Share This

Showing posts with label Petaling Jaya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petaling Jaya. Show all posts

Sunday 1 July 2012

Nightmarish hunt for a home ?

Property consultants forecast the property market to remain slow for the rest of the year. Will the average middle-income earner be able to afford the house of their dream now?
 
COMMUNICATIONS executive Michelle (not her real name) has been house-hunting for a while now but has yet to find a property that suits her budget.

Having been in the workforce for nine years, Michelle, 33, feels it is time to buy her own house. But with the prices of residential properties in Malaysia skyrocketing over the last two years, her prospect of getting her dream home looks bleak.

“Back in 2009, my friends were telling me to buy my own place but at that time, my priority was to travel. Around last year, when I was finally ready to commit to getting a house, prices weren't what they used to be any more.

“A decent 1,000sq ft (93 sq m) apartment that used to cost around RM200,000 to RM300,000 is now RM500,000 to RM600,000. That is far beyond what I can afford,” she laments.

Soaring interest: Prospective house buyers at a property launch. — Filepic
 
From early 2010 up to the end of last year, residential properties in good locations within the Klang Valley have seen a sharp spike of between 20% and 40% in price, a trend which has caused grave concern for potential house-buyers.

But how is the scenario looking in 2012?

According to KGV International Property Consultants executive director Anthony Chua, the first half of the year has been generally quiet.

“There seems to be a breather in the residential market. It's definitely not as busy compared with the same period last year. (The number of) inquiries with us have also lessened significantly,” Chua says.

He explains that inquiries in 2012 with KGV on high-end properties (above RM2mil) have gone down by about 30% compared with the first half of last year. Inquiries on other segments (between RM1mil and RM2mil, and below RM1mil) have also gone down but not as drastically.

Reasons for this could include tighter lending guidelines set by the banks and buyers taking a more cautious approach on their investments this year.

(Following Bank Negara's new lending guidelines, which came into effect on Jan 1, loans are now approved based on net income compared with gross income previously, in addition to the need for more documentation. The new guidelines are intended to help keep household debt in Malaysia to reasonable levels.)

Chua: ‘While interest in property purchase has waned, prices are still going strong for landed property.’
Chua adds that there was a lot of speculation in the property market in the past two years, and that the market is due for a correction.

“The economic scenario is not as rosy and people are expecting things to worsen, which could be why they are hesitant to invest. And to a lesser degree, it could also be the coming general election, which is causing some uncertainties,” Chua says.

Paul Khong, executive director of property consultancy CB Richard Ellis (M) Sdn Bhd, shares similar sentiments.

“The number of buyers (for properties above RM3mil) has dropped by about half with the stricter bank-lending guidelines, which has eliminated the speculative group (of buyers).

“For properties below RM2mil, the market is relatively active with more real transactions. With the new lending guidelines in place, many investors have disappeared from the radar,” Khong says, adding that those who want to purchase their third property now will need 30% in cash for downpayment.

“So, to buy a RM3mil property, they'll need RM1mil in cash if it is their third property. Previously, RM400,000 was enough,” Khong says.

Interestingly, Chua notes that while interest in property purchase has waned, prices are still going strong for landed property.

However, sellers are seen to be less aggressive this year.

“They seem to be less demanding and more willing to accommodate. Last year, they would have said this is my price', and would have refused to budge,” he says.

Property consultants forecast the property market to remain quite slow for the rest of the year.

Khong: ‘The number of buyers (for properties above RM3mil) have dropped by about half.’ >>

Even so, for average middle-income earners such as Michelle, the current prices of properties in various locations within the Klang Valley (refer to chart) leave her with few options.

“I don't even dare look at landed property any more. Even apartments at relatively good locations cost RM400,000 and up.

“For my budget, an apartment around RM200,000 to RM350,000 would still be quite comfortable,” says Michelle, who currently lives with her family in Petaling Jaya.

