Property management: MIPFM refutes call for separate board to address ‘weaknesses’

• While Foo’s article raises important questions about the challenges in strata property management, the proposed separation of roles and regulatory bodies is not a viable solution.

Dr. Foo Chee Hung’s article on Dec 18 titled “Separate board of property managers needed to address current weaknesses” raises concerns about the adequacy of the Board of Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers (BOVAEP) in managing the growing demands of strata property management in Malaysia. However, several points in the article require clarification and rebuttal to ensure a balanced and accurate discourse on this critical issue.

1. The registration of property managers under BOVAEP

Foo highlights the number of registered property management firms as insufficient relative to the number of strata schemes and units in Malaysia. However, this argument overlooks critical nuances:

1. Quality over quantity: The registration of property managers (PMs) under BOVAEP ensures that individuals and firms meet stringent professional standards, safeguarding the interests of strata owners and occupants. Expanding the pool of registered firms without maintaining these standards would risk compromising service quality.
2. Inclusive registration initiatives: BOVAEP has implemented inclusive measures, such as the 2018 initiative to allow experienced but formally unqualified building managers (BMs) to register, addressing concerns of inadequate representation without diluting professional standards. This demonstrates BOVAEP’s responsiveness to industry needs.

2. Perceived absence of property managers

The claim that registered PMs are often absent from their appointed roles requires contextual understanding:

1. Delegation as industry practice: Delegation of day-to-day management tasks to BMs is a standard and efficient industry practice. PMs remain responsible for oversight, compliance with regulations, and strategic property management, while BMs handle operational tasks.
2. Training and oversight: Instances of untrained BMs cited in the article highlight isolated cases rather than systemic issues. BOVAEP-registered PMs are mandated to ensure adequate training and supervision of their staff, and failures in these areas should be addressed through enforcement rather than dismantling the existing regulatory framework.

3. Role distinction between PMs and BMs

Foo suggests that BMs should be regulated separately from PMs. This proposition overlooks key points:

1. Interdependence of roles: Building management is a subset of property management. The broader expertise of registered PMs encompasses not only building upkeep but also legal compliance, financial management, and strategic planning—essential components of effective property management.
2. Fragmentation risks: Creating a separate regulatory body for BMs would result in fragmented oversight, increased costs and inefficiencies. The current unified regulatory framework under BOVAEP ensures cohesive governance and reduces the risk of jurisdictional conflicts.

4. Criticism of BOVAEP’s performance

The article’s assertion that BOVAEP has failed to produce competent PMs is misleading:

1. Professional standards and continuing professional development (CPD): BOVAEP mandates CPD to ensure that PMs remain competent and up-to-date with industry developments. These measures foster professionalism and accountability.
2. Addressing complaints: Complaints about poorly managed strata properties often stem from unregistered or self-managed entities rather than registered PMs. Strengthening enforcement against unregistered property managers and providing clearer guidance to joint management bodies (JMBs) and management corporations (MCs) can address this issue.

5. Economic impact and public interest

Foo’s concerns about devalued strata properties and their impact on economic wealth are valid but misdirected:

1. Root causes: Poor maintenance and mismanagement often result from unregulated practices by JMBs, MCs, or unregistered managers rather than failures of registered PMs. The solution lies in amending the Strata Management Act (SMA) 2013 to mandate the appointment of registered PMs.
2. Public interest alignment: Maintaining BOVAEP as the unified regulatory body aligns with public interest, ensuring accountability, professional oversight and cost-efficiency.

6. BMAM’s proposal for a separate board

The Building Management Association of Malaysia (BMAM)’s proposal to establish a standalone board of PMs risks undermining the progress achieved under BOVAEP. Such a move would:

1. Duplicate regulatory structures: This would lead to redundancy, higher administrative costs, and confusion among stakeholders.
2. Dilute professional oversight: A separate board may lack the capacity and expertise to enforce comprehensive standards across the broader spectrum of property management functions.

7. Conflicts of interest in BMAM’s advocacy

It is important to note that Foo is an employee of MKH Bhd, a property development company, whose chairman is one of the two main leaders of BMAM. These two leaders, both developers, are advocating for the establishment of a Board of Building Managers under their control. This raises significant concerns about conflicts of interest, as the creation of such a board could potentially serve the interests of developers at the expense of the broader public and strata property stakeholders.

8. Ongoing training and skill development

Training courses and seminars for property managers, building managers, and building executives are continually organised by professional bodies such as the Malaysian Institute of Property and Facility Managers (MIPFM); Association of Valuers, Property Managers, Estate Agents and Property Consultants in the Private Sector, Malaysia (PEPS); Royal Institution of Surveyors Malaysia (RISM); and the National Institute of Valuation (INSPEN). These initiatives aim to improve the skill sets and knowledge of industry practitioners, ensuring they are well equipped to address the evolving challenges in property management.

(Read also: Reader’s Letter: Without professional training, how does separate board solve property management issues?)

Conclusion

While Foo’s article raises important questions about the challenges in strata property management, the proposed separation of roles and regulatory bodies is not a viable solution. Instead, efforts should focus on:

1. Enhancing enforcement against unregistered managers
2. Strengthening training and supervision within the existing BOVAEP framework
3. Amending the SMA 2013 to ensure JMBs and MCs appoint only registered property managers
4. Promoting public awareness about the value and roles of registered PMs under BOVAEP

PMgr Sr Ishak Ismail is the president of the Malaysian Institute of Property and Facility Managers (MIPFM)

MIPFM can be contacted at:
Unit 7-4, Plaza 138, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-7960 1261
E-mail: [email protected]

The views expressed are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect EdgeProp’s.

Looking to buy a home? Sign up for EdgeProp START and get exclusive rewards and vouchers for ANY home purchase in Malaysia (primary or subsale)!