Managing strata properties in Malaysia

I LIKE to highlight the rather difficult and controversial issue of the management (and maintenance) of stratified properties, particularly flats, apartments and condominiums, in the context of the proposed Strata Management Act, 2012 which is expected to be tabled during the upcoming session of Parliament.

The Building Management Association of Malaysia (BMAM) is the only multi-stakeholder organisation (established in 2009) representing the collective interests of chambers of commerce, developers, engineers, architects, shopping and high-rise complex managers, management corporations (MCs), joint management bodies (JMBs) and managing agents.

However, BMAM was not nvited to participate in the workshops and discussions held by the National Land Council and the Housing and Local Government Ministry when the draft Bill was deliberated, although the implementation of the Act will have consequences that will directly affect BMAM stakeholder-member organisations.

According to the information available to us, the Bill states that only licenced valuers who have been admitted as Property Managers pursuant to Section 21(1)(a) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act, 1981 (VAEA Act) to manage and maintain stratified (or subdivided) buildings as managing agents.

No such restrictions exist in the current laws that regulate building management, namely the Strata Titles Act, 1985 (ST Act) and the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act, 2007 (BCPMM Act).

Building management is a multi-disciplinary occupation and cannot be exclusive to the valuers alone.

The JMBs and MCs want to have the independence and opportunity to appoint any fit and proper person, or appropriate entity, as managing agent on a “willing seller-willing buyer” basis on mutually agreed terms and conditions.

The Bill, by restricting building management and maintenance to valuers, would create a monopoly, and is inconsistent with the spirit of the Competition Act, 2010, which clearly discourages the creation of monopolies.

Though building owners (JMBs and MCs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) have been exempted from this ruling, most JMBs and MCs, led by volunteers, do not have the time, skill, expertise or experience to manage and maintain their buildings, and neither can they afford to appoint a registered property manager as a managing agent.

JMBs and MCs would be required to pay a management fee in compliance with their Fee Schedule, excluding other operating costs such as staff salaries, electricity, water, cleaning, security, etc.

We will soon see the mushrooming of more urban stratified slums and ghettos, thereby defeating the objectives of the Government’s squatter resettlement programmes and public housing projects.

The fiduciary responsibilities of the MCs and JMBs have been clearly stated in the ST Act and the BCPMM Act on the management of the Building Maintenance Fund and the Sinking Fund.

The managing agent appointed by the JMB or MC to manage and maintain the subject properties is only required to perform these functions for and on behalf of the JMB or MC. A registered property manager is therefore not required.

The MCs and JMBs only need building and facilities management for their common properties.

Since common properties and facilities cannot be sold, and most residential building owners do not lease their common properties to third parties as they would need them for their own use.

Many non-valuer managing agents have several years of experience in building and facilities management.

They have also been admitted as members and registered building managers by BMAM upon satisfying the required admission criteria.

They are qualified and skilled in building management, operations and facilities maintenance, and have also subscribed to a professional building management liability insurance policy entered into between a local insurance company and BMAM.

Any attempt by the ST Act to split managing agents as valuers and non-valuers will be detrimental to the growth and development of the building management industry in Malaysia.

It will result in the loss of valuable management talent in the industry. It will also have serious social implications on the upward career mobility of qualified and experienced local building managers, many of whom are bumiputras.

The Commissioner of Buildings (COB) should be the sole regulatory body to
supervise and oversee the management and maintenance of stratified buildings in Malaysia.

The involvement of third parties, who have no ownership interests in the properties, will not only erode the COB’s authority but may also result in unnecessary layering, additional costs (with no proportionate increase in service quality), corruption, rent seeking and abuse of power.

PROF S. VENKATESWARAN
Secretary-general
Building Management Association of Malaysia

Time to reform Malaysia's tax system?

Comprehensive review timely as Malaysia is driving its transformation programme

RECENT developments in parts of Europe have sparked a debate in the eurozone on austerity and growth. Those who argue for austerity or “fiscal prudence” claim that debt management is key to restoring investor confidence and, therefore, long-term prosperity.

