WHY are the Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents (Board) and the Institution of Surveyors Malaysia (ISM) so adamant in pushing for the proposed amendment to the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 (Act)? 

“They are not the property owners. Why are they telling us what to do?” asked an irate property developer, who believes the whole issue simply boils down to one of money and monopoly by the valuers.  

A conservative estimate puts the annual property management fee nationwide at over RM288mil for all properties! 

Seven major bodies have voiced their concerns over the opening of a third register for property managers with the proposed amendment to the Act. 

They are the Associated Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry Malaysia (ACCCIM) (property & construction committee), Real Estate & Housing Developers Association (Rehda), Persatuan Pengurusan Kompleks Malaysia (PPK), Institution of Engineers (IEM), Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM), Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) and Malaysian Retailers Chain Association (MRCA). 

They had sent a joint memorandum to the Finance Ministry last year objecting to the proposed amendment.  

They felt that from past experience, it had been proven that the success of property management depended very much on a property manager’s entrepreneurial ability and business acumen, and not so much on his academic training. 

Tan Sri Soong Siew Hoong

They also proposed the following: 

l Shopping centres, commercial buildings and residential high-rise buildings that are majority-owned, solely or collectively, with at least 51% occupied by owners, should be exempted from the ambit of the Act.  

The justification for engaging the services of registered property managers is only where building owners cannot form a majority, solely or collectively. In such an event, the services of registered property managers can be employed. 

l Shopping centres and commercial properties should be excluded from the purview of the Act, just like hotels.  

They feel that the need to comply with the Act may end up creating a “back door” system where a valuer or registered property manager may be the legal front, while the actual work is still carried out by other unregistered personnel. 

They are unhappy that registered valuers and appraisers are given automatic free registration as property managers, whereas others are allowed 12 months to apply for registration. 

·There should be a separate Board of Property Managers regulated under the Housing and Local Government Ministry, rather than the Finance Ministry. 

ACCCIM represents over 24,000 Malaysian Chinese companies, while Rehda has over 800 developers as members who are responsible for some 80% of the total real estate built.  

What is interesting is that Rehda, ACCCIM, PPK and MRCA represent many members who either own properties or are tenants of shopping centres. 

PPK president Richard Chan said it was wrong for the board to imply that ACCCIM should not be involved in the matter.  

“Its members are one of the biggest property owners in Malaysia. So are the Rehda members,” he said, adding that many ACCCIM members who were manufacturers were concerned as industrial properties fell under the ambit of the Act. 

Richard Chan

Chan said the Government was clearly opening up property management as it had been announced that Class F contractors could now manage government properties. 

“Considering there are 47,000 of such contractors, with little or no experience in managing properties and handling property management jobs, how would the board control this situation?” he asked. 

He still contends that shopping centres should be treated as a business concern like a hotel and be exempted from the Act. 

“The only probable difference is that hotels rent out rooms and ballrooms for events on a short-term basis, whereas shopping centres rent out shop lots on a longer tenure with tenants trading for business. The bottom line is they are both dealing in the same facilities and management issues,” he added. 

On the issue of Westfield managing Suria KLCC, he said, while it was true that there were many valuers and asset managers in its employment, it was not a valuation company. “Although Westfield has an equity in Suria KLCC, it is only a minor shareholder and its service is certainly not free.” 

Chan also pointed out that two non-valuation companies were managing Putrajaya.  

“Why are these iconic landmarks in Malaysia not managed by our local valuers?” he asked. 

ACCCIM secretary-general Tan Sri Soong Siew Hoong said even in a critical field like medical service where life and death were concerned, the choice of whom to consult was left to the individual. 

“Yet in the current debate of managing properties, registered valuers have the audacity to attempt to compel property owners to exclusively engage them to manage our properties worth billions of ringgit on the argument that by being registered and by academic qualification they are the ones competent to do so!” he said, adding that property owners must have the absolute right to choose whom they deemed fit to provide the services and products. 

“The scale of fees should be to protect the consumers and should be set as the maximum fees. All engagements of service providers should be based on market and commercial basis. 

“Competition is the cornerstone to achieve best practice, excellent and efficient service that will augur well for our nation in facing the inevitable impact of globalisation,” he added. 

Meanwhile Rehda, PPK and ACCCIM in a joint memorandum have called for the removal of all clauses in the Act affecting “property/building management”, and to allow the property industry to be exempted from such regulations.