1. Only physicians who have work experience of 10 years or more are allowed treat patients of certain selected medical conditions such as hypertension(high bp) and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). It is illegal for all other physicians to treat such a patient.
2. It is illegal for a doctor to compete with another doctor by offering lower price for his services. (Assume for a moment that doctor's fees are not controlled in Maldives).
What would such a legislation do to the general public? Most of the patients will then have to go to those 10yr experience doctors (lets call them super-doctors, which are few in number), if they want treatment for common conditions. The price they charge is not controlled, and the patient will have to pay whatever fee that the super-doctors demand. Meanwhile, perfectly capable physicians will not be able to offer their service.
As for the other doctors (opthal, paeds, gyn etc), they are not allowed to compete on price. If one gynaecologist is offering service at 100/- per patient, another gynaecologist cannot offer the same service for a lower price, because that would be illegal!
One might think that such a legislation will never be attempted. Well such a regulation is being proposed not in the health sector, but the building design sector. The "National Building Designers Registration (NBDR) Regulation 2009" hopes to do just that. Though currently in draft stage and opened for public comment by Ministry of Housing Transport and Environment, the regulation proposes such things.
It categorises architects and engineers so that only certain super-architects and super-engineers can design projects of certain size, types and heights. With few architects and engineers practicing, such regulations will give an enormous competitive advantage to the super-architects and super-engineers. Not because they are more capable, but because the others are regulated out of the market. And this doesn't stop here, the plan is to extend this to other professions in the sector such as Building Services, Quantity Surveying etc.
Secondly, under "Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics" clause 11.2 states:
11.2 A member shall not compete with another member by means of a reduction of fees or by any other inducement to any personMember means a registered practitioner in the building design sector. The public is denied to shop around for a cheaper and better services!!! Such a regulation will definitely be favorable to someone in the design sector, but it is definitely not in the interest of the public.
Unfortunately, this might be the case for other regulations being hectically proposed. The interest of the general public is left out, while the interest of the interest groups are pushed.
Disclaimer:
I happen to be someone who will benefit from such a regulation. But my "Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics" says that this is just plain wrong :)
33 comments:
so under these new laws would it be illegal for me to design/plan/draw my own house and ask an engineer to design a structure for it (say a simple 2-storey house)?
Right now also you cannot plan and design on ur own. Well you could, but you will have to get a signature from a registered person.
What they are proposing now is still more restrictions on who can actually sign for what. Now a diploma in arch can design a lot of things, but after these regulations they can sign only small ones. Like that lot of categorisations are given.
contact your district MP voice your concerns.
It is a draft regulation, still not sent to majlis yet. We have voiced our concerns to the relevant ppl. There is hope that things will be modified.
Architecture is a design field, and in my opinion, creative design does not necessarily come with experience. There are experienced Architects in Maldives who design rather poorly, while in-experienced fresh graduates designing quite comprehensively and creatively. The urban regulations is minimal, and can be comprehended by any person using his logic. But I am fully aware that the nutcases in these panels and committees drafting these regulations are quite capable of worse.
And the part which states that no architect/engineer should reduce the price is completely out of this world. I applaud their stupidity. Good job you morons (Directors/Deputies etc.. sitting in that panel). Good that you all (again previously mentioned nutjobs) feel that only experienced engineers can do a simple beam calculation.. Morons, how long does it take for one to qualify to design a bridge in Maldives? A millennium?
Hi...
When discussing with the writers of the regulation i realised the intentions were not as bad as the results...
It is apparent that they have tried hard t get concerned parties input for corrections. In part it is our fault that we do not find the time to comment on these important draft regulations...