Borrowing more is not an acceptable response to a crisis caused by over-borrowing and over-spending. In contrast, those who prefer greater stimulus claim that, without further investment, growth will simply not return, and without some Government stimulus, no economy can pull itself out of recession to achieve long-term stability and growth.

Whilst there is no clear “right” answer, there is one aspect of Government policy that is absolutely central to this taxation. Governments must ensure a balanced system of taxation that provides the right incentives to business and citizens, while enabling the Government to meet its debt and spending obligations. Getting this balance right can drive increased confidence among the investor community and stimulate economic activity, international competitiveness and long-term growth.

A new approach

In the past, many countries have relied on the support of international bodies and other inter-governmental assistance to begin the process of tax reform in respect of designing the tax system itself and in improving the ability to collect taxes. In the post “credit-crunch” world, it has become apparent that the operational ability to increase tax revenues is somewhat limited. A new hands-on approach is required to assist the public sector, generating increased tax revenues and driving corporate activity without raising taxes or damaging international competitiveness.

Malaysia has never had a comprehensive review of its tax system

 

Like any business, a Government has costs and it has revenues. A framework is required to help Governments optimise their tax revenue and balancing this need with the creation of the right incentives for citizens and businesses to stimulate the economy. To achieve this, our experience in working with Governments is typically structured around three core work streams:

● Tax reform design - Modeling the economy and designing a new system of taxation appropriate for the jurisdiction, with the emphasis on simplicity, fairness, participation and economic stimulus;

● Tax compliance - Building the taxpayer base to ensure all taxpayers have paid the correct amount of tax under the law and will continue to do so and;

● Tax operational improvements - underpinning both streams, identifying and delivering detailed operational improvements, ensuring transparency of data and processes within the tax administration, across Government departments and with taxpayers.

Malaysia has never had a comprehensive review of its tax system. The setting up of a Tax Review Panel a few years ago basically focussed on the proposed Goods & Services Tax and has done some good work in this area but the focus on income taxes was limited and too restrictive. A comprehensive review is now timely given that Malaysia is aggressively driving its transformation programme towards achieving developed nation status by 2020.

Tax reform design

A tax system is at its best when it is at its simplest, levying the minimal number of taxes, thus making compliance easy for taxpayers and the tax authorities. Headline rates should be minimised, often in exchange for the removal of reliefs or deductions. In addition, it is essential to improve the quality of the taxpayer base. Finally, international trends are to shift the burden of taxation towards indirect taxes to ensure participation in the tax system, improve the reliability of collections and increase fairness.

An effective communications strategy is critical to the success of any tax reform project. To succeed, these projects require a proactive approach to ensure that stakeholders are aware of their progress.

Tax reform projects should have four key phases:

Understand - Work closely with the Government and external bodies to gather and verify data. Quickly establish a detailed understanding of the current tax system and understand the issues from a number of different perspectives. At the same time, model the economy and current tax collections, benchmarking them against other jurisdictions.

Model - Develop an outline model for the proposed tax system, meeting regularly with stakeholders to develop and test ideas and model alternative taxation methods. Produce a detailed proposal for the new tax system, including clear legislative and operational proposals, for political approval.

Implement - Bring the approved model to life. This can include taking a lead drafting new legislation and guidance. A highly operational approach, working to ensure systems, processes and controls are best-in-class and fit-for-purpose is essential at this stage.

Roll-out - Roll out the new system to the various groups of taxpayers and stakeholders and train the Tax Administration teams, including training on tax technical and operational / systems issues.

Tax compliance

In many developing economies, the incidence of tax evasion is certainly not small. Broadening the taxpayer base and ensuring current taxpayers are paying the correct amount of tax under the law helps keep taxes low. Economic and forensic analysis must be applied to identify areas of the economy requiring particular attention. A range of techniques is typically required to provide a complete picture of the tax-paying community.

To deliver real change for the tax administration, forming a single team to identify taxpayers, initiating assessments, managing taxpayer responses and building IT databases is key. Enhancements to processes and systems also drive improved service levels to taxpayers (whether this be speed or quality), which is vital to gain support for the tax system and for improving participation.

