STORY 1116 — SUSTAINABLE PALM OIL MILL — PART 1

A palm oil mill typically has a processing capacity ranging from 45 metric tonnes of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) per hour to 90 metric tonnes per hour, depending on the availability and projected production of FFB from the surrounding oil palm estates.

During my studies for the Diploma in Palm Oil Milling Technology & Management (DIPOM), a programme developed by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), one of the important subjects we learned was how to design and plan a palm oil mill—starting with a feasibility study.

Before a mill is built, the company must first understand how much fruit its estates are expected to produce over the coming years. This requires a long-term projection of FFB production, beginning when the oil palms start producing at around their third year and continuing until approximately 20 to 23 years of age, depending on the company's replanting policy.

Oil palms normally begin producing their first fruit in the third year. Production increases as the palms mature, with the period from approximately the fifth to tenth year showing significant increases in yield. From around the tenth year until approximately the twentieth year, the palms generally enter their peak productive period.

FFB yield, however, is influenced by many factors, including fertiliser application, estate management practices, soil conditions, rainfall and weather patterns. A single bunch can weigh anywhere from approximately 8 kg to 30 kg, depending on the variety, age and growing conditions of the palms.

From the projected FFB production of the estates, year by year, the company can estimate the total quantity of fruit that will eventually be delivered to the proposed mill. This projection becomes one of the most important foundations for determining the mill's processing capacity.

In a typical large-scale plantation development, the company may begin establishing its estates first, with the mill coming later when sufficient FFB becomes available. The construction of the mill itself may also be carried out in phases.

For example, the first phase might involve constructing a 45 MT/hour mill. As the surrounding estates mature and FFB production increases, the company can expand the mill to 60 MT/hour or even 90 MT/hour during the second phase.

In other words, the size of the mill should not simply be based on how large the company wants the mill to be. It must be supported by the actual and projected supply of FFB.

Another important part of the feasibility study is competition.

The company must examine whether there are existing palm oil mills in the surrounding area that could compete for the same FFB supply in the future. This is an important consideration in the planning and licensing process, as the availability of sufficient FFB is critical to the economic viability of a new mill.

Other factors must also be studied carefully.

Water supply is essential because a palm oil mill requires a substantial amount of water for processing, steam generation, cooling systems, cleaning and other operations.

The distance between the mill and the estates is another major consideration. Fresh fruit bunches must be transported to the mill as quickly as possible after harvesting because delays can affect oil quality and increase transportation costs.

Then there is the question of logistics.

The mill must have suitable roads for transporting FFB into the mill and moving products such as Crude Palm Oil (CPO) and Palm Kernel (PK) to downstream facilities such as refineries and kernel-processing plants.

All these factors eventually influence the mill's operating efficiency, production costs and, ultimately, the return on investment (ROI) of the entire project.

For this reason, palm oil mills are often strategically located within large plantation complexes, preferably close to a reliable water source.

If a suitable natural water source is unavailable, the company may construct a reservoir or artificial lake to store sufficient water for mill operations.

This is also one of the reasons why many palm oil mills are located near rivers.

But there is another interesting aspect of a palm oil mill that is sometimes overlooked.

A mill is not merely a place where thousands of tonnes of palm fruit are processed every day.

For a remote plantation complex, the mill can become its heart.

The mill processes the FFB and produces CPO and palm kernels, but at the same time it can also generate electricity for the mill and estate housing areas. The mill may also provide treated and clean water for the surrounding community and operational facilities.

When you look at a large plantation complex from this perspective, the palm oil mill is much more than a processing plant.

It is the centre of an entire ecosystem—connecting the estates, workers, transportation network, energy supply, water system, production facilities and downstream industries.

And that is where the concept of a sustainable palm oil mill begins.

This is only the beginning of the story.

To be continued in Part 2.

STORY 1114 A Bowl of Lontong in a Foreign Land

I had been living away from home for almost half a year before I finally found the courage to have breakfast at a small roadside stall just next to my house.

