Taking matters in hand

18/05/2002 NST-PROP By Sheila Singam

In the absence of affective enforcement to ensure quality and professionalism in the different real estate sectors, perhaps players should move towards self-governance.

If you were to ask me to use one phrase to describe the Malaysian real estate industry, I'd sum it up as a "a bundle of contradictions".

I say this because the discrepancy between the good and bad in the various sectors of the industry is so great that one wonders how they can exist together in the same playing field. And not just that, it also amazes me how the ones who continuously strive for excellence tolerate the bad apples that tarnish the image of the industry as a whole.

Take for example, the field of property development. Malaysia has produced some of the finest property projects in the world. To date, six Malaysian projects have been deemed the bests in the world in their various categories, and we await with bated breath to see if three more will be judged world-class. In case you're wondering what I'm on about, I'm talking about the International Real Estate's Prix d'Excellence, a global award conferred upon property projects that are outstanding in their category.

Since 1994, Malaysian projects have won the Prix in the residential, retail and leisure categories. The list of winners include Sime UEP Properties Bhd's Subang Jaya and USJ townships, Sungai Wang Plaza, Starhill Centre, Marang Resort & Safaris and Pulai Spring Resort.

Another four Malaysian projects have been shortlisted this year for the Prix: Petronas Twin Towers, Mont' Kiara Sophia, Andaman Datai Bay Resort and Sunway Lagoon Hotel Resort. I'm expecting at least the Twin Towers to win, or I'll eat my shoes and lose confidence in the Prix altogether, because nationalistic pride aside, I think the Towers are among the finest examples of modern architecture the world has seen and this should be acknowledged.

And here's the thing - it amazes me that we can produce such shining monuments to creativity and architectural excellence, yet find it difficult to build basic homes that are acceptable to even the most humble house buyers. In our aspirations to achieve fame and immortality, we still continue to ignore the basic right of the people to have a house that is comfortable, aesthetically pleasing and defect-free in a conducive environment. 

I'm not talking about all developers, mind you. There are those like Sime UEP that did not start out with big aspirations of winning international awards but whose quality, design and social consciousness could not help but attract the eye of the award givers.

But there is still a large number of developers whose focus is merely on the bottomline and if quality has to succumb to profit, so be it. And so, their clientele continue to contend with cracked walls, sinking foundations, leaking roofs and other heart-wrenching defects. When broached about the subjects, these arrogant developers have the audacity to say "when you're building thousands of units on a fast track basis, you cannot expect there to be no defects."

It's this complaisance on the part of developers that mars the image of the property development sector and causes a loss of confidence in the integrity and dependability of developers. Part of the reason for this complaisance is the fact that uninformed house buyers accept whatever is dished out to them. Another is the laissez faire attitude of the authorities, which have thus far, failed to institute and implement an effective quality control system on the building industry. There's been plenty of talk, yes, but not much action.

But it's not just in this sector that there's a discrepancy in performance. Consider real estate agency practice, which has been rife with stories of lack of professionalism and dishonesty among the ranks. How often have we read of estate agents' representatives (otherwise known as negotiators) who abscond with thousands of ringgit of earnest deposit money from prospective buyers and tenants, or who collect more than they are allowed to under the law. There are also agents who "loan" their licences to untrained people, who carry out estate agency practice in an unscrupulous and uniformed manner. These stories have led the public to look askance upon the profession as a whole an to regard practitioners with mistrust and sceptisicm.

And yet, there are a fair number of estate agents that exhibit a high level of professionalism, with well-designed systems in place that ensure they are equipped to compete at a global level. These are the agents who lend credence to this sector of the industry as a whole. But reliable though they may be, they cannot help but be tarnished by the misdemeanours of their more unscrupulous peers.

"Those of us who toe the line and spend hundreds of thousands in upgrading our operations and our image are frustrated at the hundreds of illegal practitioners who do not have the right to practice estate agency. While the authorities scrutinise the practices of the legal agents like me, they allow the illegals to run wild and get off scot-free," complained an estate agent who owns one of the most credible practices in town.

He has a point. But rather than cry foul against the authorities, which have not been doing much in terms of monitoring either illegals practising estate agency or the quality of construction thus far (nor are likely to), perhaps industry players in the different sectors should look towards self-governance. If other professional bodies such as the Malaysian Medical Council and the Bar Council can keep their members pretty much under control, why can't Real Estate and Housing Developers Association and the Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents do the same?

Perhaps the answer lies in where the interests of the individual members and committee members lie. Are they willing to invest their resources and work together in promoting the progress of their various professions or are they just focused on their own bottom line?