Tax operational improvements

Real operational improvements are essential to the successful delivery of any tax reform project. This may include improvements to existing IT systems to automate processes and controls and improve the way data is managed. This applies both to the tax administration's systems and the way it interacts with other Government departments. For example, the tax administration should automatically be informed whenever a new business registers with the Companies Commission.

On a practical basis, it is essential to ensure new tax documents and forms are produced where required, both in paper and electronic form. It makes sense to consider these as part of a wider programme of improving taxpayer interaction, for example, with the implementation of a new website or the ability to file tax returns online. Key to the success of any new document is simplicity both for the tax administration to review and process and for the taxpayer to understand.

Conclusion

The post credit-crunch world has generated a renewed focus on how a Government raises its revenue the right balance of fiscal prudence and stimulus is difficult to achieve. However, with a clear view on what taxes are levied, who pays them and how they are administrated, jurisdictions can drive real improvements in tax collections, real efficiency gains and, in doing so, drive the participation of the taxpaying community. This, in turn, can provide assurance for the investor community, enable the Government to meet its obligations and drive long-term growth for the wider economy, its businesses and citizens.

It is timely that Malaysia announces a comprehensive fiscal reform which is wide-based and wide-ranging and puts into place a long-term plan to mould a world class tax system that will be comparable to the leading developed nations in the world. It is time to let go of the ad-hoc approach of tinkering with the tax system let us get on with it!

By Dr Veerinderjeet Singh and Andrew Burman

● Dr Veerinderjeet is chairman of Taxand Malaysia and Andrew Burman is senior director at Alvarez and Marsal Taxand in the United Kingdom. Both entities are part of the Taxand Global Organisation. They can be contacted at vs@taxand.com.my and aburman@alvarezandmarsal.com respectively.

World Competitive Rankings defy logic

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country but its rankings defy the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

BANGKOK: The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just issued its Global Competitiveness Index 2012-2013 rankings.

Thailand’s competitiveness ranking has improved slightly to 38th spot this year, while Switzerland has edged out Singapore to become the most competitive nation on earth.

The WEF has its own formula in ranking the competitiveness of each country. However, the WEF’s ranking does raise some eyebrows.

According to the WEF, Spain is more competitive than Thailand because its overall ranking is 36th. This ranking is questionable.

Spain is planning to seek a full bailout from the European Union. The European Central Bank is about to monetise its debt. It has received €100bil (RM393.7bil) in bailout funds already. Some €75bil (RM295.3bil) in deposits have fled the Spanish banking system.

Spain is in a similar situation to Thailand in the first part of 1997 before Thailand sought a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. By this measure, Spain should not get a ranking higher than Thailand.

Switzerland, ranked No.1, will not enjoy its position as an oasis of peace and prosperity in Europe for too long in the event of a euro implosion. Swiss banks’ assets, which are tied to the European banking crisis, are more than 300% of the country’s GDP.

The United States has slipped to 7th in the rankings. The US economy is in big trouble. Some 46 million Americans are on food stamps. There are 10 million Americans unemployed, including another 12 million who are doing odd jobs.

Some 18 million American households are having a tough time making ends meet. The banking system is in shambles. The US national debt has hit US$16tril (RM49.7tril), or about 100% of the GDP. The budget deficit is chronic. The country is years away, if ever, from being able to balance its budget.

Most important, the Federal Open Market Committee will meet on Sept 12 to determine whether it will go ahead with a bond-buying programme, or QE3, to further prop up the financial system. US finances are in very bad shape indeed.

Japan is ranked in 10th spot. Does it deserve this position? The whole world knows that Japan has the world’s largest public debt at more than US$12tril (RM37.3tril), or 230% of its GDP. Japan’s debt is largely financed by domestic bonds. But with an ageing society, Japan will face higher interest costs from its borrowing, which will put the health of its finances into further question.

The Japanese economy is far from recovering from its crisis of the 1990s. Japan is facing sluggish growth and also high energy costs in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

Its export sector is feeling the pinch from the strong yen. If the consumer markets in Europe or US were to slacken even more, Japan’s export machines will wobble. Foreign exchange earnings will plunge, while domestic demand has been in a weak state all along.