Every morning, at around 6:30 a.m., a husband and wife would arrive on a small three-wheeled cart. They would set up their modest stall and begin selling their specialty: lontong with pakis and young jackfruit curry.

A little later, several suppliers would arrive, delivering various traditional cakes and kuih to be sold at the stall.

There were only four small tables.

Yet, somehow, their food was always gone by around 10:00 a.m.

Every morning, I watched motorcycles and cars stopping in front of the stall. Some people would sit down for breakfast, while others would buy food to take home or bring to work. Many of them were clearly regular customers.

After getting ready for work, I would lock the gate of my house and walk over to the stall for breakfast. My usual order was simple: a plate of lontong with pakis curry, one boiled egg, and a cup of black coffee without sugar.

I have always liked pakis, especially here, where wild ferns grow almost everywhere. The curry can be quite spicy, but the combination of compressed rice cakes, pakis curry and crackers makes a satisfying breakfast. Add a boiled egg and a cup of unsweetened coffee, and it is enough to keep me going until lunchtime.

One morning, I finally started a conversation with the couple.

I discovered that they were Minangkabau, originally from Batu Sangkar, the town famous for the magnificent Istano Basa Pagaruyung.

Suddenly, my simple breakfast felt a little different.

As I enjoyed my lontong, I occasionally watched the customers come and go. Some were old customers who seemed to know the couple well. There was a certain warmth in the way they greeted one another—a small community gathering around four little tables and a humble breakfast stall.

Meanwhile, I sat quietly, waiting for the vehicle that would pick me up and take me to work.

There was nothing extraordinary about that morning.

Just a bowl of lontong, a boiled egg, a cup of black coffee, two hardworking people from Batu Sangkar, and a small roadside stall that came alive every morning.

But sometimes, when you are far from home, the simplest things are the ones that make a foreign place slowly begin to feel like home.

That is my little story today.

STORY 1113 CONFINED SPACE

STORY 1113 CONFINED SPACE

Three Lives Inside a Palm Kernel Bunker

Almost three years after I had moved away from the mill, I received some shocking news.

There had been a fatal accident at a palm oil mill in 2009.

Three people had died.

What made the news even more painful was that all three were people I knew closely.

They were not strangers.

I had worked with them.

I had seen them doing their jobs.

I had spoken to them.

I had shared the same workplace with them.

But on one particular day, three ordinary workers went to work for what appeared to be a routine task.

They never came home.

It Started With a Quality Problem

The story began with a quality issue involving palm kernel.

A consignment delivered to a refinery was found to contain an unusually high level of *dirt*.

It was almost 10%, while the specified limit was around 6%.

For the mill management, this was a problem that needed to be investigated.

Where had the dirt come from?

Was it introduced during collection?

Transportation?

Storage?

Or was there a problem inside one of the bunkers?

The manager gave an instruction:

Inspect Palm Kernel Bunker No. 3.

Take samples.

Check the quality.

The instruction sounded simple.

But one important question had not been properly addressed:

Where should the sample be taken from, and how should it be taken safely?

THE YEAR WAS 2009

At that time, confined-space awareness in many workplaces was not what it is today.

Entering a bunker, silo or storage space for inspection or sampling could sometimes be regarded as part of normal work.

It had been done before.

It had been done many times.

And when something has been done repeatedly without an accident, people can easily begin to believe:

“It must be safe.”

That is one of the most dangerous assumptions in workplace safety.

A task being completed safely one hundred times does not guarantee that the 101st time will be safe.

Risk does not care about routine.

BUNKER NO. 3

That day, a Lab Assistant and a fellow worker went to Palm Kernel Bunker No. 3.

The bunker was still approximately 40% full of palm kernel.

One of them entered the bunker to collect a sample.

The Lab Assistant remained above the bunker.

Everything appeared normal.

It was simply another work assignment.

Another sample.