Having said that.. the current draft needs to be stopped on its track w/o question
It is not the govnments job to tell t whom we shud go to design our buildings...their job is to tel the minimum requirements for a safe and functioning building. If these requiremnts are met in a design whether done by an architect or not is not the governments business!!
axee,
I'll have to partially disagree with you on this. It is important that certain categories should require a qualified architect, to design. For example hospitals, schools and industrial installations should have a requirement. Agreed that, architecture of small 1000 sq.ft plots does not require even a diploma certificate. Anyone with a design sense, familiar with space allocation and current regulation is quite capable for the job. But when it comes to specialized entities, it is important that the fundamental of functioning, and relevant stages of a professional design phase to be followed in order to achieve cost efficient designs, relative to our environment. Also agreed that this does not necessarily require 10 yrs experience. But the normal work flow and organization of fully functional architect need to be consulted in such matters. This is appropriate and most relevant, considering the safety, usability and other attributes of such a building.
When it comes to structural and civil engineering, if he is a qualified engineer, he should not be stopped depending on his experience at the level of a regulation. It is the choice of an individual body to sought consultancy from any experience level they deem is fit for their needs both design wise and financially.
Once again, any panel who can come up with such fallacy of a regulation, even at a draft stage can be either idiots or have a wicked and ulterior motive to benefit for themselves from such regulations. What I mean is, engineers and architects sitting in such boards and panels are equating the requirements to their own education level and experience. Once again, I call for an IQ test to be imposed on such panels as their logic is in question here, regardless of their high educational qualifications. Once again, passing a degree exam wouldn't necessarily make them good designers or engineers or lawmakers. I wonder if there is a lawyer on this panel?
V,
"It is important that certain categories should require a qualified architect, to design. For example hospitals, schools and industrial installations should have a requirement."
Even if such requirement is not there if you (as a developer for example) want to design a hospital or school, would you go to new gradate architect? or to someone with experience?
Similarly, government can have their own requirement for qualification of architects for government funded projects. But government should not mandate the requirement for private projects. Atleast not at the levels proposed.
meekaaku,
This is exactly what I am trying to say. It can be up to the individual/body to set their requirements. Putting that under a legislation is absurd. And when I mentioned that certain categories should have a requirement, I meant qualification wise and not experience wise. It is up to the client, to set their requirement of architects experience level.
But, since if the safety and proper functioning of such a building is in question here, it is important that qualification is to be set as a requirement for certain level of projects. As an example I have taken that a graduate architect should be allowed to design at any level (irrespective of experience). BUT someone without any qualification (not even with a diploma), without any certification in the architecture field, should not be allowed to design these categories. The argument in my case is the partial treatment depending on the experience. Since architecture is a design field, even a non-qualified person can logically present a more sensible design (agreed!), BUT it can't be assumed always as true and for the sake of standardization, it has to be met with a certain requirement (which is undoubtedly not related to experience - legislation wise). Irrespective of the investing body, it should be regulations. THAT a certain level of qualification is needed for design of specialized buildings. It is only sensible. But again, the level of regulation need to be minimal.
At the moment, Architects are allowed to design such buildings, I am sure. And they should be allowed to do so without bar. Fresh out of grad school or with 10 years of experience, it would not matter. The design of certain types of entities, such as resorts are mainly dependent on creativity. A hospital, a school, a correctional facility is dependent on functioning. The qualified architect would be aware of such work-flows. Undeniably he is 'qualified' and this should be regulated at some level. There architect's specializing in hospital design or industrial design, or school design. There are specialized post-grad programs of such areas. So the qualification has to be given weight at legislative level just as engineering cannot be done without qualification at any level.
Hi V,
u seem t be very much inline with what i think on the subject.....
while i agree that there should b a line drawn at some level...the dilemma is i can't figure where the line should b.....I guess the decision should b left to the public/client.....as meekaaku says it is hard to believe that a hospital will be given t a non architect by anyone.....nobody catergorises the doctor we should go t...the patient choose....
axee,
The government definitely has a regulatory duty. Even if the architect - client (non-government) wants to do business, they would require to follow certain guidelines. Likewise, they would have to submit these design to be checked, if they are inline with basic urban regulations. As such, it should be endorsed by the signature of the designing architect. Hence, they can set a requirement, of "Qualification" for certain higher level of buildings. This not only sensible, but the just way. Just the same as you would not be approved to open a clinic unless you have minimal M.B,B.S degree. So the government has regulations with that also right!
