Sabah Building Laws

 

To: Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM)

Re: Architect’s Responsibility Under Sabah Building Regulations (2019) 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

I am writing to seek clarification regarding the responsibilities of architects under the building regulations applicable in Sabah in 2019, particularly in relation to the Occupancy Certificate (OC) issued for Vistana Heights on October 2, 2019. The building regulations in Sabah at that time—likely the Sabah Building By-Laws 1964 or its amendments—governed the process, outlining architects’ responsibilities in plan submission and compliance certification. These by-laws were tailored to Sabah’s local context but shared similarities with the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 in terms of professional duties.  

In your email to me dated 14.10.2022, you stated, ‘We have also been led to understand that there is a current, legal dispute between yourself and the Developer. Apart from not being able to comment based on the information we have received, we hope you understand that we are also unable to add any further advice lest it may be misconstrued as interference within the above-mentioned dispute.’

Now that there is no legal dispute, I hope you will please help me with my predicament.

Under the building by-laws in Sabah in 2019, architects were required to: 

Submit and obtain approval for building plans. 

Supervise construction to ensure compliance with approved plans and structural integrity. 

Certify compliance during construction stages, contributing to the issuance of an Occupancy Certificate (OC) by the local authority, as was the practice in Sabah at that time.

The PAM Contract 2018 complements these by-laws by outlining the architect’s contractual duties, such as monitoring progress, issuing certificates, and ensuring the works align with contract documents. An architect certifying the setting out of a building under the PAM Contract 2018 would declare, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that the works comply with approved plans, accepting responsibility for this certification. 

In the case of Vistana Heights, LYS Architect, who I understand acted as the Principal Submitting Person (PSP), claims they are not responsible for submitting a falsified survey plan to the authorities. I find this difficult to accept, as it raises questions about professional accountability under Sabah’s regulatory framework at the time. 

Under the building by-laws in Sabah in 2019 (e.g., Sabah Building By-Laws 1964 or its amendments), the PSP—typically the architect—was responsible for submitting building plans to the local authority for approval, ensuring compliance with legal and technical standards. This includes verifying that accompanying documents, such as survey plans, structural drawings, and site plans, meet regulatory requirements. While the survey plan itself is typically prepared by a licensed land surveyor, the architect, as PSP, integrates it into the building plans and submits it as part of the approval process, implicitly endorsing its integrity. 

If the survey plan was falsified, the architect’s claim of non-responsibility hinges on whether they knowingly submitted false information or failed to exercise due diligence. The building by-laws in Sabah in 2019 imposed a duty on the PSP to ensure that submitted plans, including survey plans, complied with regulatory standards and were accurate to the best of their knowledge. Submitting a falsified survey plan—whether intentionally or negligently—could breach this duty. 

Furthermore, the Architects Act 1967 (Act 117), enforced by the Board of Architects Malaysia (LAM) and applicable across Malaysia, including Sabah, requires architects to uphold professional standards. Submitting falsified documents—directly or indirectly—could violate LAM’s Code of Professional Conduct, particularly provisions on integrity and competence. 

LYS Architect argues they relied on the surveyor’s expertise. However, courts and professional bodies often hold PSPs accountable for reasonable due diligence. Ignorance or blind reliance on others is rarely a complete defense. As PSP, they are not merely a conduit for passing documents to the authorities; they are gatekeepers of compliance. Submitting a falsified survey plan—whether they prepared it or not—falls within their sphere of oversight. The building by-laws in Sabah in 2019 and LAM’s standards suggest that architects cannot fully absolve themselves by pointing fingers at others, especially without evidence of due diligence. If the falsification was blatant or detectable, their failure to flag it undermines their professional duty. 

I would appreciate PAM’s guidance on this matter, particularly whether an architect acting as PSP in 2019 could reasonably disclaim responsibility for a falsified survey plan submitted under their oversight. (See note below)

Yours sincerely,

Luqman Michel 

Note: I was only seeking guidance on whether an architect acting as PSP could reasonably disclaim responsibility for a falsified survey plan submitted under their oversight.

I received a reply as follows:

Dear Mr Luqman Michel,

Kindly forward your enquiry to the link below.

https://form.jotform.com/231682916210452

PAM Secretariat.

I have this morning written to Jotform as instructed. 

I understand that my complaints should be addressed to LAM, however, I wrote to PAM as its website states the following:

Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM), or the Malaysian Institute of Architects, promotes the advancement of architecture and the architectural profession for the betterment of society, representing architects in Malaysia. PAM's duties include promoting professional and ethical standards, guiding members in upholding standards, and representing the profession locally and internationally.

1. Promoting Professional and Ethical Standards:

    Guiding Members:

    PAM is committed to guiding its members in upholding the highest standards when securing, executing, and managing projects.

Code of Conduct:

PAM has a code of conduct that outlines the ethical obligations of its members.