Another routine inspection.

A few minutes passed.

Then the worker collapsed.

He became unconscious.

Everything changed in an instant.

A routine quality inspection had become an emergency.

The young Lab Assistant panicked.

He immediately called for help.

THE SECOND MAN

An Assistant Supervisor arrived.

Inside the bunker was a worker who was unconscious.

There was no time to think.

His instinct was simple:

Save him.

He entered the bunker.

But moments later—

he collapsed too.

Now there were two unconscious men inside the bunker.

THE INSTINCT TO SAVE A FRIEND

The Lab Assistant saw what was happening.

He wanted to help.

He started to climb down.

But halfway into the bunker, his body began sending him warnings.

He felt dizzy.

He felt nauseous.

Something was wrong.

His instincts told him to stop.

He turned back and climbed out.

But by then, the exposure had already affected him.

Not long afterwards—

he too became unconscious.

THREE MEN

Other workers finally realized what was happening.

Emergency action was taken.

All three men were eventually brought out of the bunker.

But it was already too late for two of them.

Two lives were lost.

The Lab Assistant was rushed out for emergency medical treatment.

But the mill was far from the nearest medical facility.

Approximately 90 kilometres away.

The vehicle moved as quickly as possible.

But time was running out.

Sadly—

the third victim also died on the journey.

Three deaths.

One bunker.

One work instruction.

One routine sampling activity.

And three families lost someone they loved.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

Years later, when I looked back at the tragedy, one question remained in my mind:

Why did this happen when workers had entered palm kernel bunkers before?

Wasn't entering the bunker something that had been done routinely?

Why did this particular bunker suddenly become so dangerous?

The answer may have been hidden in something that appeared relatively minor—

a change in the bunker design.

ONE WALL THAT CHANGED THE AIRFLOW

At the top of the bunker, there was a vent line.

However, there had been a significant modification around the upper section of the bunker.

An additional wall had been constructed around the top area.

The original purpose was reasonable:

to prevent rainwater from entering the transfer conveyor connecting the bunkers.

But every engineering modification can have unintended consequences.

In this case, the additional structure significantly restricted natural airflow around the bunker.

Ventilation became less effective.

And when ventilation is inadequate, hazardous gases can accumulate.

What looked like an ordinary palm kernel bunker from the outside—

could become a completely different environment inside.

A space that had previously been considered routine had become a potential death trap.

THIS IS THE REAL DANGER OF A CONFINED SPACE

A confined space does not necessarily look dangerous.

It can be a:

bunker.

tank.

silo.

manhole.

pit.

sewer.

vessel.

process chamber.

The greatest danger may not be visible.

It may not be felt.

And sometimes—

it may not even be detected by our senses before it is too late.

A hazardous atmosphere can cause a person to collapse before he has enough time to call for help.

That is why confined-space work cannot depend on experience alone.

Saying:

“I have entered this place many times before.”

is not evidence that it is safe today.

MALAYSIA'S JOURNEY TOWARDS CONFINED-SPACE SAFETY

The tragedy happened in 2009.

At that time, Malaysia already had the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, which established broad responsibilities for employers to protect the safety, health and welfare of workers.

But Malaysia's specific confined-space safety system was still developing.

In 2008, the Department of Occupational Safety and Health, JKKP/DOSH, had already established guidelines relating to confined-space worker training, training-centre registration and the conduct of confined-space safety and health courses.

Then came a major milestone.

On 20 September 2010, JKKP published the:

Industry Code of Practice for Safe Working in a Confined Space 2010.

This became an important reference for controlling confined-space work in Malaysia.

The philosophy of confined-space work increasingly changed from:

“Enter and do the job.”

to:

Risk Assessment.

Isolation.

Atmospheric Testing.

Ventilation.

Permit to Work.

Competent Personnel.

Standby Person.

Communication.

Rescue Planning.

Emergency Response.

That was a major change in safety culture.