its takes five years of education from (institute approved courses that is)and and two years of work experience and another exam to earn the right to call yourself an "architect" and practice in most countries. it is equally as geuelling to qualify as an "engineer". there is a dual system of registration, to practice as a "professional". fristly education to a prexcribed level enables you to be a member of a professional institute, that determines your level of education. secondly one has to get registered with the regulating government body.Professionals also require insurance to cover any indemnity, and no insurance company will bear the costs if one is not a professional.This ensures, that both the public and the "professionals" rights are protected.without these systems, anyone is free to provide services that they have neither the qualifications nor the experience to practice, and there is no way for the client to compensate his/her mistakes. without a framework for regulating, anyone can pretend to be anything, and there is no way to make them responsible.
fathimath:
"without a framework for regulating, anyone can pretend to be anything, and there is no way to make them responsible."
If you are pretending to be something you are not, then you are liable for fraud/deception. You will be held responsible whether you are a registered "professional" or not. Whether you have indemnity insurance or not.
Sure, government can have registered practitioners like they have right now. Even certify them to have studied from good institutions and have x years of experience. But categorization & making legislations to prevent people from choosing who to hire for their project is not protecting the rights of public.
The regulation forces the public to choose from a selected few "professionals".
---
"free to provide services that they have neither the qualifications nor the experience to practice"
And who decides who is qualified and experienced enough for someone else's project? Do I get to decide who you should hire to design your house? And what guarantee is there that these "professionals" are available to meet the demands and be performing enough?
And finally, the regulation says:
"11.2 A member shall not compete with another member by means of a reduction of fees or by any other inducement to any person"
How in the world can this be said to be in the interest of the public?
what you are suggesting seems deregulation. wait till something goes wrong and then take people to court.You are being a bit sneaky and misleading,if you are who you claim to be, you must have at least undertaken a university engineering degree. Why dont you inform people on existing practices world over to determin professional qualifications and experienceineers and other professionals? BE HONEST and let people know the truth, all countries have some form of legislature (usually an ACT of parliament), regulations (registration board) and standards (Professional institutes).
for more info following websites are useful:
ARB (Architects Registration Board)
www.arb.org.uk
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects)
www.riba.org.uk
ECUK (Engineering Council UK)
www.engc.org.
there are i think 38 engineering institutes that have the authority to accredit your qualifications
you are also failing to inform people that there are also different LEVELS of recognition by these bodies, based on your educational qualifications and experiences,
such as:
CEng (Chartered Engineer)
IEng (Incorporated Engineer)
EngTech (Engineering Technician)
this is not the middle ages
In the middle ages there were “professional” masons and carpenters and other skilled workers who worked on construction projects. A Master Builder (or someone with a similar title) was put in charge to manage the project by the developer. The skilled labour also had various levels like a Master mason, Mason and Apprentice and there were also wage scales depending on the levels. However there were bodies like a Masons Guild or a Carpenters Guild who would oversee the work done by the professionals in order to maintain the quality and integrity of the trade itself.
So in my opinion we need professional bodies to regulate the work done by architects, engineers and other professionals in the industry like a RIBA, ICE or RICS before we have super architects and super engineers. These bodies should make the regulations in the interest of all the professionals in the industry and the general public. They also need to maintain the quality and professionalism of the industry. In addition we need regulations by local authorities like a Fire code to which all the buildings should be designed.
These have to be done before handing out super stamps to engineers or architects or whomsoever it maybe.
Furthermore, in other countries regular indivuals hardly ever go to architects or engineers for property development. only the very rich have the financial power to purchase and build upon it themselves. There are property developers with good financial backing who develop and sell/lease property, which is a complete different scenario from the one we have in Maldives. This has to considered.
Also do we have enough professionals to have super architects and super engineers?? All of them are based in Male’, what about the public from other islands who want to develop their property?? And what about the fresh graduates?? Will be possible for a handful of PEs and Architects (if/when we have Super Architects) to employee the fresh graduates so that they can become professionals??