A mass communications graduate from the United States, Michelle draws a salary of about RM5,000 a month, which goes into paying for her car loan, household expenses, utilities, and credit card bills.

“Household expenditure doesn't just cover grocery shopping. I also have to pay for medical bills, car maintenance and repairs as well as give my parents some money too,” she says.

“As banks are now looking at net income, the loan amount I qualify for is unlikely to be enough for me to even afford an apartment in the Klang Valley.

“Sure, you can still get cheaper houses in places like Bukit Beruntung, but it's just too far away. My life is here. At the rate property prices are going, the thought has crossed my mind that I may never be able to afford a place of my own.”

It's not just within the Klang Valley that property prices have escalated.

Early last month, it was reported that residential property prices in Penang have shot up by more than 25% over the past five years.

Condominium units in Batu Ferringhi, Tanjung Bungah and Gurney Drive, with sea-front views, are being sold at astronomical prices, in some cases beginning with RM2mil for a 1,000 sq ft unit.

Houses which cost about RM500,000 in 2007 now cost RM800,000 an increase of about 30%.

Chang: ‘An entire generation of young adults could be locked out of property investments.’

Raine & Horne Malaysia director Michael Geh was reported as saying that the increase was among the steepest in the Pulau Tikus, Gurney Drive, Tanjung Tokong, and Tanjung Bungah residential neighbourhoods, which experienced a 25% increase in prices of condominium units.

Other areas where prices of condominium units and terrace and semi-detached houses have shot up by at least 25% are Bayan Baru, Sungai Ara, Minden Heights and Batu Maung.

Medium-range housing schemes in George Town neighbourhoods of Perak Road, MacCallum Street, Jelutong Road and Sungai Pinang have also not been spared an apartment located in such a neighbourhood cost RM180,000 in 2007 but is now RM250,000.

It is precisely with this concern in mind that the National House Buyers Association (HBA) has come up with a 10-point proposal to the Government, to find solutions which it claims will hopefully bring prices down.

Among the proposals are for the Government to unlock its land banks in various locations and give priority to affordable housing projects rather than high-end properties.

The HBA is urging the Government to take the lead in developing affordable homes and not leave it to property developers.

It has also proposed that those who buy homes under the affordable housing projects (with a proposed price range of RM150,000 to RM300,000) be barred from selling their property until after 10 years. Before the 10-year period is up, they should only be allowed to sell the house back to the Government.

The association has also proposed that the Government impose a higher stamp duty and real property gains tax as well as tighter mortgage rules for those buying a third and subsequent properties.

HBA secretary-general Chang Kim Loong notes that with the way prices are climbing, the majority of young working adults will not be able to afford to buy a home.


“I'm talking about young people from around the age of 25 to 35 years old, with an average income of about RM3,500 per month.

“The rule of thumb is that a third goes into paying for your home.

“But with RM1,000, many will still not be able to afford it. The consequence of this could be that an entire generation of young adults could be locked out of property investments,” he explains.

A question that needs to be asked, however, is whether HBA's proposal for “affordable housing scheme” by the Government will be able to meet the needs of the urban middle-income earners such as Michelle.

“There are several factors to consider. The location, for example,” Michelle says.

“If the design and quality is decent, then yes, I am willing to consider it. But this doesn't mean we have to settle for bad quality homes, with cheap construction materials.”

BY LISA GOH lisagoh@thestar.com.my

Recent Related Articles:

Thursday 28 June 2012

‘Violent lawyer’ may face action

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council is looking at issuing a show-cause letter to the lawyer who was caught on video pushing and kicking a client.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said that if there was a cause for further action, the lawyer would be referred to the Disciplinary Board.

“The Board (which is independent of the Bar Council) will decide whether to convene a disciplinary committee to investigate further or deal with the matter summarily.

“If convicted, the lawyer can face reprimand, fine, suspension, or be struck off the roll,” he said.

He said this in response to a 9.03-minute video clip on a “hooligan lawyer” that has gone viral.



