Buyers, builders and the 2006 Budget
10/22/2005 NST By Dato Seri Yuen Yuet Leng, Ampang, Ampang, Selangor

The Government has worn its heart on its sleeve with the 2006 Budget, reassuring the public on its direction towards people orientated governance and perspective in corporate economic progress. The burden of adjustment indeed has to be shared by both the Government and the citizens.

In the ongoing controversy raised by the "sell-then-build" system of housing delivery practiced in Malaysia and the proposed "10:90 concept" of build-then- sell, there is a need for both the industry and house buyers to take a fresh look at housing development to ensure that it is mutually fair and acceptable.

The industry fears that the "build- then-sell" mode of housing delivery, if made compulsory, will cause its collapse and that of allied businesses as well. On the house buyers' side, there are enough examples of victimized buyers and abandoned projects.

There were unscrupulous developers who were the bane of the industry 40 years ago as well. The Government then decided to act. And there were, as now, similar fears expressed about the collapse of the housing industry and associated businesses, of small developers folding up, huge job losses among skilled and unskilled workers and an adverse impact on the national economy.

Those protesting the Housing Developers Act in 1966 prophesied all these. However, a courageous and determined Minister of Housing and Local Government successfully pushed it through Parliament. Nothing disastrous followed. The industry re-organized and moved on through re-adjusted economic progress.

Now, 40 years later, unscrupulous and rogue developers are still around, wreaking financial misery, torment and domestic upheaval on wage-earning families who face stresses of life and livelihood more than any other sector of society.

To them, as it has been to many from generations before, ownership of a house is still an elusive dream. Like their educated forebears, they do not wish for "a dictatorship of the proletariat", Neither do they want dictatorial dominance of Government by corporate groups that look at the nation and national economy subjectively, in the alleged name of "national good".

Again, 40 years later, the same organizations and support groups are advancing similar messages of doom. The prophecies of 40 years ago are being revived, but with increased numbers. How will such prophecies, that did not come true 40 years ago, fare this time?

Experience and lessons indicate certain realities. Safeguards within the Act are not sufficient, while legislated measures and enforcement have not been effective. An enlightened Ministry of Housing and Local Government subsequently took action to further strengthen regulatory measures and intensify enforcement, in which some still trusting house buyers continue to place their hopes.

We have to admit, and bravely face the realities of the problems we live with regarding transparency, bureaucracy, professional negligence and outright corruption. Undoubtedly, bureaucratic deviance, malpractice and corruption plague the housing industry at local council levels, allowing various situations to be exploited.

Representatives of political parties in Government often forget, or do not have the courage and will to remember, that their presence in local councils is to represent the interests of the electorate. Often, these councilors become an extension of executive, rather than the force of the people thus strengthening the case for a better balance by way of representation from opposition parties.

Undoubtedly, things are improving primarily because of the single-mindedness of one man at the topmost leadership, who is risking his political future for the future of the nation. But the necessary groundswell to correct deviance is still not sufficient.

Intelligence is inadequate. The setting up of an independent organization to collect intelligence to be fed to the relevant Government bodies will certainly help. There are many ex-police/Special Branch and military intelligence officers who will be willing to do their part against corruption, which is sabotaging the Government's credibility.

We cannot wait another 40 years to ascertain whether effective enforcement can come soon enough. We have to do something that is immediately effective, even if it may hurt some developers. The hurt, if legitimate, can be addressed appropriately as a consequence of a new and more realistic 10:90 or even a 20:80 variant build- then-sell concept.

By and large, our people endorse equivocal justice for house buyers, especially for the lower - and middle- income groups that together form the greater majority. Nevertheless, the interests and anxieties of sincere developers cannot be ignored.

While their aspirations have to be better reconciled to the present, it is also imperative that the build-then-sell system be approved now and encompasses all developers.

Other legitimate problems developers big or small may face as a result of a mandatory build -then-sell system can be ameliorated through fair Government intervention, with financial institutions playing their part as well.