ON January 15, 15-year-old S. Sathiswaran was killed on the spot after being hit by a chair hurled from the upper floors of the Seri Pantai People’s Housing Project (PPR) flats in Kuala Lumpur.

The incident, which caused shock and outrage among the public, has also raised questions about poor civic mentality in low cost housing developments.

In the wake of the tragedy, one newspaper reported that lifts in the 21-storey Seri Pantai PPR blocks were often damaged and faulty. Due to frequent breakdowns, residents commonly got rid of garbage and other items by throwing them out of the windows or leaving them at stairs and corridors.

Dilapidated facilities are a common problem

The issue of dilapidated facilities in low-cost housing developments is a serious and sadly, not uncommon problem.

In 2015, the death of a toddler who fell from a sixth-floor PPR flat in Kota Damansara sparked an official investigation that revealed evidence of degraded facilities, such as lift breakdowns, broken main water pipes and gaps between metal railings (the last issue was reportedly the cause of the toddler’s death).

The following year, a 36-year-old taxi driver living in the Kampung Kerinchi PPR flats off Jalan Pantai broke his leg while riding a lift that plunged unexpectedly from the 14^th floor. One year later, at the very same development, a faulty elevator fell down its shaft, injuring nine riders and causing a great deal of trauma. 

In the case of Seri Pantai PPR, malfunctioning lifts had encouraged unscrupulous littering habits, leading to the untimely death of a young boy.

Weak building management systems

Collectively, these cases show that, beyond causing mere hassle and inconvenience, neglected facilities seriously endanger the lives of those living in high-rise, low cost housing developments.

Leaving aside the problem of poor original design and construction, underpinning these neglected facilities are weak management systems that fail to proactively respond to problems.

Under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (BCPMMA), the duties of managing strata developments, including low-cost housing developments, are overseen by Joint Management Bodies (JMBs) and Management Corporations (MCs).

(A JMB comprises the building developer and purchasers of the parcel units in the building, and serves temporarily, from the date of delivery of vacant possessions until the Land Office issues strata titles to purchasers for respective parcel units in the building. Once these titles are transferred to the purchasers’ names, an independent MC is formed, fully controlled and managed by the purchasers).

Under the provisions of the BCPMMA, the duties and powers of JMBs and MCs include maintaining the common property and keeping it serviceable; fixing and imposing charges for the maintenance work; insuring the building and applying the money received for rebuilding and reinstatement. Both entities also have the power to enforce house rules and collect maintenance charges from purchasers.

The key snag in this system is that, from the outset, JMBs and MCs are relatively unsupported in making decisions on the technical maintenance of their housing developments. There is no independent third party to oversee and support JMBs and MCs once they are formed.

Low maintenance fee collection rates are a symptom

In poorer housing communities where there is weak social capital and social cohesion among households, management bodies have a higher tendency to encounter difficulties in the enforcement and discharge of their duties.

One clear example lies in low maintenance fee collection rates. In low cost developments, maintenance fees are generally set below cost, even as low as tens of ringgits. However, low collection rates are a common issue. For the reasons stated above, many households typically refuse to pay and JMBs and MCs lack enforcement powers to collect monies due.

This perpetuates a frustrating chicken and egg situation: lack of enforcement leads to poor compliance and low fee collection rates, which in turn reinforces poor service, since the underfinancing of MCs translate to limited resources that may be channelled towards upkeep of basic facilities.

Solutions to improve

As Sathiswaran’s death reminds us, the issue of neglected facilities and poor maintenance cannot be ignored any longer. In moving forward, the government needs to rethink the current model of management of low cost housing developments. Above all, the weakness in execution of management responsibilities needs to be addressed.

One solution could be to revise the current law and dissolve all JMBs and MCs in low cost housing developments, and replace them with independent management bodies to act as ‘gatekeepers’ of management duties and investing in repairs and maintenance works.

These management bodies could either be in the form of appointed committees within local councils, or private third-party social housing providers (the latter is commonly practiced in the UK and US). These bodies would work closely with housing communities, local authorities and the state government to ensure proper management and maintenance and upkeep of building facilities.

If this ‘role takeover’ seems too radical, then the government should adopt proper targeted measures to improve the existing system of housing management in low cost housing communities. For example, provide training courses to JMBs/ MCs, and establish cross-networks to empower them with the skills and knowledge to execute duties effectively. This should be accompanied by outreach programmes that empower residents to be more civic-minded. If they are able to recognise the importance of abiding by house rules and act for the common good in maintaining their building and facilities, this would surely help sustain good building conditions and may even reduce maintenance costs in the long run.

Finally, greater enforcement measures should be taken to discourage third-party sub-letting. This is a frequent problem in many low cost housing communities, where property owners rent out units to foreign workers – sometimes as many as 10 or more to a flat. Apart from overcrowding issues, third-party subletting also worsens the problems of non-regular maintenance payment, since rentiers are less likely to be incentivised to pay for such costs.

Low cost development management entities – be it JMBs/MCs or other third parties – should therefore introduce special conditions in their by-laws making it illegal for property owners to carry out such practices. Where necessary, punishment should be enforced on transgressors. 

Rethinking and restructuring low cost housing maintenance will certainly require committed investment and political will from all parties (not least the government) to adopt new and strong mechanisms. Yet these are surely worthwhile efforts, for in the long term, they will help create efficient management and maintenance systems that safeguard the quality of life and safety of communities residing in these developments. – February 4, 2018.

* Lim Su Lin is a Policy Analyst with Penang Institute in Kuala Lumpur. She graduated in 2013 with a degree in History from Cambridge University. Her research interests lie primarily in psychosocial health and wellbeing. She explores these in the context of making recommendations to improve social and development policies. The long-term goals of her work are to advocate for more equitable outcomes and reduced inequalities in society.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.