The video showed two men, believed to be a lawyer and a house buyer, arguing in the presence of three others in an empty house on June 19.

The argument started when the house buyer refused to acknowledge receipt of several documents handed to him by the lawyer.

The lawyer, Tan Hui Chuan, who is a former Selayang municipal councillor, said it was not fair to pre-judge him.

“I am only human. The client bombarded me with hurtful and disrespectful words over and over again.

“I am 58 years old and about to retire. I never had any disciplinary issues before. As all can see, I only pushed him away from me, to make him stop.

“But he went on and on. I raised my hands several times as a sign of surrender but he kept pestering me.

“And yes, I kicked him once. But it was a soft kick,” he said.- The Star

Sources:


http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/

Related posts:
Ethics vital for lawyers! Force to sign documents & hit client?

Monday 11 June 2012

The rise of risky Internet casinos gambling among youths

Betting among youths more popular with rise of Internet casinos

PETALING JAYA: Gamblers are getting younger and increasingly using the Internet to try their luck in hopes of striking it big.

Besides gambling in online casinos, there are also bookies as young as 13, who take bets in school on football matches.

Gamblers Rehab Centre Malaysia president David Chiang said young punters were a worrying trend, with some already becoming habitual gamblers at 15.

Youths usually gamble over the Internet because it is not regulated. They will obviously get stopped at casinos because of their age. So they turn to online casinos instead,” he said.

Chiang said youths could also deceive their parents into believing they were conducting research over the Internet when they were actually gambling online.

Addictive vice: Two boys visiting an online casino website. Teenage gambling is becoming more rampant with easy access to Internet casinos and young bookies taking bets in schools.
 
“Parents will easily believe them because the Internet is such a huge part of the lifestyle of youths today,” he said,

Chiang said young people were able to gamble in online casinos because they could borrow credit from online brokers, who offered their services on the websites.

“If the teenage gambler loses the credit, the broker would then pay the online casino first with a credit card. The teenager has to repay the broker in cash,” he said, adding that besides betting on games like roulette and poker, young gamblers were also fond of sports betting, especially football.

“The youngest habitual gambler I know is a 15-year-old. Habitual gamblers are actually addicted to gambling but they are not aware of it,” he said.

Chiang said that while the problem of teenage gambling was widespread across the nation, another alarming trend was schoolchildren borrowing money from loan sharks to pay their gambling debts.

“Some Ah Long know the teenagers' parents are rich enough to pay off the debts so they have no qualms about encouraging them to take loans,” Chiang said.

He said young people resorted to gambling because many of them wanted a quick way to get money to buy better handphones, computers and branded goods.

The centre expects a surge in calls to its hotline at the end of Euro 2012, mostly from gamblers who have lost their bets.

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Seri Michael Chong said he had received six cases of gambling problems involving those aged between 16 and 18, amounting to RM200,000 so far this year.

“This is considered an increase because last year I received fewer than 10 cases. I've already got six and it is only June,” he said.

Chong said he believed the cases highlighted were only the tip of the iceberg, adding that the youths he met were already in serious trouble and needed to seek his help.

“There are many out there who choose not to seek help,” he said.

About 80% of gambling cases involve the Chinese, with the other races making up the remaining 20%, he added.

By YUEN MEIKENG meikeng@thestar.com.my 

Related posts:
Students and More youngers hooked on online gambling lives away ... 
Fifa World Cup, Sports Betting & Internet Gambling 
The shame of the game 
Cyber addicts, angry mum sets up 'rehab' centre for you! Apr 16, 2012

Saturday 2 June 2012

You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent in cyberspace, right?

Write or not, you can be wrong!

It is absolutely right that we be held responsible for what we post and say in cyberspace. But only if we indeed are the ones who wrote and posted it. 

SOME years ago, a nephew – a freshie in college then – walked over to me with his phone and pointed out an app he had. It was all in Russian, so it was pretty much Greek to me.

