INGENIEUR
Engineers. Every CCC submission is
scrutinised for its correctness and validity.
There is no room for a biased decision.
If the PSP has favoured the Developer
and issued the CCC before all works
were completed and all health and safety
requirements complied with, then the
affected parties could complain to the
Board about the unprofessional conduct
of the Engineer. If a prima facie case is
established, an investigating committee
will be formed to investigate the complaint.
If there are grounds for the Engineer to
be disciplined, he has to go for a hearing
before the Disciplinary Committee (DC). The
DC shall determine whether he is guilty or
not and mete out any punishment deemed
appropriate. The guilty party has the right to
appeal to the Appeal Board.
contracted parties are aligned to the
common objective in achieving the CCC.
In fact he should be the driver behind to
ensure the CCC is issued early in his best
interests.
c. PSP liable to other Interested Parties
Other parties such as purchasers are mainly
interested in the quality, non-defective and
timely deliverance of vacant possession of
building. These issues are the reflection on
how the contractor performed according to
the contractual requirements and it has very
little bearing on the role of the PSP in CCC
matters from the perspective of interested
third parties. These are contractual issues
and should not to be confused with CCC
issues. Complaints are mainly on defects
or defective design. Complaints on the
premature issuance of a CCC can be
considered the main contentious issue
especially for turnkey projects.
d. The PSP has no immunity
The argument that the PSP in the CCC
regime or the SP in CFO regime has never
had immunity from the law is not valid
ground to repudiate the CCC regime.
3. INADEQUACIES OF THE CCC
PROCEDURE
a. Lack of checks and balances
6
74
DPSR’s statement that the PSP enjoys the
total freedom to design, produce plans and
documents without having to obtain prior
approval from the LA demonstrated his total
lack of knowledge of the building approval
process. Though these precede the CCC
process, does he not know about the need
for Planning Approval (Development Order)
and Building Plan Approval to be obtained
first before construction work can proceed
at site?
BEM obviously provides the checks and
balances in the CCC issuance by the
VOL
2019
VOL 78
55 APRIL-JUNE
JUNE 2013
b. Lack of transparency and accountability
DPSR seems to advocate that a developer
with good connections with the LA and with
the ability to lubricate the issuance process
under the CFO regime is the better option
than paying the supposedly higher fees of
the PSP who are the architects in housing
schemes, under the CCC regime. What DPSR
advocated could also be the contributing
factor why some projects that have not been
similarly conceived, experienced delays due
to such practices in the CFO regime. The PSP
has certainly no such clout to be equated
as an authority to demand higher fees, but
being a professional he may be the one
frustrating a developer desiring premature
CCC issuance to maximise his profits. A PSP
succumbing or colluding to the demands of
a developer for premature CCC issuance
will be severely disciplined by the Board.
Hence DPSR’s logic of better transparency,
accountability, liability, neutrality and
fairness of the CFO process does not hold
any water at all, bearing in mind it was the
Government’s intention to weed out corrupt
practices in the LA when the CCC regime
was first mooted. PSPs regulated by the
Boards are deemed more trustworthy to
do a proper professional job. The question