and
addressed in time,
they can potentially
compromi se and
der ai l t he ver y
object the CCC was
meant to overcome.
We have attempted
to highlight some
of t he ar eas of
c o n c e r n a n d
proposed certain
s o l u t i o n s t h a t
may be possi bl y
adopted.
It is now left to
the various parties
i nvol ved i n t he
delivery system i.e.
t he Government ,
the local authorities,
the professionals,
developers/vendors,
contractors, sub-
cont ract ors, et c.
t o t ake st ock of
the situation and
objectively review
it and rectify its deficiencies.
It should be implemented with
some sensibility to avoid claims,
wastage, disputes and litigation
f ai l i ng whi ch i t s houl d be
scrapped in lieu of a procedure,
which allocates risk according
to appropriate parties ability
to shoulder responsibilities and
liabilities. Just because the local
authorities are generally perceived
to be inefficient does not mean
that their core responsibilities be
shifted to building professionals. It
is not clear if such an approach
will reduce the rising plethora
of claims and complaints. In the
final analysis, it is for the public
at large to be the ultimate judge
as to its effectiveness as they were
stated to be the main beneficiaries
for which the CCC procedure was
mooted in the first place.
PROFESSIONAL
MIGRATION &
Business Service
H O T L I N E : 6 0 3 - 2 1 7 1 1 5 6 3 / 4
CANADA
AUSTRALI A &
NEW ZEALAND
Live, Work & Study indefnitely
Free Education for children & adults
Free Medical Care for whole family
Excellent social & unemployment payment
Retirement payment Dual Nationality
EMIGRATION CENTER PTE LTD
EC RELOCATION SPECIALIST SDN BHD
D-9-3, Megan Avenue 1, No. 189, Jalan Tun Razak,
50400 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tel: 603-21711563/4
www.emigration-center.com
Fax: 603-21711560
ec@emigration-center.com
42 THE INGENIEUR
engineering & law
By Ir. Liaw Yew Peng
duri ng t he Second Worl d
War.
The avai l abi l i t y of a si t e
doctor, trained nurses and
hospital assistants together
wi t h t wo ambul ances and
emergency medical supplies
and equipment at the two
nearby site hospitals, one in
Habu and the other in Jor.
The availability of manpower
and machine, both heavy and
l i ght t oget her wi t h search
lights and generators etc.
A Recollection Of 1961 Landslide,
Cameron Highlands
feature
of the victims were young children
and the elderly. The majority
suffered injuries. The main reasons
were:
Many of the able residents
were out at work at their farms
or at the nearby construction
site at that fateful hour.
The presence of foreigners like
the Germans and the British
technical staff who were all
well trained in using first aid
facilities and rescue work
THE INGENIEUR 43
A
t about 3.45 in the afternoon
of May 11, 1961 a huge
chunk of a high mountain
behind the Ringlet village, Cameron
Highlands came crushing down like
a thunderbolt and buried almost
the entire township of about 120
residents. The Authority said it
was the heavy rain during the past
week that caused the whole slope
of the mountain to crumble but
some villagers blamed a developer
who was clearing the jungle at the
top for a housing project.
We, a big group of foreign and
local engineers with technical
supporting staff and workers were
building the nearby Ringlet Falls
Dam in Bertam Valley heard the
tragic news at about 4.00pm.
Our Chief Engineer, Mr Campbell
and the German Project Manager,
Mr Beck immediately mobilised
their machines and manpower and
any equipment that we could use
to the tragic site to do the rescue
work. I was one of them and was
shocked to see that all the familiar
timber houses and the shops had
disappeared. They were buried
under a huge pile of boulders,
lateritic soils, mud, and debris.
This dreadful scene still remains
in my mind until today!
Fortunately, by the grace of
God only a small number of the
residents lost their lives, but most
Photo 1 - Taken at night on May 11, 1961. Photo taken by Mr Chew Yit Fong
of Snow Ball Foto, Tanah Rata.
Rescue workers were searching for victims throughout the night. Staff and
workers of Joint Venture Hochtief A G & Philipp Holzmann A G Germany
and CRE Cameron Highlands Hydro Electric Project were seen helping the
rescue operations to fnd victims buried under the thick layer of earth and
debris.
44 THE INGENIEUR
feature
Almost immediately, a few
teams of men with the help of
machines such as bulldozers,
shovels and trucks were formed
to do the search and rescue work.
At the same time, frst aid stations
were set up and manned by a
site doctor and trained personnel,
and search lights were installed to
help in the rescue work. Within
minutes man and machine were
busy removing all the injured
victims from the disastrous site for
treatment at the frst aid station
before sending them to hospitals
in Tanah Rata, Tapah or Ipoh
depending on the degree of their
injuries.
Although the landslide had
wreaked havoc in the lives of
the residents, many of them were
thankful to our rescue teams.
Even YB Tan Siew Sin who visited
the site at about 9.30 pm was
full of praise for our good work.
At about midnight the rescue
operation was called off when all
the missing people were accounted
for. The last count we had was
six dead and 31 injured. Among
them, 17 were seriously injured
but eventually survived.
Photo 2 - May 12, 1961
The Landslide from the top of the mountain behind Ringlet
Town. Almost the whole township and houses below
the mountain including part of the Tapah/C.H main road
were buried. A lucky house could be seen standing in
solitude on the right corner of the photo! Houses at the
opposite side of Sg Ringlet valley were unaffected.
Photo 3 - May 12, 1961
A general view of the landslide from the opposite side
of the Sg Ringlet valley. Many curious onlookers were
seen standing on the main road gazing with awe at the
magnitude of the landslide.
Photo 4 - May 12, 1961
On the second day, workers and machine from the PWD were clearing the
spoils and debris from the ill-fated site and many Ringlet residents were seen
searching or looking for their lost belongings and valuables!
Note: Photos 2, 3 and 4 were taken by Ir. Liaw Yew Peng of CRE Offce.
BEM
FAQs On Certifcate Of
Completion And Compliance
guidelines
T
he two-day Conference to improve the delivery system of Government services - to improve the
