The (non) valuers strike back
20/03/2004 NST-PROP

Our scoop featured a fortnight ago on the move by valuers to regulate property management by amending current legislation has sent ripples throughout the industry.

These are the views of two practitioners:

From Kumar Tharmalingam, valuer and president of the Malaysian chapter of the International Real Estate Federation (Fiabci)

The memo (by the Property Consultancy and Valuation Surveying (PCVS) section of the Institution of Surveyors Malaysia (ISM) and the Association of Valuers and Property Consultants in Private Practice (PEPS) suggesting all practitioners be included in a registry to be administered by the Ministry of Finance’s Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents) reads like a valuation report justifying data from recent transactions by giving historical snapshots. So for 16 pages we get a hyperbole on why only 500 or so people in this country are experts on property management and the rest, not so clever.

After 20 years of inactivity in setting the standards for property management in the monopoly granted under the original (Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents) Act, they now cry fowl (pun intended) when a camel has already entered the tent. Now they seek to capture the camel in the tent and tolerate its smell but close the tent to other camels by making the door more secure.

It is interesting that while citing the Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents (BVAEA) as the best referee for the control of property managers, they take a pot shot at its composition and (the BVAEA’s) role, implying that it has not performed well so far.

I agree but with a caveat that there will be no change either in the composition or its powers despite this memo.

The Board is a power tool used to keep the profession cowed and in line.

I will not comment on the criticisms levelled at the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association (Rehda), the Associated Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry Malaysia (Acccim) and the Malaysian Association for Shopping Complex and Highrise Management (PPK) for daring to stand up and be counted. I normally believe a professional does not bite the hand that feeds him.

Already, there are some companies, some of them listed on the KLSE, that operate as “facilities managers” of Government and public sector buildings. The term “facilities manager” is a thinly disguised legality to get by the original Act. They may not stand by and allow their future expansion to be hijacked by these amendments.

Finally, all legislation must have a purpose. It must satisfy a need for regulation that is urgent and created to protect the weak and innocent, such as amendments to the Rape Act. Or, it must be cutting edge, such as a cable TV or power plant where the billions spent by the promoter have to be recouped through a monopoly. This amendment is neither.

Perhaps what is needed is to understand where everyone is coming from and how they are positioning their cases to preserve their own breadbaskets.

All this verbose posturing hides the basic fact that a monopoly is being eaten away by interlopers and something needs to be done to protect it. Somewhere, there should be a share formula that can benefit all the parties without creating another monopoly. The mantra should be how to share, and not how to exclude.

From John Wilson, facilities manager

After some 10 years in Malaysia, principally involved in facility management, I find the current debate regarding regulation of property management to be somewhat narrow and vested - whether by ISM, Valuers or PPK.

It is precisely because of over-regulation that large real estate/property groups do their dealings with clients off-shore for Malaysian property matters.

I am sure there are competent property managers who are quantity surveyors, engineers, technicians and even the professionally unqualified. However, rather than giving the power to a single profession or to a narrow interest group such as the PPK, my view is that the property management market should establish or identify with bodies such as the (globally recognised) Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and International Facility Management Association (IFMA).

My view is that property management is multi-faceted and a quantity surveyor or registered valuer is as likely to have as much competence as someone who has studied marketing or public relations.

I also view the related issue of property maintenance and care as being an almost non-existent skill in the property management market. Almost every building that falls under the “property management” market is under-maintained, has numerous non-compliances (such as fire codes) and lacks professional care and upkeep. This is simply because property managers care more about leases, public relations and front-end appearances and are generally ignorant of property care, safety and maintenance.

I should also point out that “property” includes other facilities such as sporting arenas, public infrastructure, institutions and industrial complexes where “property managers” are found. However, they do not fall under the narrow confines of the Act, which appears to have designated property managers solely on the basis that they manage deposits and collect rent.