I refer to Anthony Hill's letter (Sunday Morning Post, March 3) in which he looks forward to putting the first architect, engineer, contractor, or any other member of the building industry behind bars for designing unsafe buildings. I don't know where Mr Hill comes from, nor if he has read the Buildings (Amendment) (No 3) Bill 1995, nor if he has read Chung Wah-nan's letter (February 18) - to which he responded - carefully. Mr Hill is confused and his argument is shallow. We professionals welcome constructive criticism. On the other hand, we will protect the integrity of our profession when unfair and damaging allegations are made against us. If Mr Hill reads the newspapers, he should realise there have been more accidents and deaths from demolition of buildings than putting up new ones and none so far from design faults. In Hong Kong, architects and structural engineers design buildings according to their professional ability and by following stringent building laws. No building can be built if the plans and structural design are not approved by the Building Authority. Public safety is the essence of local building regulations. Ironically, the Buildings Department, with or without the proposed bill, carries no responsibility whatsoever for approving or disapproving building plans. Is this fair? Mr Hill failed to cite a single example where site danger occurred as the result of incompetent design. He should realise failure in buildings is in many cases caused by illegal alterations by the occupants. We architects are not suggesting site safety is none of our business. However, we are helpless when confronting potential dangers on construction sites that are beyond our physical control. Under the existing law, an architect will be punished if failure occurs due to his professional negligence. The proposed amendment asks for 'sufficient' supervision during demolition and construction of buildings. Who will define 'sufficient' supervision? Even if an architect is stationed on site, he has to sleep and eat. Besides, architects' fees can never cover his being on site on a full-time basis. Site safety can only be improved if the site management and operational procedures are restructured. Only then will we know how to improve safety and how to define where real responsibility lies. I agree sometimes architects are very fuzzy about the exact shade of colour of their buildings. I am one of those architects. This doesn't mean we don't think about building safety. Does Mr Hill believe putting architects and engineers behind bars would improve safety on site? Stop laying blame and looking for a scapegoat. Instead, let's cast aside pride and prejudice and be courageous enough to put our heads together to explore honestly and sincerely an effective solution to the issue of site safety. TAO HO North Point