“Watch this,” he said, and fiddled with the keys. Seconds later, my phone rang. It was my wife.

But the wife was sitting across the table, all innocent-like and with her handphone safely ensconced in one of those tie-string cloth bags – inside her handbag (why they do that with handphones, I will never understand).

So, I stared at the nephew. He grinned. It was an app, he said, that could tap into any phone nearby and make a call out, using that number. You got to chat and someone else got the bill.

Cyber fun: This file picture shows a group of people patronising a cybercafe in Petaling Jaya. Someone could very easily walk into a place like this, hack into a person’s account and do something nasty.
 
“Do you want it? I can bluetooth it over to your phone,” he asked, oh so generously.

No thanks, I said, I can pay my bills without having to land someone else with the burden.

That was years ago and with a phone that’s nowhere as canggih as the ones to be found these days. These days, I am told, kids can do just about anything with their phones and computers or tablets.

Which is why the story of the new Evidence Act is quite scary for people like me. You see, anything posted on, say, your Facebook account is now your responsibility (as it should be, if you really did post it) and the real scary part is: you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

I’m no wonderkid and I am still trying to figure out what all this means but the doctrine of being guilty until proven innocent just doesn’t sit right.

Sure, some friends tell me that IP addresses are infallible and unique but these days, tech guys can do just about anything.

And what if some guy goes into a cybercafé, hacks into my computer and does some nasty stuff. Do I take the fall?

I mean, I’m the guy who grew up with stuff like The Net, where Sandra Bullock’s character has her identity stolen and loses just about everything. Of course, in the movie, she’s this IT-savvy girl-genius who manages to outdo the bad guys. But this is the real world. The bad guys often win!

And even Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir (she needs no introduction) had to make clear a few days ago that some imposter (im-poster, how apt) was posting stuff in her name.

Sure, there’s a need to regulate what’s being said in social media these days. I tell you, it’s a real rancorous country out there these days.

We’ve had a yellow rally, a red rally, big guys with beef burgers, bigger guys going bottoms up (with warm water please, no isotonic drinks. Someone should tell them that bottoms up is best done with the hard stuff), even punch-ups and egg-throwing fests.

And all that rancour is turning into a lot of venom and seditious, defamatory stuff that’s being spewed anonymously on the Net.

It doesn’t have to be all politics, either.

There was this model who was rubbed the wrong way, quite literally, by some guy in a cybercafe. And a few other guys had heckled her and made catcalls in Tamil.

If she is expecting catcalls in Hindi, Urdu, Telegu or Malayalam from Indian-looking guys in Malaysia, she has a long wait coming.

Most Indian-looking guys here speak Tamil and many do make cat-calls at pretty, young Indian-looking woman.

I don’t know where this woman’s ancestors came from in India but since the guys spoke in Tamil, she decided she hated the Tamils and went on a hate-spree on Facebook.

Of course, that angered other Tamils, whose only crime was trolling the Net. And they went after her with a real vengeance.

The poor woman had to apologise in a newspaper, saying she meant to scold only those guys who had hurt her.

That is the problem with the social media. It’s one thing to grumble to friends about others, but another altogether to go about hate-mongering on the Net.

This model is not alone. Some years ago, another woman – a snatch theft victim, I think – also went on a racist rant after her ordeal.

She, too, received several angry retorts before being forced to apologise.

So, it is important that we stop to think about what we want to write in cyberspace.

And I believe it is absolutely right that we be held responsible for what we post and say. But only if we indeed are the ones who wrote and posted it. But guilty until proven innocent? I’ll definitely take a rain check on that.

> The law comes into effect June 1, 2012 but the writer hopes that lawmakers will take another look at it, although he has no solutions to offer. It’s over to the techies, really.


