Architect Accountability: The 1Sulaman Ruling and My Email to LAM

 

I wrote to the Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia and copied it to PAM two days ago and it reminded me of my article on my blog at LINK 

Here are extracts of the Daily Express article:

The Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia Disciplinary Committee had on Dec. 19, 2016 found the 1st defendant guilty as the authorised submitting person and the project’s principal architect who has wrongly and/or negligently issued a “Stage Completion Certificate” dated May 17, 2010.

The Daily Express article dated February 23, 2025 said among other matters the following:

Architects will need to think twice the next time they come under pressure by developers to certify the completion of various stages of a project to facilitate drawdown from financial institutions.

The High Court ruling has set a significant precedent in ensuring professional accountability within the construction and architectural sectors.

This judgment highlights several critical aspects of professional responsibility:

Adherence to Professional Standards – Architects are reminded of their duty to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in their work, as required under the Code of Conduct for Architects.

Accountability in Professional Conduct – The decision underscores the principle that breaches of professional standards will lead to consequences, emphasizing the need for heightened vigilance and ethical practices in the industry. 

The architect of Vistana Heights on the other said that the principal submitting person is not responsible for submitting the work of another professional.

Instead of settling this matter amicably between the buyer and the developer, the architect has decided to sue me, a non-plaintiff, with fabricated data.

Let’s wait and see what Lembaga Architect Malaysia and our local Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (Malaysian Institute of Architects) Sabah Chapter have to say to my email.

Note:  

Under Sabah’s UBBL 2022 the division of submission and primary professional responsibility supports the architect’s statement. It does not eliminate the PSP’s broader accountability for coordination, supervision, and the validity of the CCC itself. The outcome in any specific case turns on the actual documents submitted, what was certified, the evidence of knowledge or reasonable care, and findings by the relevant professional boards or courts.