· Serve and protect public interest? · Regulate the practice of professional engineering? · Regulate the qualifications and conduct of professional engineers? · Regulate corporations which supply professional services? · Regulate the practice of engineering consultancy profession? | If the Act is to protect public interest by regulating the engineers, then the Act should be steered towards the practising engineers. | |
To clearly define and differentiate between ‘Practising Engineers’ and ‘Practising Engineering’. | ||
The BEM Board should comprise more than 50% practising engineers. The President or Deputy President of BEM should be a practising engineer. | If the principal objective is to regulate practising engineers, then majority of the Board members should be conversant with practice issues to understand the in’s and out’s of the industry. It should be worth noting that in To consider the Singapore model of the entire Board being elected by members including the position of President. | |
There is need to either forget totally about registering engineers or clearly define distinct categories of engineers who wish to sell their services and those who prefer other vocation, related or unrelated to engineering. | ||
Definition of engineering services should cover all aspects of the engineering fraternity and not leave loopholes for others to attempt to exploit/monopolise any engineering sector. | Any loophole in the definition of engineering services allow for others such as the Valuers/Building Surveyors, to attempt to exploit/monopolise as is currently being debated for Facility Maintenance. | |
Friday, July 4, 2008
ACEM wish list for "Revamp of REA"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
With reference to Item No. 5. "..Registration of engineers and licensing should be separated. A registered engineer should have at least 10 years relevant experience before he/she could be licensed to practise as a sole-proprietor, partner or Director in a body corporate..."
Although I understand the rationale behind the proposal; is to primarily enhance engineering practices/consultancy services,and avoid deterioration in overall quality, the 10 years relevant experience notion is a bit ambiguous, over-zealous and generalizing. How sure are we that PEs with more than 10 years experience produce better engineering services than PEs that don't have that number of years?. Competency though to a certain extent is proportional to time spent in a particular field; other factors such as the INTENSITY and RATE of exposure also needs to be considered. For example, one can spend 10 years in a field and have only 5 projects vs somebody that only has 5 years experience and 25 projects... which is more "experienced" and thus more likely to produce better engineering services? This loophole is quite apparent in the DOE EIA Consultants Registration, where the minimum requirement for a consultant is 7 years working experience. A repercussion of this system is you get individuals with virtually no environmental experience prior to the scheme and after doing 1 EIA report are able to register, whereas people who have been doing 5 EIAs in a year without the 7 years experience not being allowed to register. How's that ?
Performance in my view would be a better indicator. A notion in the act like "....OR at the Board's discretion based on proven competency and capability would also be issued the license...." should be added.
Post a Comment