development processes as well as property management, held at Sunway Lagoon Hotel Ballroom,
was launched by the Hon. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on April 13, 2007.
The issuance of the Certifcate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) by professionals was launched on
the same day.
1. When do the new laws enabling professional Architects/ Engineers to issue CCC come into force?
The CCC system came into force effective April 12, 2007.
2. What does this mean?
The CCC replaces the Certifcate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) previously issued by the local authority
(PBT). The CCC is issued by the projects Principal Submitting Person (PSP) who is a Professional Architect,
Professional Engineer or a Registered Building Draughtsman.
3. What is the reason for the Government to implement this change?
It is the Governments view that CCC will cut down red-tape and ensure that house buyers and building
owners get to move in as quickly as possible without compromising their safety. This is consistent with
the Governments desire to encourage self-regulation, which was introduced in the National Economy
Growth Planning strategy to continuously enhance the delivery system. Previously, a Certificate of Fitness
for Occupation (CFO) was issued by the local authority after it has received Form E (UKBS) which is an
application for the issuance of the CFO. This system posed many problems, such as delay in certification
by technical agencies, additional conditions imposed by PBT at the time of CFO application and lack
of technical officers to process the CFO. It is to be noted that CCC will only address technical aspects
and so far as these are complied with and there is no apparent threat to health and safety issues, then
CCC can be issued.
4. What then is the role of PBT?
The PBT will receive, process and approve planning permission and building plans (under a more effcient
and expeditious regime of OSC that was launched on the same date by the Hon. Prime Minister). PBT
can also authorise site inspection on their own initiative or act on complaints to check the works in
progress, issue a notice (in writing and through the OSC) to the PSP not to issue the CCC if breaches and
divergence are not rectifed, take action to rectify any continuous breach or divergence including reporting
to Professional Boards. The PSP can rectify changes or variations either by complying on site or in the
form of as-built drawings.
Compiled by Ir. Chen Thiam Leong
46 THE INGENIEUR
5. Can CCC be issued for projects with Building Plan approved before April 12, 2007?
No, CCC can only be issued for projects that have obtained their Building Plan approvals after April 12,
2007. This is because under the new CCC system, a responsibility process matrix is introduced. Each
construction process needs to be verifed by professionals and contractors or trade contractors. Twenty-one
stage certifcation forms need to be endorsed along the entire process. These are included as new schedules
(Form Gs) under the revised UKBS 1984 (Amendment) 2007 (Uniform Building By-Laws).
6. What must be done for a project that has already obtained building plan approval to come under CCC?
The building plan must be resubmitted for approval under the new (CCC) system. Projects where works
have commenced on site will not be able to use the new CCC system.
7. Can a CCC be issued if any or several of the Forms Gs are not certified by the stated parties?
No. The PSP must ensure that all Form Gs are duly flled and certifed and all the conditions have been
fulflled before CCC can be issued. Failure to comply is a serious offence. It is advisable to ensure that CIDB
registered contractors and licensed tradesmen (e.g. electrician and plumber) are informed of their obligations
as early as possible from the time of tender and award of works, and their respective certifcation is obtained
immediately upon satisfactory completion of their respective scope of works. It is not prudent to leave all
such certifcation to the end of the project or just when the PSP is about ready to issue the CCC.
8. What are the conditions, certification, or clearances required before a PSP can issue the CCC?
The project works need to be completed in accordance with the approved Building Plans (or subsequent
revised approved building plans or as-built plans) and the PSP has supervised the works accordingly. All
Form Gs are duly flled and certifed, clearances and or confrmation of supply/connection to six essential
services department TNB (confrmation of electricity supply), water authorities (confrmation of water supply),
JPP (confrmation of connection to sewage treatment plant or mains), JKKP (clearance from factories and
machinery department for lifts if applicable), Bomba (clearance for active fre fghting systems except for
residential buildings not more than 18 m height), and Roads & Drainage department. With these clearances
in place, the PSP can then issue the CCC.
9. What are the tasks required of the professional as the PSP?
The PSPs task is to :
- prepare and present planning and building plans to the PBT for approval
- inform PBT of the commencement of construction works on site
- supervise construction works at site and ensure that laws and technical conditions of the PBT are
followed
- report any building breaches, explain reasons of breach and perform recovery action in the event of
breach during construction
- present work-resumption notice to the PBT
- ensure Form Gs are duly certified at the various stages of works
- issue CCC to the owner upon satisfactory completion of the works and obtaining clearances or
confirmation from the six essential service departments
- present a copy of the CCC (together with all Form Gs) to the PBT and the Professional Board within
14 days of its issuance
THE INGENIEUR 47
guidelines
10. There seems to be a lot more things that the PSP has to do. Is there any change to the level of
responsibility required of the PSP?
There is no change to the responsibility or liability on the PSP as under the old system the PSP was already
fully liable and responsible for the entire project even though the PBT approved it and issued the CFO for
it. There could be an increase in the tasks involved such as the need to compile the 21 Form Gs under
