HBA Questions Need for Proposed Building Managers Act, Warns of Regulatory Duplication

Malaysia's National House Buyers Association (HBA) has questioned the government's proposed Building Managers Act, warning it could duplicate existing regulation under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 (Act 242) and the Strata Management Act 2013. HBA argues the g

The National House Buyers Association (HBA) has questioned the need for the proposed Building Managers Act, warning that it could create regulatory duplication and jurisdictional conflict rather than solving property management problems in Malaysia.

Housing and Local Government Ministry (KPKT) recently mooted the Act to introduce dedicated legislation on property or building management. But HBA honorary secretary-general Datuk Chang Kim Loong argued that the government should first determine whether there is a genuine regulatory vacuum or merely enforcement weaknesses within existing frameworks.

"The Board of Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers (BOVAEP), under the Ministry of Finance, already regulates the professional practice of property management within the statutory framework of the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 (Act 242)," Chang wrote in an article published by EdgeProp. He noted that Act 242 provides for registration, regulation and disciplinary requirements for property managers.

Chang questioned why a new register for building managers was being proposed without first defining the regulatory gap it would fill. At the International Strata Symposium on 8 Apr 2025, KPKT Minister Nga Kor Ming said there were 594 firms licensed to practise property management serving 26,334 strata schemes involving about 2.91 million strata units nationwide. Chang said these figures pointed to a shortage of licensed firms but did not necessarily justify a new regulatory regime.

"Creating a second register does not itself increase the number of competent practitioners. If the same pool of people is merely transferred, duplicated or reclassified under another register, the numerical shortage remains," Chang said. He urged the government to investigate whether insufficient training, restrictive qualification requirements, unattractive remuneration or ineffective enforcement against unlicensed practice were contributing to the shortage.

Chang outlined a series of unresolved questions about the proposed Act's scope and relationship with existing regimes. He asked whether a building manager and a registered property manager would be permitted to perform the same functions, whether a management corporation could appoint either one, and whether professionals registered under Act 242 would need a second registration under the new Act. "A property owner should not have to understand the bureaucratic architecture of the government merely to determine whether the person managing his or her building is properly qualified," he said.

He also highlighted potential complications with strata properties, noting that the Strata Management Act 2013 (Act 757) already provides a substantial framework for strata management. The government should identify whether problems arise from the joint management body or management corporation, the commissioner of buildings, poor enforcement, non-payment of charges, or a shortage of professionals, Chang said. "Different problems require different solutions," he added.

KPKT said at the launch of the National Housing Policy 2026–2035 on 10 Aug 2026 that it planned to draft and amend four housing laws, which may include the Building Managers Act. Chang cautioned that new legislation should fill an identified gap rather than create a parallel regime covering functions already regulated under Act 242 and Act 757. This is the first part of a two-part article, with Part 2 to be published later.