Saudi Arabia, ranked at 18th, is the world’s largest oil exporter. But a Citibank report issued last week said Saudi Arabia might have to import energy by 2030 if the current pace of domestic consumption and exports continues.

Israel is ranked 26th, though it is facing off against Iran in the Middle East. A war could break out between the two countries at any time, given the tensions between their leaders.

China is ranked 29th, although it is the richest country in terms of foreign exchange reserves. Its reserves stand at US$3tril (RM9.3tril). China is the world’s production factory. Its economy is the world’s second largest after the United States. It is improving fast in technology and innovations.

Moreover, China is also building up its military and has nuclear weapons in store. Apparently, China does not deserve this relatively low ranking.

This also applies to other Brics countries such as Russia (67th), Brazil (48th) and India (59th). How is it possible that the Philippines musters at 65th, two notches higher than Russia, which is still a superpower, rich with resources? The Philippines is vulnerable to food price increases and also to natural disasters.

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country. But its rankings defy common sense and the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

From a group of leading Asian newspapers working towards improving coverage of Asian affairs
http://www.asianewsnet.net/

World Competitive Rankings defy logic

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country but its rankings defy the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

BANGKOK: The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just issued its Global Competitiveness Index 2012-2013 rankings.

Thailand’s competitiveness ranking has improved slightly to 38th spot this year, while Switzerland has edged out Singapore to become the most competitive nation on earth.

The WEF has its own formula in ranking the competitiveness of each country. However, the WEF’s ranking does raise some eyebrows.

According to the WEF, Spain is more competitive than Thailand because its overall ranking is 36th. This ranking is questionable.

Spain is planning to seek a full bailout from the European Union. The European Central Bank is about to monetise its debt. It has received €100bil (RM393.7bil) in bailout funds already. Some €75bil (RM295.3bil) in deposits have fled the Spanish banking system.

Spain is in a similar situation to Thailand in the first part of 1997 before Thailand sought a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. By this measure, Spain should not get a ranking higher than Thailand.

Switzerland, ranked No.1, will not enjoy its position as an oasis of peace and prosperity in Europe for too long in the event of a euro implosion. Swiss banks’ assets, which are tied to the European banking crisis, are more than 300% of the country’s GDP.

The United States has slipped to 7th in the rankings. The US economy is in big trouble. Some 46 million Americans are on food stamps. There are 10 million Americans unemployed, including another 12 million who are doing odd jobs.

Some 18 million American households are having a tough time making ends meet. The banking system is in shambles. The US national debt has hit US$16tril (RM49.7tril), or about 100% of the GDP. The budget deficit is chronic. The country is years away, if ever, from being able to balance its budget.

Most important, the Federal Open Market Committee will meet on Sept 12 to determine whether it will go ahead with a bond-buying programme, or QE3, to further prop up the financial system. US finances are in very bad shape indeed.

Japan is ranked in 10th spot. Does it deserve this position? The whole world knows that Japan has the world’s largest public debt at more than US$12tril (RM37.3tril), or 230% of its GDP. Japan’s debt is largely financed by domestic bonds. But with an ageing society, Japan will face higher interest costs from its borrowing, which will put the health of its finances into further question.

The Japanese economy is far from recovering from its crisis of the 1990s. Japan is facing sluggish growth and also high energy costs in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

Its export sector is feeling the pinch from the strong yen. If the consumer markets in Europe or US were to slacken even more, Japan’s export machines will wobble. Foreign exchange earnings will plunge, while domestic demand has been in a weak state all along.

Saudi Arabia, ranked at 18th, is the world’s largest oil exporter. But a Citibank report issued last week said Saudi Arabia might have to import energy by 2030 if the current pace of domestic consumption and exports continues.

Israel is ranked 26th, though it is facing off against Iran in the Middle East. A war could break out between the two countries at any time, given the tensions between their leaders.

China is ranked 29th, although it is the richest country in terms of foreign exchange reserves. Its reserves stand at US$3tril (RM9.3tril). China is the world’s production factory. Its economy is the world’s second largest after the United States. It is improving fast in technology and innovations.

