Thursday, June 19, 2008

A new and fit-for-purpose Malaysian “Engineering Act”

By Engr. HT Wong

A new and fit-for-purpose Malaysian “Engineering Act” relevant for the time and the 21st Century borderless and competitive global market; a primer by Engr. Rocky HT Wong for the proposed IEM Blog to enable exchange of views and ideas among IEM members – with a view to float up a consensus towards a brain-storming session among the IEM membership:-.

Historical back-drop:

In the early 60’s when certain failures of engineering works occurred; especially the high-profile case of the collapse of a shop-house, under construction, in Jalan Raja Laut K.L, which resulted in fatalities – a Royal Commission of Enquiry was formed to look into the causes.

Typically of the “pendulum-swing theory” and in response to the public out – cry, the call to regulate the practice of engineering, among other reasons, resulted in the “Registration of Engineers” Act (REA) passed by Parliament in 1967.

However, the Board of Engineers, Malaysia (i.e BEM) was only operationalised on 22nd August 1972; and that too, was after an amendment was made to the REA on 7th July 1972.

The original intention of the Act was to register all Malaysians who practice engineering (one way or another, either in private practice, or in employment). Hence, the BEM was effectively the “Register” of Malaysian engineers who were expected to follow a set of “Do’s” and “Don’ts” rules; with additional guidelines for those natural persons, the engineers, in private practice as Consulting Engineers such as “Model Forms” of Agreement etc.

Then in 1987, by Act A662 (of 16th January 1987), the REA (1967) was amended to also register “Bodies Corporate” (in other words, legal persons) with the introduction of Clause 7A.

With WTO coming into being in 1995-following that and on the instruction from the Cabinet (the Minister of Works then was Leo Moggie instead of Sammy) the BEM was instructed to amend the REA to be relevant for globalization and trade liberalization.

It was a long time in coming among the various reasons given was that the consisting REA was a “mosquito act” but frankly, the “powers that be” did not understand “globalization”; and that the Board consisting of too many government servants, who were not in private-practice, and hence their views were not in sign with the realities of the market practice.

However, for all the “long and the short”, and with much “cut and paste” and the Act still remaining in its original forum, the “major” amendment was finally approved by Parliament on 1st December 2002 via Act A1158 – with “Bodies Corporate” being replaced by Engineering Consultancy Practices; ie ECP’s - applying to natural and legal persons.

Then with the Prime Minister’s call to improve the public delivery system (after the 2004, 11th general elections) – with the introduction of the “CCC” the REA (1967) was promptly amended by Act A1288 on 1st April 2007.

All the amendments to date (there were 6 in total) kept the REA in its original form but has since shifted from purely a “Register” of natural persons – the engineers – to be both a “Register” of natural persons – the engineers, and the “Licensing Board” of ECP’s (be they natural or legal persons).

The Board’s Amendments to the REA Committee (or Engineers Act Committee), has been tasked since 2004, to look into the “re-vamp” of the REA to be relevant for the time and the globalized economy which is highly competitive.

Then, the Board (i.e the BEM) at its meeting held on 15th April 2006, resolved to embark on a major effort to critically and comprehensively review the current Act and to propose necessary changes to note; it is not going to be a “revamp” of the Act! Well, well.

There is a recommendation to the Board to solicit feedback and inputs from various stakeholders; and accordingly, the IEM (which has representations to the Board of the BEM, the Engineers Act Committee as well as the Committee’s Working Group) in tern is now, by way of its blog, seeking feedback and inputs from the IEM membership at large.

The Position-to-Date

To date, work by the various parties and the BEM’s and EA Committee’s WG have gone through the fundamentals of a relevant Act for the practice of engineering from the dual stand points of:
  1. Protect public interests; and
  2. The practice of the full spectrum of engineering and integrated engineering services in a competitive market environment.
Areas covered so far include the following: -
  1. To look at the safety of the public
  2. To emphasis more on the qualification regulation
  3. To emphasis more on the professional services application
  4. To emphasis more on the consultancy license
  5. Do wee need to register the graduate engineers?
  6. Issues of safety and competency
  7. CPD requirements; is it necessary?
  8. MRA

Request:-

Please post your views on any or all of the above areas, or other areas, which you believe, are of importance to the practice of engineering and to the profession of engineering.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

My opinion is there is not enough regulation and control over the use of the word 'engineer'. As a result it is being misused by people in sales, in trades not linked to engineering, by IT personnel etc. The new Act should regulate this and ensures all personnel using the title 'engineer' must be registered with BEM in one of the approved disciplines. A stiff penalty must be imposed on those who flout this requirement.