Why Not? By D. RAJ

Related post:

Sunday 27 May 2012

Warning to Malaysian Internet Users: an Amendment to Evidence Act 2012

Onus on account owners as cyber bullies and stalkers often get away because of lack of evidence

PETALING JAYA: “It wasn't me.” That's the most common response from people when a hate or threatening message is traced to their Facebook or Twitter or any other Internet account.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission says it is almost legally impossible to take action if all that a person has to do is to deny any responsibility.

“Think of the victims. People who have been slandered or whose lives have been threatened,” commission chairman Datuk Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi said, adding that many a time cyber bullies and stalkers who often use “the cloak of anonymity” have got away because of lack of evidence.

“As more of the young are connected online, who is going to watch over these kids when there are real people who want to harm them?” he said in an interview on the amendment to the Evidence Act passed by the Dewan Rakyat last month.


Answering critics who said the amendment was unfair in pushing the burden of proof to the accused, he said that owners of Internet accounts where hate messages had originated could easily rebut charges against them if they were innocent.

“For example, if you can produce witnesses to say that you were nowhere near your computer or any other communicating device at the time the message was sent out, you can get off,” Sharil said.

He added: “It is not easy nailing offenders to the charge. Sometimes you can find evidence and sometimes you can't.

“At least now (with the amendment), a flat denial (from the accused) cannot work anymore.”

The amendment to Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act includes the following stipulations:

> If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content.

> If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.

> If you have the control or custody of any computer which published any material, you are presumed to be the publisher unless proven otherwise.

Asked if the amendment infringed on Internet users' personal liberties, Sharil said the authorities would still have to carry out rigorous and thorough investigations before charging anyone.

“Then there is the trial processs to go through,” he added.

He admitted that the conviction rate of suspected cyber offenders was very low.

From 2009 to 2011, 625 cases of people making obscene or offensive comments via the Internet or phone were investigated.

Only 16 were brought to court and just three were convicted.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said it was difficult to prosecute offenders before the amendment to the Act.

“It was especially difficult to prosecute offenders because the servers were located overseas.

“Everything was in a mess,” he said, and denied that the amendment was to curb dissent.

The Government does not want to stifle anyone. But we don't want people to slander or threaten others,” Nazri added.

By REGINA LEE  regina@thestar.com.my

Amendment not justified, say groups

PETALING JAYA: The amendment to the Evidence Act transfers the burden of proof to the accused, which is contrary to the principle of justice, said lawyers and Internet users.

“At any trial, whether criminal or civil cases, it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now the burden will be shifted to the accused to disprove (the allegation against them),” said human rights lawyer Edmund Bon.

He added: “All around the world where there is Internet any reasonable person would be against the posting of hate messages. But whether the Government should step in and take such control is another matter.”

Disputing that the amendment will bring more people to justice, Bon said that it will instead reduce the need for the police and other enforcement agencies to be thorough in their investigations.

He believed that current defamation and sedition laws were enough to curb offensive and criminal messages on the Internet.

Intellectual property lawyer and Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong said the amendment would be a source of harassment to people whose identities have been abused to send offensive or threatening messages.

“Say it is an elderly person who subscribes to the Internet and does not know how to secure his wifi account.

“If someone uses that unsecured wifi to upload all these offensive postings, it's the elderly man who will get into trouble,” he said.

However, he agreed that it was difficult to trace the author of the offensive material, especially when international servers or public computers are used.

“But changing the law is taking the easy way out,” said Foong, who authored an extensive article about the amendment on the Loyar Burok website. ( See below:Grave repercussions for internet users)

Meanwhile, many have tweeted their disapproval for the amendment, claiming that people would have to “flip over backwards to prove their innocence”.

At the same time, some have voiced their support for the amendment, especially those who have been on the receiving end of hate messages.



“These anonymous writers of hate messages against me are gutless and stupid.

“They help justify the Government's proposal to amend the Evidence Act,” tweeted lawyer Roger Tan who had been criticised for writing a critique on the recent Malaysian Bar extraordinary general meeting.