Moreover, China is also building up its military and has nuclear weapons in store. Apparently, China does not deserve this relatively low ranking.

This also applies to other Brics countries such as Russia (67th), Brazil (48th) and India (59th). How is it possible that the Philippines musters at 65th, two notches higher than Russia, which is still a superpower, rich with resources? The Philippines is vulnerable to food price increases and also to natural disasters.

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country. But its rankings defy common sense and the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

From a group of leading Asian newspapers working towards improving coverage of Asian affairs
http://www.asianewsnet.net/

World Competitive Rankings defy logic

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country but its rankings defy the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

BANGKOK: The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just issued its Global Competitiveness Index 2012-2013 rankings.

Thailand’s competitiveness ranking has improved slightly to 38th spot this year, while Switzerland has edged out Singapore to become the most competitive nation on earth.

The WEF has its own formula in ranking the competitiveness of each country. However, the WEF’s ranking does raise some eyebrows.

According to the WEF, Spain is more competitive than Thailand because its overall ranking is 36th. This ranking is questionable.

Spain is planning to seek a full bailout from the European Union. The European Central Bank is about to monetise its debt. It has received €100bil (RM393.7bil) in bailout funds already. Some €75bil (RM295.3bil) in deposits have fled the Spanish banking system.

Spain is in a similar situation to Thailand in the first part of 1997 before Thailand sought a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. By this measure, Spain should not get a ranking higher than Thailand.

Switzerland, ranked No.1, will not enjoy its position as an oasis of peace and prosperity in Europe for too long in the event of a euro implosion. Swiss banks’ assets, which are tied to the European banking crisis, are more than 300% of the country’s GDP.

The United States has slipped to 7th in the rankings. The US economy is in big trouble. Some 46 million Americans are on food stamps. There are 10 million Americans unemployed, including another 12 million who are doing odd jobs.

Some 18 million American households are having a tough time making ends meet. The banking system is in shambles. The US national debt has hit US$16tril (RM49.7tril), or about 100% of the GDP. The budget deficit is chronic. The country is years away, if ever, from being able to balance its budget.

Most important, the Federal Open Market Committee will meet on Sept 12 to determine whether it will go ahead with a bond-buying programme, or QE3, to further prop up the financial system. US finances are in very bad shape indeed.

Japan is ranked in 10th spot. Does it deserve this position? The whole world knows that Japan has the world’s largest public debt at more than US$12tril (RM37.3tril), or 230% of its GDP. Japan’s debt is largely financed by domestic bonds. But with an ageing society, Japan will face higher interest costs from its borrowing, which will put the health of its finances into further question.

The Japanese economy is far from recovering from its crisis of the 1990s. Japan is facing sluggish growth and also high energy costs in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

Its export sector is feeling the pinch from the strong yen. If the consumer markets in Europe or US were to slacken even more, Japan’s export machines will wobble. Foreign exchange earnings will plunge, while domestic demand has been in a weak state all along.

Saudi Arabia, ranked at 18th, is the world’s largest oil exporter. But a Citibank report issued last week said Saudi Arabia might have to import energy by 2030 if the current pace of domestic consumption and exports continues.

Israel is ranked 26th, though it is facing off against Iran in the Middle East. A war could break out between the two countries at any time, given the tensions between their leaders.

China is ranked 29th, although it is the richest country in terms of foreign exchange reserves. Its reserves stand at US$3tril (RM9.3tril). China is the world’s production factory. Its economy is the world’s second largest after the United States. It is improving fast in technology and innovations.

Moreover, China is also building up its military and has nuclear weapons in store. Apparently, China does not deserve this relatively low ranking.

This also applies to other Brics countries such as Russia (67th), Brazil (48th) and India (59th). How is it possible that the Philippines musters at 65th, two notches higher than Russia, which is still a superpower, rich with resources? The Philippines is vulnerable to food price increases and also to natural disasters.

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country. But its rankings defy common sense and the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

From a group of leading Asian newspapers working towards improving coverage of Asian affairs
http://www.asianewsnet.net/