To my understanding, a fresh civil engineering graduate has to work in the Ministry as a checker for 2 years (a fresh graduate as a structural checker???) or work under a PE for 3 years to become a PE after 2009.
What I am suggesting is avoiding regulation to favour selected few people. You do realise that there are only 33 registered architects and 50 registered engineer. Not all of them are practicing or available for hire due to various reasons.
Like I said before, the government or some institution can accredit or certify the practioners based on experience etc. But when it comes to choosing who to hire for a persons 10 storey building or whetever, let that person be the judge in deciding that based on qualification/experience or other things that he may want to consider. But the regulations proposes to categorise and make it illegal for people with less than certain experience/qualification to design buildings of certain sizes.
What you are suggesting is regulating so that only selected few are able to get the lucrative projects, in the name of protecting the public because designing something by an 'unqualified' person by your judgement will result in a court case.
You are being a bit sneaky and misleading,if you are who you claim to be, since you will benefit immensely from this legislation.
Why dont you inform people on how few are actually practicing in Maldives an that whats applicable in developed countries cannot be imported direct as the market is very different and that those countries churn out graduates each year?
BE HONEST and let people know the truth, all this will do is give the entire industry to the hands of selected few.
for more info following websites are useful:
http://www.construction.gov.mv/designers.asp?Classification=Architect&Title=Architects
http://www.construction.gov.mv/designers.asp?Classification=Civil%20Engineer&Title=Civil%20Engineers
Yes this is not the middle ages. But you seem to be stuck in the Mercantile age where few people controlled entire industries. Even today some of our industries are controlled by few people. And you are supporting a legislation that does that to design sector.
Correct links:
registered architects
registered engineers
i agree with most of what you have said imdhah, except your statement that in practices in other country where property developers providing buildings.true, but these buildings would have been designed by professionals in their employment or their consultants who would not be "property developer" but rather a engineesr, architects, etc.
having said that, we should all engage in the whole regulatory process more and focus our efforst into setting up the necessary institutions, even Brunei who have less architects than us have an architects association!
Meekaaku,
There is a book called "Bids, Tenders & Proposals" by Harold Lewis. Read it and perhaps you'd understand on to you how the Consultancy in the building profession works. Please don't let designing a mere 2 storey building cloud your judgment about the role of professionals. There is more to it. Think.
ZX,
"Please don't let designing a mere 2 storey building cloud your judgment about the role of professionals. There is more to it. Think."
like reading one book by Harold Lewis you mean??
fathimath:
"these buildings would have been designed by professionals in their employment or their consultants who would not be "property developer" but rather a engineesr, architects, etc."
i have to agree with you on that. but what i am trying to say is these property developers have the finance unlike the majority of our clients in Maldives. most Maldivians, especially those based in Male' live their lives from one salary to another, with the high rents, the life style and little or no savings
therefore i feel that we should first establish these professional bodies and standards before we rush into having Professional Engineers and Architects.
and i agree with you that we should all engage ourselves in the whole regulatory process and setting up these institutions. especially those with vast experience have to give some of their time otherwise this industry will never go forward.
and it should be in the interest of the public and the industry as a whole, not in the interest of a few individuals.
imdhah,
its a case of 'which comes first, the chicken before the egg" isnt it? one of the fundamental problems, i see in this country is that , the legal and regulatory reforms were did not develop at an equal pace to the rapid development we experienced during the last couple of decades.
i totally agree there are a lot of fundamental problems with the regulations being formulated by the ministry, I have suggested to them that they engage the people who are practising AND hire a proper consultant with international experience to draft the building act.
it is disheartening, that maybe about 5/6 people actually turn up to the meetings they hold. a blog is NOT really the appropriate forum for this discussion, we should all engage with the ministry.
having said that, when i graduated about 12 years ago, i think i may have been the 7th or 8th architect, now there are 33, so its growing rapidly, and i think its time to make the regulations more stringent....
as far as i am concerned prices are a non-issue, it will always be driven by market forces, what i am concerned about is enforcing mechanisms like insurance, code of conduct, contracts increasing accountability...etc
but its good we are engaging in a dialogue
zx:
See thats the problem i stated above as well. We cannot just import what is done in developed countries as it is, without giving due consideration for what is actually applicable here in Maldives. You are ok with doing what is said in those or other books even if it means only few people will actually be getting the opportunities? Just because it is said in the book. What I am suggesting is give that decision power to the client whether it be as per that book or any other book.