the matrix of responsibility. However this process helps to identify and call to attention the various parties
responsible in the complex delivery process of buildings today. The CIDB registered contractor and licensed
specialist trade contractors will now be called upon to take responsibility for their respective portion of
works. There is however, possible time saved from previously having to attend to the submitting of Form
E and applying for the CFO.
11. What other changes will CCC bring?
The CCC system also ensures that Vacant Possession (VP) can be issued together with CCC. This
will overcome problems previously associated with CFO where homebuyers receive the house keys
(upon submission of Form E) but cannot move into the houses because the CFO has not been issued.
With the introduction of the matrix of responsibility (Form Gs), there will also be an improvement in the
accountability and responsibility aspect as action can be taken on the responsible party in the event of
failure or faws in the building. Thus, work quality can improve.
12. Are there any changes to the regulation of the PSPs?
All professionals are reminded of their responsibility and role to protect the community and the profession.
There is no reason for any professional to succumb to pressure by any party to faunt the independent
certifying role that has been entrusted to the profession. Professionals must carry out their duties with due
care and diligence and together with the other parties including fellow professionals and the registered
contractors, ensure that CCC works for the good of all.
As there is great need to strengthen the professionals ability to supervise works on site, the professional
boards are working with the Ministry of Works and the CIDB to upgrade and regulate the important role
of site staff / Clerk of Works.
There are increased penalties for offences. Under the amendment to the Street, Drainage and Building Act
1974 (Act 133), the penalty for the offence of not abiding by the orders of PBT is increased for general
penalty and includes imprisonment for term not exceeding three years and a fne of up to RM10,000.
Under the Uniform Building By-Laws, the parties that issue Form Gs and CCC without complying with the
provision of the Acts can be sued and reported to the controlling professional bodies. Both the Architects
Act 1967 (Act 117), Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138) have been revised to provide for stricter
disciplinary action on professionals by increasing fnes, extending the duration of membership suspension
and cancellation of membership.
13. What is the implication if a PSP passes away or is not contactable after issuance of CCC?
The responsibility and liability for the safety of the building whether it is during construction or after it
is completed, lies with the submitting person as per Section 71 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act,
and this remains unchanged for both the old CFO or the new CCC system. Under the CCC system, a
48 THE INGENIEUR
guidelines
50 THE INGENIEUR
matrix of responsibility is put in place by means of stage certifcation (Form Gs), by the respective parties
to ensure responsibility and accountability of all parties involved. The matrix of responsibility is also to
introduce check and balance and to minimize risk. The situation is similar to the old CFO system which
allows another PSP to be appointed to take over the project with the approval of the PBT. The owner
or developer will need to appoint a new PSP and the new PSP who takes over shall resume all liability
and responsibility.
14. Does the PBT owe a duty of care to ensure that the building constructed is safe and suitable
to be occupied?
The PBT still has a duty of care under common law to ensure that the building constructed is safe and
suitable for occupation. Under the new CCC system, the PBT still has a role and responsibility in the
process of issuance of CCC as per sub-section 70 (23) and (24) of Street, Drainage and Building Act.
The PBT is also empowered under Section 85A of the Act to direct inspection to be carried out on the
building by the owner 10 years after CCC has been issued for the said building.
15. Can civil action be taken against the PBT?
Aggrieved parties can take any civil actions against the PBT. However, the PBT is given immunity under
Section 95(2) of Street, Drainage and Building Act.
16. Does the PSP need to submit Form G1 to G4 in stages to the PBT for their information or should
these be submitted only when the PSP issues Form F (CCC) together with all the Forms G1 to 21?
Based on provision of the UBBL, there is no requirement to submit Form G1-G4 to the PBT earlier or
separately, as all the 21 Form Gs are only required to be attached with Form F/F1. However, at a recent
meeting with Ministry of Housing and Local Government and as per their last published guidebook, the
Ministry has requested for the PSP to notify the PBT upon certification of Form G1-G4 as an interim measure
(so that the PBT can decide whether they would wish to inspect the site at those stages of completion).
The PSP only needs to notify the PBT and there is no need to submit Forms G1-G4 earlier.
17. Should the relevant Form Gs be endorsed by the main contractor or the building contractor
who happens to be a sub to the main contractor of a project?
The main contractor who enters into the contract to construct the building should be the party to sign the
Form Gs. Please take note that the Board of Engineers Malaysia has since published a Guide to Filling
Up Forms F/F1 and Form Gs where the signing parties are clearly identified.
18. In a Turkey project/Design and Build project where the contractor is not the building contractor,
who should endorse the Form Gs - the main contractor or the building contractor as both are CIDB
registered contractors?
The turnkey contractor who enters into the Design and Build contract, regardless of whether the PSP
is engaged by him or by the owner, shall be the party signing the Form Gs. He can choose to employ
any sub-contractor to carry out the various parts of the building construction but he will remain the
party accountable.
guidelines
THE INGENIEUR 51
GUIDE TO FILLING UP FORMS F & F1
FORM Date Address To * DetaiIs of BuiIding 1. PSP 2. LocaI
Authority
Forms G-1 to
G-21