DO NOT ENTER TO RESCUE

There is another painful lesson contained within confined-space tragedies.

When somebody collapses inside a confined space, the natural human reaction is:

“Go in and save him!”

But in a confined space, an unplanned rescue can create another victim.

One person collapses.

Another person enters.

The second person collapses.

A third person enters.

The third person collapses.

Within minutes—

one victim can become two.

Two can become three.

And a single accident becomes a multiple-fatality tragedy.

That is why modern confined-space safety places so much emphasis on:

planned rescue.

Not spontaneous rescue.

Not bravery alone.

Not entering blindly because someone is your friend.

But rescue based on:

procedure, training, equipment and competent personnel.

ALMOST 17 YEARS LATER

Today, almost 17 years have passed since that tragedy.

Can we say that the same thing can never happen again?

No.

As long as confined spaces exist—

the risk remains.

As long as people work—

human error remains possible.

As long as industrial processes operate—

conditions can change.

And as long as people assume that a familiar job does not need to be reassessed—

accidents can happen.

Today we have better knowledge.

More training.

Better equipment.

More detailed procedures.

More competent personnel.

But all of these controls are only effective if people actually use them.

DO NOT LET THEIR DEATHS BE IN VAIN

We cannot bring those three men back.

But their deaths can become a lesson for the generations that follow.

Every time we see a bunker—

remember them.

Every time we open a manhole

remember them.

Every time someone prepares to enter a tank

remember them.

And whenever someone says:

“Don't worry. I've done this many times before.”

Stop.

Think.

Ask again:

“Have we proved that this space is safe today?”

SAFETY IS MORE THAN A DOCUMENT

At every workplace, the confined-space requirements and safe-working practices must be implemented seriously.

Workers must receive appropriate training.

Gas detectors must be available, suitable and properly maintained.

Rescue equipment must be available.

Permit systems must actually control the work.

Isolation must be verified.

The atmosphere must be tested.

Standby personnel must understand their responsibilities.

And the rescue plan must be practical—not simply a document sitting inside a file.

Because when someone collapses inside a confined space—

we may have only minutes to save a life.

THE LESSON

When I received the news about the deaths of those three colleagues almost three years after I had moved away, I never imagined that one incident inside a palm kernel bunker would stay with me for so long.

Looking back today, I realize that the tragedy was not simply about three people making mistakes.

It was about:

limited awareness,

immature procedures,

changes in the physical environment,

an unknown hazardous atmosphere,

and perhaps most importantly—

the assumption that a routine job must therefore be a safe job.

That is what we must change.

Because safety is not about how many times we have completed a task without an accident.

Safety is about making sure—

the next time is safe too.

Those three colleagues are gone.

But their story still has a purpose.

It can remind us that every bunker, tank, vessel, pit and manhole deserves respect.

Every confined space deserves assessment.

Every entry deserves proper control.

Every worker deserves to go home.

Because as long as the hazard exists—

the possibility of an accident exists.

Never become complacent.

Never assume that routine means safe.

Never enter without establishing that the space is safe.

And above all -

NEVER SACRIFICE A HUMAN LIFE FOR A JOB THAT CAN BE STOPPED.

That is my story today.

BEM Form of Contract & Scale of Fees

The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) Form of Contract and Scale of Fees set the mandatory professional rules, service scopes, and minimum payment percentages for consulting engineers. You can access official regulatory guidelines and documents directly via the Board of Engineers Malaysia portal. 

Structure of the Scale of Fees

Part A (Professional Services): Outlines core engineering duties like design, planning, and supervision.
Part B (Scale of Fees): Provides calculation tables and percentage fees based on total project and construction costs.
Part C (Other Payments): Covers reimbursements, specialized site staff, and extra consultative expenses. 

Key Principles

Cost Brackets: Fees scale proportionally using maximum and minimum percentages tied to total construction value.
Complexity Classes: Different engineering works are categorized by technical difficulty rather than a single flat rate.
Public Protection: Designed to prevent severe undercutting that risks public safety and structural integrity. 