Each policy or legislation will have its negative and positive effects, and Kunintended consequences. But you seem to give a blind eye to that.
fathimath:
You say prices are a non-issue and it should be subject to market forces, but the proposed legislation gives the whole market to the few people and you are ok with that? And it specifies not to compete on prices even.
Do you support the legislation despite these issues or do you consider these non-issues?
As for the associattions, no one is stopping the engineers or architects or anybody from running an association. The fact that they are not performing is a failure of the practitioners. Not anyone else.
meekaaku
I have major problems with the one they are already implementing, The NBPAR
firstly, it is being implimented GANOONAA KHILAAF AH, MHTE has not followed the process to get it approved by majlis (as per "ammu gawaidh thakaa behey qanoon)
secondly, MHTE is not being ACOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT
- by withholding information by refusing to clarify inqueries regarding the matter sent in formally by the members of the public.
-secondly, changing their own rules in the regs as and when it suites them. there was just one category of super engineers in the regs, BUT the website showed categories of "superness". which was deleted the next day
-thirdly"National Building Professionals Accredidation Registration" only recognises engineers with a first degree to be "Building professionals" (infringes upon the rights of other professionals therefore uncontitutional)
fourthly, MHTE does NOT have the mandate to ACCREDIT qualification, it.
- a first degree in engineering is NOT considered by any insitute to be educational sufficient qualification to be a chartered engineer; a "professional" (first degree in architecture for that matter)
If people have professional qualifications form institutes, they will be recognised world over as precisely that, professionals, and why should not maldives recognise this?
i fail to c your logic on this one, sorry
Yes I agree those problems that u mention are there. And those need to be addressed as well.
"If people have professional qualifications form institutes, they will be recognised world over as precisely that, professionals, and why should not maldives recognise this?"
I agree we can give recognition based on qualification/experience etc. I am not arguing against that. What I am against is (as mentioned in my post and comments) regulations that states only certain categories of people can work on projects of certain size. What I favour is let the client decide whether he wants to hire 20 yr experienced chartered architect or the 3yr experienced part one architect.
"a first degree in engineering is NOT considered by any insitute to be educational sufficient qualification"
True, but do we just then restrict it to just Masters degree? Even if it means only a few engineers have Masters degree? Just because that is how it is done in developed countries. Maybe we can change the title "professional" to something else like some other engineers suggested. So instead of getting into the problems of certifiying who gets called professional and what not, why can't we have a FACT-based certification? Government (or a relevant body) can certifiy that person X has graduate/masters/doctorate in YYY from ZZZ university. Certify their expeirnece and exposure to different sorts of projects. And leave the decision making part to the client.
Plus, the regulation mentions nothing whatsoever of having site experience. Only design experience. How many engineers or architects actually visit their site and understand site problems arising from lack of details/inconsistencies etc? That has to be addressed as well.
Funny you mention:
"infringes upon the rights of other professionals therefore uncontitutional"
Yet you give a complete blind eye to the rights of the client to choose who to hire.
So I take it that you consider its a non-issue that this regulation wil benefit only a few people at the expense of the public (clients) and other practitioners. And you are fully aware and perfectly ok with a draconian non-compete clause such as 11.2A.
“It takes five years of education from (institute approved courses that is)and and two years of work experience and another exam to earn the right to call yourself an "architect" and practice in most countries”
It takes 5 1/2 years of education and 01 year of work experience to have an MBBS. Then another 3-4 years of medical school to specialize. In most cases a year of practice is a prerequisite for entrance to postgraduate medical school. All this and there is yet no regulation to “protect” these medical professionals like we want engineers and architects to be protected.
