Not all on list are rogue developers, says association
Business Times 15/11/2005 By ZURAIMI ABDULLAH

AN INFLUENTIAL housing developers’ body says it is unfair to label as “rogue” all the developers named in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s list of offenders, which was released on its website recently.

Real Estate & Housing Developers Association Malaysia (Rehda) said the list should have made a distinction between the majority who were compounded for slight technical offences and the very few who committed serious breaches against house buyers.

“It is unfair to brand the majority of these developers as rogue, especially when the offenders listed include those who have been publicly recognised and awarded for successfully completing thousands of houses to the buyers’ satisfaction,” Rehda said in a statement yesterday.

“Listing them in public in such a manner for offences of such nature casts unfair aspersions on their reputation, implying that they have caused harm to house buyers in the process.

“Rehda fully supports the ministry in its efforts towards a transparent system of enforcement. However, public censure of offences must discern between minor technical infractions as opposed to those that cause major hardship and detriment to buyers.”

Rehda noted that based on the list, 304 developers had contravened Section 7(f) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1996, while another 214 had violated Regulation 6(1)(a)-(j) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989.

Another 15 had been prosecuted in court for ignoring Tribunal Awards, two had breached Sections 5(1) and (2), and three had been prosecuted for other violations under the Act.

“Section 7(f) requires developers to submit half-yearly reports on the progress of their housing development to the Housing Controller, while Regulation 6(1)(a)-(j) stipulates the conditions and information that are required to appear in an advertisement of the housing project offered for sale by the developer.

“The majority under the published list were penalised for failure to comply with these two sections,” it said.

Rehda added that these offences were often a result of administrative or technical oversight, such as the expiry of a licence’s validity, and did not affect the end product.

“It must be noted that the violations of Section 7(f) and Regulation 6(1)(a)-(f) are compoundable offences under the Housing Development (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2002 and that the developers listed have settled the fines imposed and continue to abide by the regulations and requirements,” it said.