Grave repercussions for internet users

The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 was one of the bills rushed and passed by the Parliament recently. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, when winding up the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2012, said the use of pseudonyms or anonymity by any party to do cyber crimes had made it difficult for the action to be taken against them. Hence, the Evidence Act 1950 must be amended to address the issue of Internet anonymity.

The amendments introduced s. 114A into the Evidence Act 1950 to provide for the presumption of fact in publication in order to facilitate the identification and proving of the identity of an anonymous person involved in publication through the internet. In simple words, s. 114A introduces 3 circumstances where an Internet user is deemed to be a publisher of a content unless proven otherwise by him or her.

Men in masks, beware of s.114A.

Although it is stated that the amendment is to cover anonymous persons on the internet, the effect of the amendment is quite wide. You see, we, especially social media network users, generally do not use our real names on the Internet. We use nicknames and pseudonyms. Our home addresses do not appear on our account. We sometimes use fictional characters or even digitalized images of ourselves as our profile picture. All these are done to protect our own privacy. So, if none of my personal details appear on my account, does this mean I am anonymous? If someone’s identity cannot be directly ascertained from his account, I would think that he would be anonymous.

The new s. 114A(1) states that “A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host , administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved”. In simple words, if your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the aforesaid persons, you are deemed to have published the content. So, for example, if someone creates a blog with your name, you are deemed to have published the articles there unless you prove otherwise. If you have a blog and someone posts a comment, you are deemed to have published it. If you have a Facebook page and an user posts something on your wall, you are deemed to have published it!<.

Subsection (2) provides a graver consequence. If a posting originates from your account with a network service provider, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved. In simple terms, if a posting originates from your TM Unifi account, you are deemed to be the publisher. In the following scenarios, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove the contrary:-.

(1) You have a home network with a few house mates sharing one internet account. You are deemed to be the publisher even though one of your house mates posts something offensive online..

(2) You have wireless network at home but you did not secure your network. You are deemed to be the publisher even though someone “piggybacks” your network to post something offensive..

(3) You have a party at home and allows your friends to access your PC or wireless network.You are deemed to be the publisher even though it was a friend who posted something offensive..

(4) Someone use your phone or tablet to post something offensive. You are deemed to be the publisher..

As for subsection (3), you are presumed to have published a content if you have custory or control of any computer which the publication originates from. Here, you are deemed to be the publisher so long your computer was the device that had posted the content. So if someone “tweetjacks” you or naughtily updates your Facebook with something offensive, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove otherwise Admittedly, the amendments certainly saves a lot of the investigator’s time. It is very difficult to trace someone on the Internet. It will make prosecution for, among others, defamation, offences under the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 and Computer Crimes Act 1997 and, election offences much easier. But it is not impossible to trace someone. There are many cases where perpetrators are caught and charged..


The new Bill: to like or not to like? | Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/birgerking/

I do not see the logic to deem someone to be a publisher. If an investigator is unable to trace the anonymous internet user, then why should the innocent Internet user take the rap? The onus of proof should always be on the prosecuting side. In the English case of Applause Store Productions Limited & Anor v Grant Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB), the claimants were awarded £22,000 in damages against Raphael, an old school friend, who had created a false personal profile of the claimants on Facebook. The claimants convinced the Court that Raphael was the person who created the fake profile even though he claimed that he had a party at his house and someone in that party created the account.

In summary, the new amendments force an innocent party to show that he is not the publisher. Victims of stolen identity or hacking would have a lot more problems to fix. Since computers can be easily manipulated and identity theft is quite rampant, it is dangerous to put the onus on internet users. An internet user will need to give an alibi that it wasn’t him. He needs to prove that he has no access to the computer at that time of publication and he needs to produce call witnesses to support his alibi..

Clearly, it is against our very fundamental principal of “innocent until proven guilty”. With general election looming, I fear this amendment will be used oppressively. Fortunately, the amendment is not in force yet. I strongly hope that the government will relook into this amendment.