PROPOSED ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE
A short time ago an ordinance was drafted to provide for the registration of architects and to regulate the qualifications of architects in the Colony. But, owing to the consider- able amount of opposition encountered, mainly from the body of engineers who are registered as architects although not strictly possessing the recognised qualifications for practising the profes sion, the matter has been shelved for the time being.
Up to the present time the registra- tion of architects has been effected by application to the Governor in Council under Section 5, Para. 1, 2 and 3, of the Buildings Ordinance of 1935, and, owing to the shortage of the fully qualified members of the profession, engineers have been able to obtain au- thority to practise as architects,
The establishment of a School of Architecture at the Hong Kong Uni- versity has now made it desirable for the creation of a Governing Board with full qualifications and authority to ap point examiners and conduct R.I.B.A. examinations in Hong Kong. And this of course cannot be done unless a Governing body is set up here and re- roguised by the RI.B.A. It was one of the objects of this ordinance to establish such a Board in the Colony,
The objection to the proposed ordin- ance by the engineering profession is difficult to understand as it is express- ly provided for in the proposed ordin ance that registered architects, no mat- ter what their qualifications, would be allowed to retain their present stand- ing and powers, The provision that future registrations will be limited to duly qualified persons in no way affects the local professional body, while at the same time providing that future registrations will insure qualifications that are up to the standard required anywhere else in the world. In addi- tion it was envisaged that the new Act should in no way be detrimental to those who had qualified as engineers and were now serving articles with a view to qualifying as authorised architects.
Aside from its value to the Hong Kong University School of Architee- ture, the necessity for the proposed ordinance is manifest to anyone who is acquainted with conditions in the architectural profession in Hong Kong at the present time. While the pre- sent system allows for a certain amount of supervision over the acts of the registered architect in the Colony, in- sofar as contraventions of the existing ordinance can be punished by fines, no powers are provided to fix and regulate
the etiquette of the architectural pro- fession according to the code of conduct laid down by the Royal Institute of British Architects. This deficiency has resulted in a state of affairs which is detrimental to the public interest and quite definitely handicaps the architect attempting to practise his profession. Abuses have crept in which has reduced the status of the architectural pro- fession in Hong Kong to a very low level, and these abuses can only be remedied by placing in the hands of a duly constituted body the powers which will enable them to insist on strict adherence to the Code.
It is not necessary to enumerate the acts and practices on the part of an architect which are deemed to be in- famous in professional respect, but a legally constituted governing authority can prevent any possibility of the following abuses:
(a) To accept any dishonest com- mission in any form whatsoever,
(b)
To deviate from, by charging less than, the scale of fees authorised by the Board of Architects,
(c) To tout for or otherwise im- properly obtain or attempt to obtain professional work,
(d) To prepare plans for the pur- pose of getting them passed by the local authorities well knowing that his services will not be required for the purpose of supervising the construe-
on of the building.
(e) To sign or put his signature to plans not prepared by him or by his
for staff under his supervision
the of purpose of obtaining the sanction the local Authorities.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the discouragement of mal-practice re- dounds to the benefit of everyoue practising the profession of architec- ture and that any steps taken to maintain the integrity of the profes sion should and will receive the un- qualified support of all its members, The purely personal and immediate in- terest of nu individual or group of individuals should not be allowed to
counter the long range benefits of legislation which is long overdue and where such interests are fully protected then it is manifestly clear that opposi- tion is based entirely on a misunder- standing of the situation that exists in Hong Kong to-day, and indiffer- ence to the prospects of improving future conditions in the profession.
The Straits Settlements have an or dinance passed in 1941 which regulates and the qualifications of Architects provides for their registration in ac- cordance with the requirements of the
41
R.I.B.A. In consequence, candidates can sit for their examinations in Singapore. The proposed Ordinance for Hong Kong is very much along the same lines and until it is promulgated and officially accepted, our cultural standard will remain below that of the Settements and our University will be severely handicapped.
If there is a local board or allied society recognised by the R.I.B.A., the University can apply for recognition of its degree examinations. Recogni- tion if granted would mean that all architectural graduates would auto. matically become Associate Members of the R.I.B.A. If there is no local board or society the University cannot, under the regulations of the R.I,B.A.. even apply for recognition. In these circumstances it seems obvious that if nothing is done about an ordinance, the University must ask R.I.B.A, members to form a Local Allied Society of the R.I.B.A, in Hong Kong. There are enough R.I.B.A. members to do this and presumably they would be willing to cooperate for the sake of the stud ents if nothing else.
If this was done, the only recognised and representative body of architects in the Colony would be confined to R.I.B.A. members, with possibly Ameri- can qualified architects as associate members. The rest of the architectural body from whom the opposition to the new ordinance has come, would be un- represented. Is this what they really desire?
IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE THE NECESSITY FOR THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION OR DINANCE, WE QUOTE BELOW EX- TRACTS (A) FROM THE DRAFT THEREOF WHICH COVERS THE CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDING OF THE BOARD, THE SPECIAL POWERS VESTED THEREWITH, PARTICULARLY THE POWER TO CANCEL REGISTRATION, AND THE STEPS TAKEN TO SAFEGUARD THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF THE REGISTERED ARCHITECTS,
EXTRACTS ARE ALSO GIVEN (B) FROM THE BUILDINGS OR- DINANCE OF 1935 COVERING THE REGISTRATION AND CONTROL OF ARCHITECTS WHICH SHOWS THE INADEQUACY OF THE ORDINANCE IN THIS RESPECT.
Constitution and proceedings of
Board of Architects
3. (1) For the purposes
of this Ordinance there shall be established a Board of Architects to be called “the Board of Architects'* (hereinafter referred to as "the Board''), which shall be a body corporate by that name,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.