CoB appointments on councils should be full time – by Goh Ban Lee

The SUN Tuesday 12 Aug 2008

Petaling Jaya mayor Datuk Mohamad Roslan Sakimin recently urged that local council presidents and mayors be relieved of the Commissioner of Buildings (CoB) appointment. This was supported by Subang Jaya Municipal Council president Datuk Adnan Md Ikhsan qnd Kajang Municipal Council president Datuk Hassan Nawawi Abd Rahman ( The Star Aug 5,2008 ).

This public appeal was not only rare, but also out of character of local council presidents or mayors. Indeed, some might see this as inappropriate since the appointment of local council chiefs to be CoB was the brain-child of the federal government and implemented by the state governments.

On the contrary, they should be commended for speaking out. Although they are seconded from the civil service, as heads of governments, albeit the lowest tier, they should voice out their opinion if something is not working effectively.

More importantly, their appeal should be considered seriously. The post of CoB is a very recent creation following the enactment of the Building and Common Property ( Maintenance and Management ) Act 2007 (BCPMM Act ) to institute a systematic procedure in the maintenance and management of properties with strata land titles. This is the result of numerous complaints about very poor management, including cheating by property developers which used to manage their projects long after completing them.

CoB is to implement the BCPMM Act and Parts Vl and Vll of the Strata Title Act. This basically involves ensuring that entities that manage strata titled-properties, be they Joint Management Bodies (JMB) or Management Corporations (MC), function according to the law and maintain proper accounts and property owners fulfill their obligations. For instance CoB has authority to institute actions against errant office bearers of JMB and MC and property owners who refuse to pay maintenance fees.

In other words, CoB plays a very important role in the quality of life of millions of people living and working in multi-storied apartments, shopping centers and most gated communities. The interests of the owners of such properties are also involved.

As such, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should be commended for the enactment of BCPMM Act. However, while there might be legitimate reasons to appoint presidents or mayors of local authorities to be CoB, it is now clear that this is ill advised.
Even though the functions of local authorities have diminished since the last decade or so and about to be reduced further with the implementation of the Solid waste and Public Cleansing Management Act and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Corporation Act, there are still a lot on their plates. More significantly, they are still not able to handle

Protection for JMC

as published in http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=23483

Give condominium panel members more protection

WITH the implementation of the "Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007" last year, owners of apartments, condominiums and other buildings are required to form their own management bodies.

The Management Body then appoints a Joint Management Committee (JMC) to carry out the functions of the body, namely the management and maintenance of the building and common property as provided under the Act. While the Act seeks to protect JMC members from criminal liability for offences which may be committed by them, it does not protect them from any civil suit brought by the owners/occupiers for damage or loss.

Members of the JMC are placed in a posi-tion of trust to carry out of their duties and responsibilities to the owners and can thus be sued and be made liable to owners or other occupiers for any loss or damage due to negligence or oversight on their part. The circumstances under which such a suit for negligence (even if done in good faith), arising from the maintenance and management of the building and common property, can be brought are numerous and varied. As the tasks undertaken by JMC members are largely voluntary in nature and carried out in their spare time, the Act should accord them some degree of immunity from civil action.

A logical safeguard would be for the JMC to take out a separate insurance of indemnity to protect itself against potential negligence suits. There is no reason why the premium should be paid by JMC members from their own pocket; hence the question is whether it can be lawfully paid out of the Building Management Fund.

None of the provisions of Section 22 (3) of the Act – which sets out the purposes for which money in the fund can be utilised – seem to allow for such payment. As this premium may impact heavily on the fund and thus impose an additional financial burden on the owners, it would perhaps be best to accord JMC members legal immunity from civil suits.

This protection would then encourage more owners to serve on the JMC, without which it would be difficult to imagine owners readily willing to do so.

Ajit Singh Gill
Kuala Lumpur