AL Plenary | Developers paying property management fees stirs lawmakers
Leonel Alves
An article suggesting that real estate developers should be accountable for paying for property management fees triggered great dispute among the lawmakers, including those who rarely voice their opinions during AL meetings.
Leonel Alves started by criticizing the fact that the bill’s Portuguese version was “not ideal”, and then pointed out an article that was strongly debated by several lawmakers who normally do not speak during the inquiry sessions.
He the expressed the hope that both the government and the AL’s consultants can improve their the Portuguese version of the bill.
“It is very easy to notice that there are some articles translated directly from Chinese to Portuguese, and that some are repeated,” said the veteran lawmaker.
One article suggests that property owners should be liable for management fees when the claimants or people who pre-purchased the properties did not pay for the management fees.
The Legal Affairs Bureau said that the government proposed such an article based on a rule which suggests giving responsibilities to the owners, and noted that the person who pre-purchased the house is not yet considered as an owner, which deems the real owners [or property project developers] to be the actual owners of the properties.
Under such conditions, if the buyers do not pay for property management fees, then the developers should pay.
After listening to the government’s reply, Leonel Alves suggested the AL should read two separate articles, both involving the aforementioned topics, for the lawmakers to vote on.
He also criticized the two articles for being “unreasonable” and proposing “immature measures to solve [the problem]. This term’s AL is about to end, and it is inappropriate [for lawmakers] to hear this.”
Leonel Alves’s opinion caused many lawmakers to weigh in, expressing their stances on the article.
Melinda Chan deemed that “it should not be” the developers paying for the management fees which are not covered by the buyers.
Angela Leong also said that the articles need to be explained, and she suggested that the article pointed out by Leonel Alves should be voted on independently.
Fong Chi Keong, following Angela Leong, also voiced his disagreement with the article, indicating that he would not vote for it
“If they [buyers] own management fees, and the developers need to be accountable for the responsibilities, I think such law is very problematic. Under which reasons should developers be responsible for the money owned by other people? […] It is very unreasonable,” said Fong.
A consultant from the Legal Affairs Bureau also explained that the government is trying to place the responsibility on the “real owners” and not on the pre-buyers, having told the lawmakers that the government is “respecting the majority’s interests” by establishing such an article.
Fong Chi Keong criticized the government for “giving all the benefits to the management companies.”
“No matter what you do, there is no reason for 100 percent of benefits. […] If you establish the law like this, where is fairness? […] You lawmakers deliver this [the bill to us], but how can we pass it?” asked Fong.
He also said that the “government should abandon the law,” and citing the opinion of some lawmakers, he added “I want to say his/her name, but I am afraid that he/she will stare at me.”
Government high officials, including Sonia Chan, the Secretary for Administration and Justice, said that the government established the article to “protect the majority of the property owners.”
Chan also noted that since the article is relatively independent from other ones, it can be deleted from the bill.
Cheung Lup Kwan felt the article did not have “too many problems.”
Zheng Anting hoped the government could make all articles clear to avoid future problems.
The bill was not voted on entirely (three articles were passed) during the meeting, which will resume today.
on the lawmakers’ agenda
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Chan Meng Kam criticized the government’s “bureaucracy regarding how the government is subsidizing the region’s small business operators installing environment protection equipment in their shops.” The Environment Protection Bureau (DSPA) is continuously inspecting thousands of shops subsidized by the bureau so that they can install environmental protection equipment on their premises. The business operators are required to deliver a written explanation if they fail to pass DSPA’s inspection. Chan criticized DSPA’s strict requirements during the inspections, adding that many of the requirements had not been scientifically proven to be beneficial at the time the criteria were first established.
DENGUE FEVER PREVENTION Angela Leong suggested health authorities should implement measures to eradicate mosquitos near residential buildings where recent Dengue fever cases have been detected. She also called on the government to demand all sectors to undertake similar measures, including ordering several construction sites and buildings to conduct cleaning-
up routines. Leong noted that some buildings and construction sites still have poor hygiene conditions, even after an urgent clean up works. She suggested the authority should enhance advertising in order to raise the public’s awareness, and also conduct regular cleaning works across town. In Leong’s opinion, all hospitals in Macau should be well prepared to prevent a Dengue fever outbreak.
ABANDONED HISTORICAL BUILDING Leong Veng Chai called on the government to pay attention to a Portuguese-style building which has been abandoned for many years. The building is located at the Av. de Demetrio Cinatti. Leong said that the building’s neighborhood informed that the building used to be an office belonging to the water police authority. “The building is based on Portuguese style architecture and has some years of history, it carries both historical value and a meaning,” said Leong. Leong questioned whether the government, in particular the Cultural Affairs Bureau will preserve and renovate the building or reuse it as a governmental department office.
Government will not issue licenses to property caretakers
The Legislative Assembly (AL) passed a bill regarding property management for common parts of condominiums.
The new rules for building management firms did not trigger any large-scale arguments among the lawmakers, although one opinion brought out by Au Kam San stirred debate.
According to the new law, the Housing Bureau will become responsible for issuing licenses to companies in order for them to manage common parts of condominiums, with the license being valid possibly for three years.
If any company sees its license being revoked, then the company can take a maximum of up to six months to handover the associated business to another company.
The bill also suggests that a minimum of one technical director should be appointed by the company, and that this director must meet the requirements indicated by the law.
Au Kam San asked how the government would deal with situations where a company is required by the government to suspend its service.
The Secretary for Transport and Public Works, Raimundo do Rosário, explained: “There is no [specific] way to handle” such a situation, noting that the authority will handle each singular case according to its specific characteristics.
“If there are special situations, they will be handled specially,” declared Rosário.
Au then asked the Secretary whether the government will promise to provide training to management service providers, and whether condominium caretakers will work with a license.
In Au’s opinion, caretakers should be trained to ensure the quality of their services.
Addressing Au, the Rosário affirmed that “the license will only be issued to the technical person in charge. It is impossible [for the government] to issue a license to common people [i.e., ordinary employees].”
Mak Soi Kun, agreeing with Au Kam San, noted “I have been pushing forward for many years the matter of caretakers holding certificates to work. They should only be allowed to work when they are in possession of a working certificate. […] Not only the person in charged needs to be licensed, [the government] needs to decide soon, [other caretakers also] need to be certificated, [because] eventually things need to be done by someone.”
Rosário expressed his disagreement with Mak’s comment. “If we were to train thousands of people, what would the companies do?” questioned Rosário, adding that “the government only manages the technical director; while the responsibilities [in training other caretakers] should be delegated to the company, not to the government.”