F nsert
date of
CCC
1) nsert name of
Developer if it is for
development other
than individually built
building
2) nsert name of owner
for an individually built
building
1) nsert Address of Building -
Lot No/Nos, Section, and
Road
2) nsert description of project
as per Building Plan
Approval adjacent or below
or in place of item [1]
3) nsert BP Approval Ref and
Date
4) PSP to sign off
1) nsert full name
of PSP
2) nsert Name of
ACP/ECP and
address
3) nsert BAM/BEM
Registration no.
of PSP
nsert
Name of
Local
Authority
Attach Forms G-1
to G-21 together
with other required
enclosures before
forwarding to
Local Authority
and BAM/BEM

F1 nsert
date of
CCC
1) nsert name of
Developer if it is for
development other
than individually built
building
2) nsert name of owner
for an individually built
building
1) nsert Address of Building -
Lot No/Nos, Section, and
Road
2) nsert description of project
as per Building Plan
Approval adjacent or below
or in place of item [1]
3) nsert BP Approval Ref and
Date
4) PSP to sign off
1) nsert full name
of PSP
2) nsert Name of
ACP/ECP and
address
3) nsert BAM/BEM
Registration no.
of PSP
nsert
Name of
Local
Authority
Attach Forms G-1
to G-21 together
with other required
enclosures before
forwarding to
Local Authority
and BAM/BEM