Engineering Consultancy Practices (ECPs)

Under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (REA) in Malaysia, an Engineering Consultancy Practice (ECP) must be registered with the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) to supply professional engineering services. ECPs can be formed as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or body corporate under Section 7A (single discipline) or Section 7B (multi-disciplinary practice). 

Formation & Structure

Sole Proprietorship: The sole owner must be a Professional Engineer with a Practising Certificate (PEPC). No minimum paid-up capital is required. 
Partnership: All partners in the firm must be registered Professional Engineers with a Practising Certificate (PEPC). 
Body Corporate (Company): Must maintain a formal corporate structure with a minimum paid-up capital of RM50,000. Equity restrictions requiring a minimum percentage of shares to be held by PEPCs were lifted in 2022, allowing shares to be held by any person or corporate body. 

Board Composition & Requirements

Director Control: At least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board of Directors must be Professional Engineers with a Practising Certificate (PEPC). 
Authorized Decision Maker: At least one director must be explicitly authorized by a board resolution to make all final engineering decisions on behalf of the body corporate. 
Scope of Authority: Only a registered ECP or a resident PEPC is legally entitled to submit engineering plans, drawings, designs, or reports to public authorities and clients in Malaysia. 

Letter of Release

The Letter of Release is an essential ethical and legal document under Malaysian engineering practice, preventing professional supplanting, resolving fee disputes, and ensuring smooth project handovers. It is governed by the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 regulations. 

Purpose and Legal Context

Regulation Compliance: It acts as written consent under Regulation 31 of the Registration of Engineers Regulations, stopping a second engineer from taking over ongoing work without clearance. 
Anti-Supplanting: It protects a registered engineer's professional territory and reputation from unethical replacement by peers. 
Statutory Overriding: Statutory rules enforced by BEM override any conflicting private contract terms attempting to force automated releases. 

Handling Fee Disputes and Handover Procedures

14-Day Rule: The first engineer must reply or issue the release within 14 days of a formal request from the second engineer. 
Stakeholder Mechanism: If unpaid fees are disputed, the client can use a BEM Form SH to deposit a stakeholder sum with BEM, prompting the board to authorize the handover. 
BEM Intervention: If the first engineer fails to respond, BEM can issue a confirmation letter making the release unnecessary so the project can proceed safely. 

UBBL & Street, Drainage & Building Act (SDA)

For Malaysian building regulation, these topics are closely connected: Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) provides the statutory framework, while the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 (UBBL) provides the detailed building-control requirements. Section 70 of Act 133 is particularly important because it establishes the legal basis for building-plan approval and the CCC system. (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam)

1. Borang G and Borang F

A. What is Borang G?

Borang G is the 21-stage certification system used as part of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) process.

Each Form G certifies that a particular stage or component of construction has been properly completed and complies with the approved plans and applicable requirements. Examples include:

• site preparation

• setting out

• foundation

• structural framework

• electrical installation

• sanitary installation

• fire-fighting requirements

• drainage

• roads and external works

• completion of building works

The Form G system is important because the CCC is not simply based on a final inspection. Instead, compliance is demonstrated progressively through the required stage certifications. (IPM)

B. Why is Form G important?

Think of it this way:

Form G = evidence of compliance at individual construction stages

Form F = final CCC

Therefore:

G Forms → verification/certification of individual stages → PSP satisfied → Form F/CCC

The PSP must ensure that the required certifications are properly completed before issuing the CCC.

C. What is Borang F?

Borang F is the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

It confirms that the building:

1. has been completed;

2. complies with the approved building plans;

3. complies with the relevant provisions of Act 133 and UBBL;

4. satisfies the technical conditions imposed by the local authority; and

5. is safe and fit for occupation.

