Are the
professionals up to it?
NST 1/8/2004 By Elizabeth John & K. T. Chelvi
The Government’s decision to soon allow the professionals to issue
the CF has not gone down well among the house buyers. ELIZABETH JOHN
and K.T. CHELVI talk to the people in the building industry as well
the house buyers. THE Certificate of Fitness (CF) for occupation is
an official assurance that your house will not crumble before your
very eyes.
It is issued by the local authorities after ensuring that the
building of the houses conforms with various pre-requisites, bylaws
as well as approved layout and building plans. Owners are only
allowed to move in after the issuance of CF. This is done so that
owners do not move into houses that are substandard or dangerous for
occupation.
Nevertheless, over the years the issuance of CFs has become
entangled in red tape causing undue delay for house buyers wanting
to move into their new homes. And after years of complaints, the
Government recently decided to do away with the CF as well as the
local authorities' involvement in the process.
And the Cabinet had agreed in principle, announced Prime Minister
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Under the new system, engineers
and architects will be accorded the privilege of self-certification.
They will be solely responsible for the safety and fitness of the
houses constructed, with no one to check on them.
Will the professionals be up to the task of issuing some
certificates of fitness for houses?
The CF, which is currently issued by the local authorities, will be
replaced by a declaration from a building professional that the
building is safe for occupancy. The vocal representative of the
house buyers, the National House Buyers Association, at once
criticised the move. "It would have more adverse ramifications than
benefits," says its secretary-general Tony Chang.
Consumers Association of Penang president S.M. Mohamed Idris weighed
in to say that house buyers have learnt the hard way that they can't
always trust the professionals.
He points out that these professionals depend on developers for
their livelihood, hence they can be coerced into serving the
interest of developers.
These views are further corroborated by the numerous news stories
and pictures of sinking and cracked buildings over the years.
Currently, the law allows the developer to hand over vacant
possession without a CF. The developer needs only show that he has
applied for it. Developers, meanwhile, have been more concerned
about the delay in the issuance of CFs and welcome the new move.
According to Real Estate Housing Developers Association president
Datuk Jeffrey Ng, a survey among members showed that obtaining a CF
from local authorities remains one of the biggest complaints.
He says under the building bylaws, architects and engineers were
already legally responsible for their work.
Board of Engineers chairman Tan Sri Zaini Omar says architects and
engineers are already performing the task of certifying that
buildings are safe for occupation.
"So nothing much changes." Zaini says part of the current delay is
caused by the number of authorities involved in the process as well
as overlapping functions. "At present, inspections are carried out
by technical departments including the Fire and Rescue Department
and the Sewerage Services Department," says Zaini. "But all of them
arrive for inspection after a building is completed.
"The only ones present during construction — to check progress and
ensure buildings are being constructed to specifications — are the
engineers and appointed supervisors who inspect specific aspects of
work like concreting and wiring."
Delays aside, the house buyers association is more concerned with
the removal of local authorities who are supposed to ensure that
buildings or houses are built as they should be.
Chang says even with the local authority being in the picture there
are high enough incidences of shoddy workmanship as well as
premature or inaccurate certification.
What more if the present responsibility of the local authority is
removed altogether.
"By removing the last tier of verification, we allow errant
developers and professionals a free rein, much to the detriment of
house buyers," says Chang. He points to New York city as an example
whereby last year it was discovered that 67 per cent of
professionally certified applications submitted to the city's
Department of Buildings contained errors.
The city had earlier allowed registered engineers and architects to
certify building plans for erection of new structure. This was to
eliminate the lengthy process of plan examination by authorities,
similar to what Malaysia is proposing for the issuance of CFs.
In Malaysia, there have been numerous cases where architects have
"assisted" developers to hand over the property to the buyer even if
it was not legally fit for occupation to avoid liability for late
delivery.
"For instance, the architect would prematurely (fraudently?) certify
that work has been completed when it was not. "And as a result, an
incomplete house would be handed over to the purchaser." According
to Chang, this is no surprise as most architects and engineers rely
very much on developers for work. "And to get more work, they will
have to cater to the whims and fancies of developers."
The Board of Architects Malaysia has acknowledged these problems. In
its recent circular, the board warned its members that their names
would be struck off the professional list if they were found guilty
of fraudulent or improper certification.
This is in addition to the maximum fine of RM5,000 imposed by the
Architects Act 1967. The board stated that the additional penalty
was necessary as the serious damage suffered by purchasers far
exceeded the RM5,000 fine imposed by the Act.
President of the Malaysian Institute of Architects Paul Lai believes
the heavier penalty would make members think twice when they are
pressured by their developer client.
Zaini says there are black sheep in the profession, but adds that
engineers have been doing the job for years and they can be relied
on.
Besides, he asks, who else is qualified enough certify the safety of
buildings? He adds the board will de-register engineers who certify
work below acceptable standards. "The only problem is that the
process of de-registering can be very slow." Chang, however, says an
engineer being de-registered is nothing compared to the home owner's
misery.
Chang stressed local authorities have a continued regulatory role in
the building industry to protect the interest of the house buyers.
"If there is something wrong with the way local authorities issue
CFs, then it is the Government's duty to improve them."
As for the question of delay, he adds that it should not arise as
there is a 14-day ruling for the issuance of CF under Bylaw 25 of
the Uniform Building Bylaws. Under the bylaw, a CF is deemed issued
after 14 days.
"All the Government needs to do is to enforce the14-day ruling."
Despite all these, the Government is set to go ahead with
self-certification.
There is no turning back, says Datuk Mohamad Saib, the
director-general of the Local Government Department.
"We are going ahead but the question is when and how. But we are
moving cautiously." Mohamad says that self-certification is not new
in Malaysia.
"We've started the system with individual house units and are
currently monitoring the situation." Under the new system, local
authorities will only be in charge of enforcement, adds Mohamad.
"But this may require us to amend several laws as well as set up a
new body or mechanism for enforcement."
Chang says he is wondering why the authorities are creating a
detrimental situation for house buyers and then amending laws to
protect house buyers. "We have always had good laws but what we
severely lack is enforcement. How different would it be under the
new system?"
To protect the interests of house buyers, Zaini suggests that
developers be made to contribute to an insurance scheme similar to
the one being used to protect road users. |
| |
|