Notes:
1) PSP shall notify the local authority through OSC (in writing or using prescribed form) after Forms G1-G3 are certified (i.e. after
completion of Earthwork, Setting Out and Foundations)
2) Form F/F1 and Form G-1 to G-21 shall be forwarded to the Local Authority and BAM/BEM within 14 days of the issuance of Form F/F1

guidelines
GUIDE TO FILLING UP FORMS G-1 TO G-21

FORM Project
TitIe
Item *1 Item *1 (a) Item *1 (b) Item *1(c) Item *2
G-1
Earthwork
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert LA's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-2
Setting Out
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert LA's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
Contractor to sign and date
3) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in Licensed Land
Surveyor's name
2) Fill in Surveyor Board's
registration no.
3) Sign and date
1) Fill in PSP's
name
2) Fill in
BAM/BEM
registration
no.
3) Sign and date
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-3
Foundation
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
to LA. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

52 THE INGENIEUR
guidelines

FORM Project
TitIe
Item *1 Item *1 (a) Item *1 (b) Item *1(c) Item *2
G-4
Structure
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
nsert SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
to LA
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-5
nternal Water
Plumbing
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert Water
Authority's
Approval Ref
No. or SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Licensed Plumber
2) nsert Plumber's registration
no. and LA / Water
Authority's name & attach
copy of Licence
3) Plumber to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BAM/BEM
registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) f an Engineer, SP must
be a Mechanical or Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-6
nternal Sanitary
Plumbing
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert LA's
Approval Ref
No. or SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Licensed Plumber
2) nsert Plumber's registration
no. and LA / Authority's
name & attach copy of
Licence
3) Plumber to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BAM/BEM
registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) f an Engineer, SP must
be a Mechanical or Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

FORM Project
TitIe
Item *1 Item *1 (a) Item *1 (b) Item *1(c) Item *2
G-7
nternal
Electrical
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
proceed to
insert other
details. f not
applicable,
strike out
item*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Competent Person
2) nsert Competent Person's
registration no. with Energy
Commission & attach copy
of Competency Certificate
3) Competent Person to sign
and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name.
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date.
4) SP must be an Electrical
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-8
Passive Fire
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
Bomba's
Approval Ref
No. or PSP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in PSP's name
2) Fill in BAM/BEM
registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) f an engineer, PSP must
be a Civil Engineer
5) Attach Letter of
Clearance from Bomba
(except for residential
buildings not exceeding
18 meters height)
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-9
Active Fire
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
Bomba's
Approval Ref
No. or PSP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Trade Contractor's
company & attach certified
copy of Company's Form 49
to authenticate this
individual (Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a
Mechanical Engineer
5) Attach Letter of
Clearance from Bomba
(except for residential
buildings not exceeding
18 meters height)
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

THE INGENIEUR 53
guidelines

FORM Project
TitIe
Item *1 Item *1 (a) Item *1 (b) Item *1(c) Item *2
G-10
Mechanical
Ventilation
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
proceed to
insert other
details. f not
applicable,
strike out
item*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Trade Contractor's
company & attach certified
copy of Company's Form 49
to authenticate this
individual (Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a
Mechanical Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-11
Lifts / Escalators
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
proceed to
insert other
details. f not
applicable,
strike out
item*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Competent Person
2) nsert Competent Person's
DOSH approval letter ref.
no. & attach copy of
DOSH's letter
3) Competent Person to sign
and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a
Mechanical or Electrical
Engineer
5) Attach list of PMA nos. or
Certification from
Competent Person
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-12
Building
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
nsert LA's
Approval Ref
No.
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in PSP's name
2) Fill in BAM/BEM
registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) f an engineer, PSP must
be a Civil Engineer
Strike out tem
*2