To be a doctor it takes lot longer than to be an architect or an engineer. The regulatory bodies do not force a blood pressure patient to go to a medical doctor with 1 year experience when the pressure is mild and a doctor with 10 year experience when the pressure is high. The choice is left to the patient (public). Neither does any regulation stops the patient from going for alternative medicine to treat the condition. The Ministry should be educating the public on the importance of hiring architects, engineers, QS, services eng. Etc. during the design process rather than forcing people to go to a few professionals.
All profession is important whether it takes 100 years or 1 year to achieve the certification. In the name of “protecting the profession” (can someone tell me what this actually means???) prescribing and limiting the options will create monopolies that will not only reduce the quality but also increase the price.
Current way is definitely not the way forward....
"infringes upon the rights of other professionals therefore uncontitutional"
I personally doubt it is unconstitutional, because it does not protect the rights of indivuduals
meekaau,
ok, we seem to be finding things to agree on...there is no fun in that ;-)
your last post is a bit clearer to me what your main issue is....and i agree with you on the point of project size issue...if u go to the history of the regulations, earlier anyone could register as a "designer", were a lot of diploma holders and not enough degree holders....and there had to be some mechanism to deal was this....the intention was to phase out..... but then the organisations and ministers kept changing...and other regs such as Code not dveloped
in a lot of your writings, u imply that professionalism is a phenomena of "developed countries"....if u are implying western countries.....i have to tell u that for architest, the prescribed qualifications are almost similar in lanka, india and pakistan...my experience are limited to SAARC outside of uk... i have had the opportunity to interact in SAARCH
its called NBPAR, yet it registers only engineers...if it was called engineers...its ok...and this is not just my personal opinion....i have saught legal advice on this.....and the reference to constitution was given to me by lawyers.
axee,
i have a believe firmly that all work should be regulated....professional work should be done by qualified people...the purpose of regulatory frameworks....is there to protect everyone...the public AND professionals.... this is one of the fundamental aspects of a regulatory framework....do not want to argue on this
i wont even bother to argue on the doctors talk....i dont know enough specifics about the profession, but do know that like in any professional service... there will be various legislature, medical boards, codes of ethics... insurance etc, etc...which cover that profession...even certain drugs can only be administered from within a hospital....
better to confine our discussion to our professions, and leave the doctors to theirs
Good thing you came to recognise the rights of client. Every regulation will have its intended and unintended consequences. It is upto the legislators to make sure that the unintended consequences (negative ones) are minimised.
"professional work should be done by qualified people...the purpose of regulatory frameworks....is there to protect everyone...the public AND professionals"
No regulation should protect anyone at the expense of someone else or infringe on the rights of others. But most regulations do, and in the event that this happens, one should strive to minimise the infringements. This does not mean everyone is free to do everything (like say I want to build my house to 20 storey). There can be limits, which are applied in a fair and just way. And the best way to do it will be protecting people's freedoms. And stopping people from infringing on the rights of others (whether by government or anyone). It is something to keep in mind when making regulations regarding designers, doctors, fishermen, investors or any one.
Meekaaku,
Read the damn book and get back to me. This is the era of globalization not dark ages.
Since I dont have your beloved books, maybe I can borrow it from you?
And what does this has to do with globalization? Come to think of it let me put a question for u.
Is it ok with you to allow maldivian clients to solicit designs from foreign design firms? Is it ok with you for a foreign design firm to come here and practice, and let CLIENTS decide whether they want to the services of the foreign company or the local one?
I doubt you are ok with that, since you are not ok with letting clients decide for themselves who to hire.
I am advocating for preserving liberties of individuals (in this case the common client). You do not seem to recognise the rights of individuals. You would rather make laws and prevent ppl from making free choices, to suppress people's freedoms.
Yet you are talking of dark ages?
Post a Comment