No need to reinvent the wheel for property management practice in Malaysia

• While there are ongoing  challenges in property management, these should be addressed by improving existing systems rather than creating new regulatory bodies that will waste public funds.

People often argue about building management and property management because they fail to recognise that both concepts essentially address the same issues, leading to unnecessary disputes over terminology rather than focusing on solutions.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to managing the increasing number of stratified properties in Malaysia. The country is already at the forefront and has a sufficient pool of qualified professional property managers and graduates in property management to meet the rising demands of the industry.

While there are ongoing challenges in property management, these should be addressed by improving existing systems rather than creating new regulatory bodies that will waste public funds, which is against the spirit of the Madani Government.

First, Malaysia’s property management graduates are well equipped to handle the current landscape. The country has educational programmes that focus on producing competent professionals who understand both property management and building management. These graduates are already well-versed in managing high-rise developments, and many are registered under the Board of Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers (BOVAEP) under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 (Act 242). Therefore, we don't lack the workforce; what’s needed is better enforcement of existing regulations and ensuring that all professionals meet the necessary qualifications.

Second, the distinction between property management and building management is valid, but there is no need for a new board and regulation to govern building managers. Property managers are already in practice and well accepted in the Malaysian property landscape with the establishment of Act 242, while building managers exist from parties who claim to have the expertise to manage buildings without clear regulations and specific university degrees related to building management.

(Read: Property manager vs building manager — Are they the same?)

The overlap in roles is not as problematic as suggested. Both fields involve a high level of competence in maintaining buildings and ensuring long-term investment value. By improving training programmes and enforcing stricter adherence to current regulatory frameworks, we can elevate the professionalism in both areas without splitting them into two entirely separate professions.

Third, relocating the regulation of property management from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) may not solve the perceived problems. KPKT already regulates many aspects of building management through the Strata Management Act (Act 757), which has proven to be effective in ensuring that property managers uphold their responsibilities. It is a wise structure by the government to have property managers under BOVAEP (MOF) as a check and balance policy. Rather than overhauling the entire system, efforts should focus on enhancing collaboration between MOF and KPKT to streamline operations, ensuring that both property managers and building managers work within a cohesive framework.

Using BOVAEP as the primary regulatory body for property management, including the management of strata properties, is not only practical but also avoids unnecessary duplication of regulatory structures. Here are several reasons:

1. Existing framework and expertise

BOVAEP already has a well-established regulatory framework under Act 242, which governs the professions of valuers, appraisers, estate agents, and property managers. The inclusion of property managers under this Act ensures that the profession is regulated by a body that understands the intricacies of property valuation, management and oversight. Adding another regulatory body, like a separate board for building managers, would duplicate functions and cause unnecessary administrative confusion.

2. Efficiency and resource optimisation

Creating a new regulatory body, such as a proposed Board of Building Managers (BOBM), would require significant resources, including staffing, infrastructure and financial outlay, universities degree programme and pool of graduates to function properly. BOVAEP already has the institutional capacity to regulate property managers. Rather than investing in a new board, efforts can be directed towards improving the current system under BOVAEP — such as enhancing training, updating the syllabus for property managers and ensuring better compliance.

3. Professionalism and integrity

BOVAEP has a proven track record of upholding professional standards, integrity and ethics in the property management profession. It has mechanisms for licensure, professional development and disciplinary actions when necessary. By relying on  BOVAEP, the property management industry can ensure that all practitioners meet  established standards and continue to grow professionally, which will increase the level of trust and confidence from property owners and tenants. The professionalism of the registered property managers under BOVAEP in managing stratified buildings has been widely accepted by joint management bodies (JMB), management corporations (MC) and the commissioner of building (COB) itself. 

4. Clear regulatory oversight

One of the concerns raised is the perceived overlap or confusion between the roles of property managers and building managers. However, this can be resolved within the existing BOVAEP framework. As the industry evolves, BOVAEP has the capacity to refine the regulatory oversight of these two roles, making sure that each profession operates within its defined scope. This can be done by creating specific guidelines within BOVAEP for building management as a sub-discipline, rather than creating a whole new board. Even BOVAEP is open in accepting previous property management practitioners into becoming registered property managers during its window of acceptance. 

5. Avoiding fragmentation of the industry

Introducing another board for building managers could create fragmentation in the property management industry. This could lead to confusion among property owners and stakeholders regarding whom to engage for different services. Keeping property and building managements under a unified regulatory body (BOVAEP) would ensure  consistency in standards and avoid the potential for mismanagement or inefficiencies  caused by overlapping authorities, thus, reducing the conflict and inconsistencies to the public at large.

6. Streamlined regulation under one ministry

BOVAEP has already worked under the MOF since the establishment of Act 242 in 1981, and shifting part of the regulatory oversight to another ministry could create bureaucratic delays and confusion. It is more efficient to strengthen the coordination between MOF and KPKT rather than dividing responsibilities. BOVAEP’s role should be expanded to handle the nuances of building management within its existing structure, thus keeping regulation streamlined and focused.

7. Sufficient supply of qualified property managers and university graduates

Malaysia produces a significant number of property management graduates each year who are capable of handling both property and building management roles. These graduates are familiar with the technical, financial and administrative aspects of managing strata properties. By utilising BOVAEP’s existing system, these professionals can be licensed and regulated to ensure their competence without needing an additional board.

Currently, there are over 31,702 real estate graduates from public and private universities that qualify to practise in the property management industries since the establishment of these degrees in 1973. Universities such as UiTM, UTM, UM, UTHM, UTAR and INSPEN offer specialised diplomas, bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees accredited under strict monitoring by BOVAEP. After gaining the requisite experience, these graduates undergo a rigorous test of professional competence before qualifying as a registered property manager under the purview of BOVAEP. To date, 2,290 registered property managers with BOVAEP must maintain their professionalism and continuous professional development (CPD) to practise their property management activities. Moreover, each year there will be nearly 1,000 graduates coming from these universities into the market to support the current property management practices. 

With these high numbers of graduates in the market and many more coming every year, there is no need for the government to reinvent the wheel to establish a new professional body to practise property management or building management (managing the same building).

Let us put it this way. If doctors graduate from medical degrees, engineers graduate from engineering degrees, property managers graduate from property management or real estate degrees, then where will building managers graduate from? The public does not expect anybody from any background from any degree to claim as an expert in managing buildings as practised by professionals that graduate from property or real estate management degrees accredited by BOVAEP all these years. Moreover, current property degrees from top-rank universities in Malaysia are also accredited by international bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) UK. 

Strengthen, not reinvent

In conclusion, the answer lies not in creating a new board or shifting regulatory responsibilities but in optimising the current BOVAEP system. BOVAEP has the  expertise, regulatory framework, and institutional history to effectively manage both  property and building management under one umbrella.

Strengthening BOVAEP's role, enhancing training programmes and improving regulatory enforcement will ensure that Malaysia's property management practices can meet the rising demands of the industry without the need for costly and redundant new structures. The industry doesn’t need  new boards or drastic structural changes. Instead, we should leverage the skills of the existing graduates and focus on refining current practices to ensure that all stakeholders are properly trained, qualified, and working within the existing regulatory framework to help our nation move forward. 

Assoc Prof Sr Dr Abdul Jalil Omar of Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) is the director of the Malaysian Real Estate Institute (MyREI).

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)!