INGENIEUR
transgressing any of the regulations already put in
place albeit with increased penalties.
DPSR argued that the arduous strict liabilities
vested upon the PSP, residual powers of the LAs,
ambiguity in approach and the lack of effective
check and balance mechanisms in the process
of issuing of CCC are major flaws of the CCC
regime. He postulated that the CCC regime will
meet with an eventual implosion and he strongly
recommended the CFO to be reinstated to its
former ‘glory’. He even recommended a task force
to be set up to bring back the CFO regime.
BEM, being the regulatory body of professional
engineers involved in the CCC regime has
a different view. The CCC regime has been
considered a success story so far after more
than 10 years of monitoring. The CCC regime has
speeded up tremendously the vacant possession
of all developments in the country and for them
not to be subjected to the whim and fancy of those
in authority for the issuance of the CFO. There may
have been some hiccups at the beginning when
the Engineers were still on the learning curve
but generally most have been conforming to the
regulatory requirements. The real challenge was
how to deal with wayward officers in various LAs
who insisted on their own ways or insidiously
wanting the power to be returned to them to
control the CCC outcome although the CCC
delivery process had been clearly spelled out
by the Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and
Local Government (KPKT) in their guidelines for
all States in Peninsular Malaysia to follow. This is
basically a State-Federal structural problem that
we have to contend with and it will never go away.
The problem is repeated again when new officers
are appointed to a LA who has to be educated
all over again on the rationale and process of
CCC issuance. However careful and continual
management of this problem is needed to mitigate
its effects. Some of the pertinent issues as
highlighted by DPSR are explored below.
1. THE ISSUE OF ARDUOUS STRICT
LIABILITIES VESTED UPON PSP
a. In the CFO regime, only the Submitting
Person for building plans (SP) signed Form
E to the LA stating that he had supervised
6
72
VOL
2019
VOL 78
55 APRIL-JUNE
JUNE 2013
the project and it met all the requirements
the authority stipulated before the
LA considered issuing the CFO. CFO
issuances were frequently delayed due to
non-technical requirements imposed on
the developers. Did the LA assume liability
for issuing the CFO? The answer is No as
borne out in the case of the Highland
Tower Condo collapse in which the LA
issued the CFO for the project. The High
Court judgment assigned no liability to the
LA and ruled that they had full immunity
as per section 95 of the Street, Drainage
and Building Act. There is no basis to say
that the LA could take on some of the
liabilities from the professionals under the
CCC regime to relieve the liabilities vested
on the PSP.
However the PSP under the CCC regime
must obtain all 21 Form Gs duly signed by
the respective contractors/tradesmen and
submitting persons on the forms before he
is permitted to issue Form F (Certificate of
Completion and Compliance). This matrix of
responsibilities will ensure all stakeholders
in the CCC issuance process to be
accountable. This in a way has mitigated the
liabilities of the PSP in that the regulating
authorities (including utility agencies) can
go after the actual person responsible for
certain shortcomings or failures. The PSP
would be responsible for failing to check for
fraudulent SPs or contractors in the Form Gs
submission which is not as onerous as DPSR
has made it out to be. The procedures for
filling out the Form Gs are clearly laid out in
the Board’s website and those professionals
who cannot follow simple instructions should
not be in this business.
b. Liability under the Streets, Drainage &
Building Act (SDBA) and Uniform Building
By-Laws (UBBL)
The Act and By-Laws contain stringent
penalties for fraudulent certifications,
allowing occupation without a CCC in
cases where the building is not safe, false
declarations, etc. are justified for the sake of
public interest. The penalty sum is nothing