And by regulating is not enough. There must be enforcement and raids on organizations which continue to flout this. This includes graduates who are 'engineers' but not registered as well as the many 'sales engineers', 'application engineers' etc who are not graduates with engineering degrees.

Anonymous said...

IEM/BEM is a failure.

As an engineer, I never need to even know what the engineering act is!

Let's examine what IEM/BEM achieved so far, as quoted from the great Ir HT Wong (member of the great IEM/BEM)

1. To look at the safety of the public

Verdict: Failed miserably. Look at the Kepong overpass. What safety? DOSH have a better process and procedure than IEM/BEM.


2. To emphasis more on the qualification regulation

Verdict: you can't get a reciprocate Professional Engineer with a Ir title in UK, Europe etc. Example, with a CEng from UK, anyone can get a European PE. With an Ir, people will laugh and walk off. The best is an "ASEAN Engineer title".

3. To emphasis more on the professional services application

Verdict: What professional services? Like the ones in Jurutera magazine?

To emphasis more on the consultancy license

Verdict: what license? license to practice? how many percentage of engineers in Malaysia are registered? Control professional license?

Do wee need to register the graduate engineers?

Verdict: Yes, without members, you'll run out of money. Failing to force experienced engineers, they resort to force gullible graduates.


Issues of safety and competency
CPD requirements; is it necessary?

Verdict: Competence, yeah, i remember, give question out a month before compentence test and let the guys come prepared. After that, award an MOU title (Master of Universe).

Think about why I said that before you talk about engineers act 1967.

Anonymous said...

No matter how good the Act is/how good it is revised, no continuous enforcement & practiced, positive results are going no where.
Just a simple question: How many graduated engineers actually registered with BEM & IEM & if after registration, do they actually go in detail this Act & practise/aware of it?

Anonymous said...

With Due respect,
Any Tom & Dick can call himself "Engineer".

Equipment Sales Person- Sales Engineer (No Degree in Engineering)

Gardener- Lanscaping Engineer (No Degree in Engineering)

But, why nobody dare to claim himself/herself a doctor or a lawyer if he/she does not has MBBS or Law Degree?

Simple, this is because their respective authority like Bar Council is doing the job...

Anonymous said...

Not long a go,there was a dialog organised by BEM in Gurney Hotel, Penang with all the professional engineers from the northern region.

A question was asked why no action/initiative was taken as there are many people using the title "engineer" in Penang Industrial Zone but not registered with BEM. Many did graduate with a degree in Engineering.

Do you know what is the answer from the honorable Board of BEM?
No complaint. Oh, i see.
No complaint, no body die, no accident, do nothing.
Let's wait until one day, something wrong becomes the cover story of every newspaper, then all the news conference, spot check & summons will be done overnight.

May be i should lodge the first complain now.
There are not even 1 percent of all the engineers in Penang Industrial Zone who are registered with BEM. What a shame.
I propose we might as well revoke the Engineers Registration Act if BEM is not proactive in enforcing all the provisions/regulations.

Sad.

Anonymous said...

Those in BEM/IEM who are not up to the task should be demoted. Introduce some mechanism to monitor BEM/IEM's KPI.

Anonymous said...

I agree with all the comment here that there need to be more done by IEM/BEM for the engineer of Malaysia. The Engineering profession need a strong voice like other profession in Malaysia.

Tan Kiah Wah
General Manager,
Khong& Jaafar Property Management sdn bhd

Anonymous said...

Lots of problem that BEM and IEM can't solve:
1)What is the used of Scale of Fee while can't control engineer from offering lowest than the lowest fee?
2)There are engineer not co-operate enough to offer very low fee while offering no supervision for local development project expercially housing project. Selffish engineer, just want to get job!!! What can BEM & IEM dO?
3) Why lots of project always given to Bumi consultants? What can BEM & IEM do?

I am pretty disappointed with BEM and IEM, as are they really in rite vision or mission for our current and future engineers? Understand that most of the committee member are big boss, director of a company whom are very busy, but if they are busy,let other who want to serve to serve!!!!

Anonymous said...

yes im agree with that