Importantly, under Section 70(20) of Act 133, the CCC can only be issued by the Principal Submitting Person (PSP). (National House Buyers Association)

Simplified process

Approved Building Plans
        ↓
Construction starts
        ↓
Required Form G stages completed
        ↓
Relevant qualified persons certify their work
        ↓
PSP checks overall compliance
        ↓
All technical conditions satisfied
        ↓
Borang F / CCC issued by PSP
        ↓
Building may be occupied

---

2. Section 70 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974

Section 70 is one of the most important provisions for building control in Malaysia.

Section 70(1)

The fundamental rule is:

No person shall erect a building without prior written permission from the local authority.

In other words:

Do not construct first and seek approval later.

Building approval must be obtained from the relevant Local Authority (PBT) before construction. (mylaw.my)

Section 70(2)

A person intending to erect a building must have the required plans and specifications submitted by the:

• Principal Submitting Person (PSP); or

• Submitting Person (SP)

to the local authority and, where applicable, relevant statutory authorities. (mylaw.my)

For example, depending on the project, submissions may involve technical agencies such as:

• TNB

• water authority

• sewerage authority

• fire authority

• other relevant statutory bodies.

Section 70(9) — Notice to commence work

Before construction begins, the required Borang B notification must be submitted.

A commonly tested requirement is that notice is given before commencement of building work, with the statutory timing requirements applying to the approved plans and commencement of work. JKR's CCC guidance identifies the requirements as including the 12-month period from approval of plans and four days' notice before commencement. (EPSMG)

Section 70(18)

If the local authority does not approve, reject, or issue written requisitions concerning the plans within the statutory three-calendar-month period, the PSP/SP may apply to the State Authority under the circumstances provided by the Act. (National House Buyers Association)

Section 70(19)

Plans, specifications, calculations, particulars, documents and reports required under Section 70 must be:

• prepared/certified by the PSP or SP; and

• signed by the owner or authorised agent and the PSP/SP.

(National House Buyers Association)

Section 70(20) — CCC

This is extremely important:

Only the PSP may issue the CCC.

Therefore, an ordinary contractor, owner, clerk of works or individual Form G signatory cannot independently issue Borang F. (National House Buyers Association)

Section 70(21) — PSP's responsibility

Before issuing CCC, the PSP must ensure:

(a) the building is supervised so that it conforms to approved plans and legal requirements;

(b) the building has been properly constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans, Act 133, UBBL and technical conditions imposed by the local authority; and

(c) the building is safe and fit for occupation. (National House Buyers Association)

This is why the PSP has a very significant professional responsibility.

---

3. Submitting Person (SP) vs Principal Submitting Person (PSP)

This distinction is very important for examinations.

Item	Submitting Person (SP)	Principal Submitting Person (PSP)
Main function	Submits particular plans/documents	Takes overall responsibility for building submission
Building plan submission	Can submit relevant plans	Principal person responsible for building-plan submission
Technical discipline	Usually discipline-specific	Coordinates overall building compliance
Form G	May be involved in certification of relevant work	Ensures required certifications are obtained
CCC / Form F	Cannot issue CCC	Can issue CCC
Overall responsibility	Limited to relevant scope	Overall responsibility for CCC
Legal basis	Act 133 / UBBL	Act 133 / UBBL

Act 133 defines the PSP as a qualified person who submits building plans to the local authority, including a qualified person who takes over the duties and responsibilities of the original PSP. The SP is a qualified person who submits plans other than building plans to the local authority or relevant statutory authority. (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam)

Easy way to remember

PSP = Principal + overall building responsibility + CCC

SP = Specialist submission responsibility

---

4. Who can be a Submitting Person?

This area needs some care because "qualified person" under Act 133 is not the same thing as saying that every registered construction professional can automatically sign every Form G.

Act 133 defines a qualified person generally as a:

• Professional Architect;

• Professional Engineer; or

• registered building draughtsman,

registered under the relevant written law. (AnyFlip)

For modern practice, the relevant professional registration/practising requirements also matter.