FORM Project
TitIe
Item *1 Item *1 (a) Item *1 (b) Item *1(c) Item *2
G-13
External Water
Supply
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert LA's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Licensed Plumber
2) nsert Plumber's registration
no. and Water Authority's
name & attach copy of
Licence
3) Plumber to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
5) Attach Letter of
Confirmation from Water
Authority that water
supply is ready for
connection
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-14
Sewerage
Reticulation
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
WK/SPAN's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Licensed Plumber
2) nsert Plumber's registration
no. and Authority's name &
attach copy of Licence
3) Plumber to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-15
Sewage
Treatment Plant
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
WK/SPAN's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Licensed Plumber
2) nsert Plumber's registration
no. and Authority's name &
attach copy of Licence
3) Plumber to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
5) Attach Letter of
Clearance from the
Department of Sewerage
Services / ndah Water
Consortium
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
G-16
External
Electrical
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert TNB's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Competent Person
2) nsert Competent Person's
registration no. with Energy
Commission & attach copy
of Competency Certificate
3) Competent Person to sign
and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration
no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be an Electrical
Engineer
5) Attach Letter of
Confirmation from TNB
that electrical power
supply is ready for
connection
f tem *1 is
applicable,
strike out tem
*2. f item *1 is
not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration
54 THE INGENIEUR
guidelines
Editors note: Samples of CCC Forms are available on BEMs website www.bem.org.my
Notes:
1) PSP shall notify the local authority through OSC (in writing or using prescribed form) after Forms G1-G3 are certified (i.e. after completion
of Earthwork, Setting Out and Foundations)
2) Form F/F1 and Form G-1 to G-21 shall be forwarded to the Local Authority and BAM/BEM within 14 days of the issuance of Form F/F1
3) If Contractor or Trade Contractor is the same in multiple Forms, then attach only one (1) set of the required document/s.
Legend
BP = Building Plan LA = Local Authority NRIC = National Registration Identity Card
SP = Submitting Person PSP = Principal Submitting Person ACP = Architectural Consultancy Practice
ECP = Engineering Consultancy Practice PMA = Perakuan Mesin Angkat
FORM Project
TitIe
Item *1 Item *1 (a) Item *1 (b) Item *1(c) Item *2
G-17
Road & Drain
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
LA/JKR's
Approval Ref
No. or SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration no.
3) Sign and date
3) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
4) Attach Letter of
Confirmation of
Completion from LA / JKR,
which is deemed to be
given if not given by LA /
JKR within 14 days of
application
f tem *1 is
applicable, strike
out tem *2. f item
*1 is not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

G-18
Street Lighting
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
LA/JKR's
Approval Ref
No. or SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
Competent Person
2) nsert Competent Person's
registration no. with Energy
Commission & attach copy
of Competency Certificate
3) Competent Person to sign
and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be an Electrical
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable, strike
out tem *2. f item
*1 is not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

G-19
External Main
Drain
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert LA's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Contractor's Company &
attach certified copy of
Company's Form 49 to
authenticate this individual
(Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be a Civil
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable, strike
out tem *2. f item
*1 is not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

G-20
Telecommunication
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert
Approval Ref
No. or SP's
Deposited
Plans Ref No.
f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Trade Contractor's
company & attach certified
copy of Company's Form 49
to authenticate this
individual (Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BEM registration no.
3) Sign and date
4) SP must be an Electrical
Engineer
f tem *1 is
applicable, strike
out tem *2. f item
*1 is not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration

G-21
Landscape
nsert
description
of project
as per BP
approval
f this item is
applicable,
insert LA's
Approval Ref
No. f not
applicable,
strike out
tem*1
1) nsert name (individual) of
proprietor / partner / director
of Trade Contractor's
company & attach certified
copy of Company's Form 49
to authenticate this
individual (Contractor)
2) nsert Contractor's NRC
3) Contractor to sign and date
4) Attach copy of CDB
registration of Company
1) Fill in SP's name
2) Fill in BAM/Landscape
Architect registration no.
3) Sign and date
f tem *1 is
applicable, strike
out tem *2. f item
*1 is not applicable,
PSP to sign
declaration


Notes:
1) PSP shall notify the local authority through OSC (in writing or using prescribed form) after Forms G1-G3 are certified (i.e. after completion of
Earthwork, Setting Out and Foundations)


2) Form F/F1 and Form G-1 to G-21 shall be forwarded to the Local Authority and BAM/BEM within 14 days of the issuance of Form F/F1
3) f Contractor or Trade Contractor is the same in multiple Forms, then attach only one (1) set of the required document/s.

compiled by ctl (May 2008)

BP = Building Plan
LA = Local Authority
NRC = National Registration dentity Card
SP = Submitting Person
PSP = Principal Submitting Person
ACP = Architectural Consultancy Practice
ECP = Engineering Consultancy Practice
PMA = Perakuan Mesin Angkat

engineering nostalgia
56 THE INGENIEUR
Aspects Of Life During
The Emergency
Communal well at the
new village in the 1950s.
(Submitted by Mr Toh Seong Leng)
Communal well behind the new village houses in 1948. Most houses were allocated space for
livestock rearing.
(Submitted by Ms Helen Tan Siew Keng)