PEPC

For engineers, the important concept is:

Professional Engineer + Practising Certificate = PEPC

A PEPC can undertake the professional functions permitted under the relevant legislation and UBBL, including acting as PSP/SP where the applicable requirements are satisfied.

Similarly, qualified architects and other persons recognised under the applicable legislation may perform the relevant roles.

---

5. What about Registered Wiremen and other personnel signing Form G?

This is where people sometimes confuse "PSP/SP" with "Form G certifier."

A person who is authorised to sign a particular Form G does not automatically become the PSP.

For example, electrical works may involve appropriately qualified electrical personnel. Their certification is relevant to the particular electrical Form G, but the PSP remains responsible for the overall CCC process.

So:

Form G signatory ≠ automatically PSP

The PSP must ensure that the person signing the relevant Form G has the appropriate qualifications/authority for that particular work.

This is particularly important following amendments and professional-board requirements concerning Form G endorsements. For example, Board of Engineers Malaysia guidance has addressed verification of the credentials of persons signing Form G and requirements applicable to professional engineers acting as PSP/SP. (Scribd)

Therefore, I would not write in an exam that:

"Any Registered Wireman can become a PSP."

That would be incorrect.

A safer statement is:

Certain competent/registered technical personnel may be authorised to certify specific Form G stages within their area of competence, subject to the applicable UBBL, statutory and professional requirements. This does not give them the general authority to issue the CCC, which remains the responsibility of the PSP.

---

6. Relationship between Form G, PSP and Form F

The whole system can be understood as a chain of responsibility:

                 LOCAL AUTHORITY
                       │
                Approves building plans
                       │
                       ▼
             PSP / Submitting Persons
                       │
                       ▼
                  CONSTRUCTION
                       │
        ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
        ▼              ▼              ▼
   Structure       Electrical      Plumbing/
     Form G          Form G         Drainage
                                      Form G
        │              │              │
        └──────────────┼──────────────┘
                       ▼
              PSP verifies compliance
                       │
                       ▼
              ALL CONDITIONS SATISFIED
                       │
                       ▼
                 BORANG F / CCC
                       │
                       ▼
               SAFE & FIT FOR USE

The important principle is that the PSP does not simply "sign a piece of paper." Section 70(21) places substantive duties on the PSP concerning supervision, compliance with approved plans, technical conditions, and safety/fitness for occupation. (National House Buyers Association)

---

7. Exam-focused summary

If this comes out as a 10–15 mark question, remember these points:

Borang G

• 21-stage certification system.

• Certifies completion/compliance of specific construction stages.

• Signed by the appropriate qualified/authorised person for the relevant work.

• Forms part of the evidence required for CCC.

• PSP must ensure the required certifications are properly obtained.

Borang F

• Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

• Final certification of the completed building.

• Issued only by PSP.

• Confirms compliance and that the building is safe and fit for occupation.

Section 70 SDA

• 70(1): prior written permission required before erecting a building.

• 70(2): plans/specifications submitted by PSP/SP.

• 70(9): notice to commence work.

• 70(18): provision relating to local authority's three-month response period.

• 70(19): required documents must be prepared/certified and signed as prescribed.

• 70(20): only PSP issues CCC.

• 70(21): PSP's duties before CCC—supervision, compliance and safety/fitness.

• 70(27): offences relating to CCC/non-compliance. (EPSMG)

PSP

Principal person → overall responsibility → supervises/compliance → issues CCC.

SP

Qualified person → specialist/particular plan submission → limited to relevant scope.

Form G signatories

Specific technical certification → must have the appropriate authority/qualification → does not automatically make the person PSP.

Key distinction to memorise:

G Forms prove that the individual stages comply; Form F/CCC confirms the building as a whole is completed, compliant, safe and fit for occupation.

For statutory wording, the current Act 133 should always take precedence over lecture notes or older UBBL summaries, because amendments can change the applicable requirements. (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam)