Manuscript # 189

Issues in Managing Vertical Residential Building in Malaysia: Homeowners'

Perspective

Zairul N. Musa Abdul G. Sarip, AM Aini, WNA WA Aziz, NR Hanif, Z Al-Sadat, PA Tedong ••

Abstract

Today, living in a residential vertical building is becoming a lifestyle or trend among the urban professional community inMalaysia. One of the reasons people prefer to stay in a vertical residential is the facilities ~.nd amenities that are providedwithin the housing area. However, without a proper managed to this property, it will be more complaints from un-satisfiedhomeowners. This study aims to examine the key problems in managing vertical residential building (VRB) in Malaysia. Thislooks at the satisfaction level of homeowners living in low and medium cost VRB. in Klang Valley, Penang and Johor, Thestudy was conducted based on face to face survey with homeowners. The findings showed that is a high level of satisfactionliving in VRB however we observed that the living environments are gradually deteriorating. Therefore, this paper isattempted to investigate the issues in managing Vertical Residential Building (VRB) based on households living experience.

Keywords: Residential; Vertical Building; Housing; Homeowners; Living Environment

L Introduction

I. Background of Vertical Living in Malaysia

The 20thcentury has seen an increasing trend ofurbanization III 1110st countries including Malaysia.

Urbanization is a process of change in the growth andsocial-economic characteristics of urban centers as a result ofthe increasing concentration of population and economic

activities in urban areas over time. The urbanization process

in Malaysia began with the provision of basic infrastructure

and physical facilities to cater for the exploitation of

resource-rich areas along the West Coast of Peninsular

Malaysia.Vertical living phenomenon in Malaysia is now becoming

a trend of living life style among the urban professionalcommunity in Malaysia. The main difference as compared to

a landed property is the need for residents to set-up aManagement Corporation (MC), as a body to regulate andmanage all the facilities and amenities provided by the

developer, as stipulated in the Strata Title Act 1985. To a

certain extent, the idea seems to work successfully for about a

* Lecturer, Department of Estate Management, University ofMalaya,KualaLumpur,Malaysia** Co-Researchers,Department of Estate Management, University

ofMalaya,KualaLumpur,Malaysia

Contact Author: Dr. Zairul N. Musa, Lecturer, Department ofEstate Management, Faculty of Built EnvironmentUniversity of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaTel: +603-79676811 Fax: +0603-79675713e-mail: zairul@um.edu.my

The Asia Pacific

few years after the housing schemes are granted with the finaltitle. Vertical living is not the same as living in a freestanding

house. The activities and attitudes of residents can have asignificant impact on the satisfaction and enjoyment of others(NSW Fair Trading, 20 I0). A legal provision was introduced

to better regulate the management and maintenance ofvertical living with the introduction of the Strata Titles Act1985. Before the enactment of the Strata Titles Act 1985,

provision for subdivision of building was provided in the

National Land Code 1965. Many inadequacies were

discovered in terms of technical and legal requirements. Thus,

the need to implement a new and better legal framework

arises, which ultimately leads to the introduction of the Strata

Titles Act 1985. The latest Strata Management Act 2013 is

seen as an additional initiative by the government to furtherstrengthen the quality of vertical living in Malaysia.

A vertical high-rise building is defined as building wherethe total height exceeds 36-lTIetre or more than 12 floors. It is

use as residential, commercial, administrative or hotelbuilding (Akram, 2011). The Malaysian government has

committed huge amount of stipend for providing its citizen

with adequate, affordable and quality housing. The concept of

vertical living in this country is not new. It has beenintroduced in the early 1970s. Living ill a vertical residential

is now becoming a lifestyle trend among the urban

professional community in Malaysia.As opposed to a landed property, in a vertical building,

residents must set up a Management Corporation (MC) to

regulate and manage all the amenities provided by the

developer, as stipulated in the Strata Title Act1985. Verticalresidential is a unique property and it differs from landed

ctwork for Housing Research (APNHR) April 2015

,

property, such as bungalows and terrace houses. Itsuniqueness presents itself in the management after the

properties have been occupied, where facilities management

becomes an issue (Linariza and Ashok, 2003).In Malaysia, vertical housing development and public

housing programs are handled by both the public and privatesector. The public sector concentrates mainly on

public-housing (40 percent on public housing flat andapartment) programs while the private sector, apart from

complying on the 30 percent low cost housing unit,

concentrates on medium and high cost housing programs (60

percent on apartment and condominium development) (9th

Malaysia Plan, 2006). Currently, living in a residentialvertical building is becoming a lifestyle or trend among the

urban professional community in Malaysia. One of the

reasons people prefer to stay in a vertical residential is the

facilities and amenities that are provided within the housing

area.Moreover, there are different types of stratified housing in

different states. In this study, the focus is on four major statesin Malaysia, which are Johor, Penang, Kuala Lumpur andSelangor (together, both Kuala Lumpur and Selangor are

known as Klang Valley) These four states are chosen due to

the urbanization rate that has identified them as urban areas.

Therefore, the states have erected stratified housing mostly in

these states in order to support housing demands. The type of

housing, minimum size of the house, sale price and eligibility

(based on total household income) in these four states arediscussed further. The type of housing is classified into lowcost housing, low medium cost housing and medium cost

housing.

IT. Literature Review

2. Issues in Managing Vertical Building in Malaysia

2.1 Lack of Building Maintenance ManagementProperty management is explicitly defined in Section 2 of

the Valuer, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 as themanagement and control of any land, building and interest

therein, excluding the management of property- basedbusinesses, on behalf of the owner for a fee and includes

many other responsibilities such as monitoring outgoings forthe property, preparing budgets and maintaining the financial

records for the property, enforcing the terms of leases andother agreements, advising on sale, purchase and letting

decisions, advising on insurance matters, advising on

opportunity (or realization for development or investment

potential for the property, and advising on the necessity for

upgrading for the property,

Buildings are assets, the value of which changes in

accordance with the quality of the maintenance invested in

them. Despite the govemment commitment towards building

2 APNHR April 2015

maintenance, buildings have not been effectively maintained.

For instance, Ali et al. (20 I0) stated that in Malaysia,

maintenance problems in buildings are common regardless of

the size and owners of the buildings. "A major problem faced

by property developers in Malaysia was discovered to be poorcollection of maintenance fees, the major reason being the

dissatisfaction on the part ofusers with the condition of their

buildings" (Azmi et al., 2006).Buildings require effective maintenance otherwise they

become a burden to clients, users, and the general public.

Therefore, due to the backlog of several years of building

maintenance, there is an urgent need to improve the waysbuilding maintenance management in Malaysia. Otherwise,

an extensi,,:e increase in investment is likely to be needed in

the very near future to rectify defect, decay, and deterioration,

which will by then, be much more serious. This becomes

even more imperative in order to meet one of the strategic

thrusts of providing adequate, affordable, and quality houses,

with greater prominence given to a good environment inconsonance with one of the requirements of the MalaysianVision 2020, as reiterated under the Ninth Malaysian Plan(Government of Malaysia, 2006).

2.1.1 Improper assessment of maintenance managementprocedures

Complaints lodged by the tenants in terms of the property

management of vertical buildings include defects not beingattended to within the time specified, poor workmanship, andservices and facilities not being in good condition even whentaking over from the developers. Noraziah (2006) proposed areview of the current processes and procedures of handling

defects in buildings in Malaysia. In addition, "future costs are

very difficult to estimate, especially for maintenance work"

(Sherwin, 2000; Vanier, 200 I). Conditionally based

maintenance is not a proactive maintenance policy. At best,

all that a condition-based maintenance policy does is to

provide a snapshot of the physical condition of the building atthe specific time that the survey was conducted. Meanwhile,

the policy is a main factor to provide a good maintenance.According to Jones and Sharp (2007), a conditionally basedmaintenance policy is not explicitly linked to the ability of abuilding to support organization performance. The physicalcondition of a building is just a symptom of defects,deterioration, or decay, 01' their combination. Under the

current approaches to buildings maintenance, maintenance isnot considered as a factor of production, which also leads to

the fragmentation of the building management processes. The

models were, however, still characterized by the same

weaknesses inherent in the previous procedures.

,

~2.1.2 Poor Collection ofmaintenance feeEvery vertical building has different sets of problems, but onecommon problem is poor collection of maintenance, fee.The insufficient maintenance fee gives a very bad impact onthe management of the building, as maintenance work cannotbe carried out. This pressing issue, if not resolved, willbecome more crucial as more buildings will deterioratebecause of poor management. Suffian (2013) outlined somecurrent issues affecting property management in Malaysia,which includes poor collection of maintenance fee. Mohd etal., (20 I I) also stated that currently there is no properguidelines and enforcement on owners who default onpayment of maintenance. In Singapore, property manager hasthe right to obtain court order to seal the property and theowner can be fined in the event that they default themaintenance fee. Similar law should also be, introduced inMal,aysia to ensure that owners will pay the maintenance feeand be properly handled by property managers. However,there are some responsible developers would want to ensurethat their properties are well managed, thus they allocate acertain amount of money in the event that the maintenancefee becomes insufficient.

2.1.3 Poor management ofsinking fund

In addition, there is lack of transparency, adequate laws andenforcement on the part of property developers and managersin the administration of sinking fund (Mohd et al., 20 I 1).Often developers have used the sinking fund as collateral toget a bank overdraft facility. In addition, it is also pointed outthat the Section 46(d) of the Strata Title Act should beredefined to specify how the sinking fund should be utilized,Currently, there is no proper guidelines to ensure that theproperty developers and managers accountable for themanagement of funds under their control. However, ill HongKong, proper guidelines on budget and account managementare provided in the Building Management Ordinance (BMO).The BMO requires the management corporations to preparean annual budget based on the amount to be paid byindividual owners, in addition to maintaining a contingencyfund to provide for deficiencies in a general fund, Theproperty management must also maintain proper records thatshould be audited by established accountants, and thesummary of the income and expenditure has to be displayedin a prominent place in the building.

2.1.4 Lack of integration with Mangenient Corporation

There was a pattern of management gap between the

Management Corporation (MC) and residents. There are

issues regarding 10 maintenance that occur in vertical living

apartments building. Apart from this, the uniqueness of

vertical living apartment can be seen by the management of

the property after it has been occupied, Every single facility

available has to be managed together with the residents

APNHR AI)ril20JS

through specific procedures by Me. The aspect of facility

management which includes property management activities

and maintaining the vertical residential scheme is the main

agenda for the Me. In contributing to the responsibility of the

MC, the inefficiency of facility management has always been

a complaint among residents (Ong, 2009).

2.1.5 Issues regarding service charges in vertical livingcomplexes '

House ownership schemes determine housing managementactivities. Ownership is classified into two types, that is,single ownership, and multiple ownerships or one buildingwith different owners. This research focuses onmultiple-ownership housing developed both by thegovernment, and private sector based on the proportion of20:60:20. This proportion simply indicates that 20% of therespondents are of low cost building, 60% of the respondentsare of medium cost building and 20% of high cost building.The rationale of using this proportion is based on the numberof existing unit of the said properties. It could be said that themanagement of vertical living should have a propermanagement.Vertical housing management in Malaysia is governed bythree main legislations, the Housing Development (Controland Licensing) Act 1966, the Strata Title Act 1985 (WestMalaysia) and the newly implemented Strata Management

Act 2013. Tiun (2009) suggested that housing managementplays an important role in maintenance activities to keep

buildings in good condition, Moreover, "it is important to

make sure all facilities are managed wisely so that they are

safe for habitation" (Ahmad, 2003). In fact, it is "theresponsibility of the management corporation, as stipulated in

section 43 of Strata Title Act 1985, to provide payments for

insurance, refurbishment, cleaning, maintenance, lighting for

public areas, and other costs" (Ismail, 1993).Without adequate funds, however, proper management of

vertical housing will be affected. Since service charge andmore specifically maintenance charges and sinking funds are

a form of investment expenditure from the owners' point of

view, it is paramount to pay attention to the value returnedfrom these investments, In addition, Liias (1998) expressed

that "Viewed in this manner, home-owners obviously would

expect to get the best services out of the fees they pay",Although the strata title act was introduced in 1985, home

owners' awareness of the importance of service chargepayment is still very poor. This is evident from the substantial

arrears that have accumulated over the years.

2.1.6 VandalismUnder the STA, the MC is legally required to provide theservices of a management agent and as such is the pattyresponsible for running the facility management activities. Inpractice, most MCs function poorly because they don't have

3

..

the expertise to run and properly maintain the housingcomplex. If the MC fails to function as stipulated in the STA,the residents of that particular housing complex have the rightto summon the said Me. Even so, a management gapcontinues to exist, as evidenced by on-going reports in massmedia on the topic. Residents continue to complain about thelow service quality of facility management provided by theirmanagement agents as well as the lack of responsibility of theMC in ensuring effective facility management. In discussingthis matter, this paper uses the Malaysian case study as toanalyze the sustainable indicators of vertical livingmanagement.Vandalism happens everywhere, but most often wherebuilding design and lighting offers confinement andanonymity, in areas frequented by young people such asschools, parks, shopping centers and public buildings, in anunoccupied buildings, open spaces or parked vehicleswhere minimum surveillance is given to property,Vandalism may affect the common property in a way thatfacilities, such as parks and public rest rooms, whicheveryone in the community uses, become unavailable anddangerous. In all vertical residential properties in Malaysia,the management company has to purchase Master Policyinsurance, which covers vandalism and malicious, fire,lightning, windstorm, exposure and strikes. The vandalismcases are found not so frequent in condominium in Malaysiabut more prone to low or medium cost flats or apartments dueto the type of tenants in the building, which consist of lowincome group of people and those with lack of awareness inbuilding maintenance.

III. Methodology

This paper provides an overview of the methods used to study

in detail, the scenario or vertical living as experienced by the

residences in Klang Valley, Johor Bahru and Penang.

Underpinning the use of quantitative approaches, this study

discussed the satisfaction level of vertical living from the

perspectives of Homeowners.In this study, we conceptualize vertical living in twoperspectives. Firstly, vertical living in low cost units is wherethe sale price of the house is below RM 45,000. Secondly, thevertical living of medium cost unit is where the sale price ofthe house is between RM 45,001 and RM 150,000. Theidentification of low cost and medium cost as the location fordata collection is based on the sale price. The strata housingare flat, apartment or condominium located in Johor, Penang,Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.In this study, the respondents are identified as residences thatare currently living either in low cost housing or medium costhousing (flat or apartment). The respondents can either be theowner or the tenant of the house. This study carried out asurvey of vertical residential building residences in KlangValley, Penang and Johor Bahru. The survey involves a totalof 1,378 respondents. Among the 1,378 respondents, 769

4 APNHR April 2015

respondents are currently residing in Klang Valley, 304 inPenang and 305 in Johor Bahru. This study is limited to aquantitative analysis. Due to the aim and objectives of thisstudy, the output from the quantitative analysis is sufficientto achieve the aim and objectives.

IV. Data Analysis and Discussion

1. Occupancy Status ofRespondents in Klang Valley

Table I. Occupancy Status (N=769)

Respondents Percentage (n)OwnerTenantTotal

64.1(493)35.9(276)100 (769)

Table 1 has shown the occupancy status of respondents in.Klang Valley. The finding shows that more than half (64.1 %)of the respondents in vertical residential building owned theirhouse and the remaining (35.9%) are tenants.

2. Satisfaction on facilities and services provided

Table 2 has shown the respondents' satisfaction towardsfacilities provided at low-cost vertical residential building.The results on average (mean) indicate that owners are moresatisfied than tenants on the facilities provided. For musolla,the percentage of owners and tenants that are satisfied are58.9% and 51.9% respectively. In regards to the kindergarten,the majority of the owners (45.8%) and tenants (38.9%) aresatisfied. The majority of owners (39%) and tenants(48.2%) feel neutral about the playground. 44.2% of theowners were satisfied with the shop and 54.8% of them weresatisfied with the multipurpose hall provided by themanagement. Meanwhile, 48.2% and 40% of the tenantrespondents feel neutral about the shop and multipurpose hall.Percentage from Table 6.4 shows that 44% of ownerrespondents are satisfied with the laundry facility while48.1 % of tenant respondents feel neutral about laundryfacility. Apart from that, both owner and tenant are notsatisfied with car park (owner: 50.4%, tenant: 52.4%) andmotorcycle parking (owner: 41%, tenant: 42.9%).

Table 2: Respondents' satisfaction towards Fucilitics Provided (Low-cost)

Table 3 has shown the respondents' satisfaction toward

facilities provided for medium-cost vertical residential

building in Klang Valley. Most of the owners and tenant are

satisfied with the facilities provided with mean value (M)

above 3. Over half of the owner (55%) and tenant (53.3%)

are satisfied with the musolla provided for by the

management. 46.8% of owners and 41.7% of tenants are

satisfied with the playground. 47.7% of owners and 38.9%

of tenants who were responded indicated that they are

satisfied with the kindergarten. Nearly half of the owners

(46.8%) and tenants (45.8%) responded agreed that they are

satisfied with the shops at their housing scheme. Meanwhile,

56.5% of owners and 5 I . I% of tenants are also satisfied

with the swimming pool. Table 3 also shows that 51.1 % of

owner respondents are satisfied with the multipurpose hall,

whereas 47% of tenant respondents feel neutral about the

hall. The majority of owners and tenants are satisfied with

the laundry services (owner: 47%, tenant: 43.3%), car park

(owner: 54.3, tenant: 45.1 %) and motorcycle parking

(owner: 48.7%, tenant: 44.6%).

Table 3: Respondents' satisfaction towards Facilities provided (Medium-cost)

Table 4 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards cleaning

services by the management of vertical residential building at

low-cost housing. it can be seen that the mean value (M) of

all facilities are below 3, with the exception of the mean byowner for corridor (3.15) and road (3.14). Percentages of

owners and tenants that are satisfied with the corridorcleanliness are high, with 47% and 34.9% respectively.

However, only 35.9% of owners who were interviewed aresatisfied with lift cleanliness, while 31.7% of tenant

respondents are not satisfied. For road cleanliness, 40.2% of

the owners are satisfied with it, but 34.9% of tenants feel

neutral. Only 36.8% of the owners feel neutral feel neutral

about stairs cleanliness, but 41.3% of the tenant respondents

(41.3%) are dissatisfied. Both owners and tenants responded

APNHR April 2015

neutral for lobby, drainage and landscape cleanliness. For car

park cleanliness, only 36.8% of owners are satisfied, while

31.7% of the tenants feel neutral. Surprisingly, both owners

(44.4%) and tenants (39.7%) are not satisfied with bin house

cleanliness.

Table4:Respondents' satisfaction towards CleanlinessServices(Low-cost]

~tntotss:ltisfid

Fadi,;" (K)

Table 5: Respondents' satisfaction towards Cleanl iness Services (Medium-cost)

Table 5 shows the respondents' satisfaction towardscleanliness services by the management of vertical residentialbuilding for medium-cost. It can be seen that mean value (M)of all facilities are above 3, indicating that the majority ofrespondents' response were between neutral and satisfied.

5

Table 6. shows the respondents' satisfaction towards building

maintenance at their low-cost vertical residential building.

The majority of the mean (M) for owners and tenants are

below 3, except for the mean of owner for surrounding light

(3.02). As can be seen in Table 6.8, 34.2% of owners are

satisfied with li ft maintenance while 36.5% of tenants are not

satisfied with lift maintenance. The majority of the ownersand tenants gave a neutral response for the maintenance of

stairs (owners: 40.2%, tenants: 36.5%), corridor (owners:45.3%, tenants: 44.4%), surrounding light (owners: 42.7%,

tenants: 49.2%), drainage (owners: 7.6%, tenants: 38.1 %),road (owner: 41.9%, tenants: 44.4%), car park (owners:

41.9%, tenants: 42.9%) and motorcycle parking (owners: 39.3,

tenants: 46%). For maintenance of lightning along the

corridor, 34.2% of owners are satisfied with it, whereas

34.9% of tenants are not satisfied. 36.3% of owners feel

neutral about playground maintenance and 40% of tenants are

not satisfied with it. Meanwhile, 39.7% of tenants are not

satisfied with the time taken to complete the maintenance, but

37.6% of owners feel neutral. Lastly, the majority of owners(41.4%) feel neutral on the overall maintenance performanceby their management, while for tenants, the majority was not

satisfied and neutral (constituting 34.9% of the votes for

each).

Table 7 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards building

maintenance at their medium-cost vertical residential building.All of the mean (M) for owners and tenants is above 3,

indicating that only a minority of both owners and tenants are

not satisfied with thc maintenance services. Over half of the

respondents were satisfied with the stairs maintenance

(owner: 50.8%, tenant: 50.7%), corridor maintenance (owner:

56%, tenant: 52.6%), corridor lightning maintenance (owner:

54.4%, tenant: 50.2%), surrounding light maintenance

6 APNHR April 2015

(owner: 55.7%, tenant: 54.9%) and swimming poolmaintenance (owner: 52.9%, tenant: 54.6%). Meanwhile,

nearly' half of the owner (45.5%) and tenants (45.1 %) were

satisfied with the lift maintenance. From Table 6.9, both

respondents' were satisfied with drainage maintenance

(owner: 55.1%, tenant: 49.3%), road maintenance (owner:

53.1%, tenant: 46.2%), car park maintenance (owner: 54.4%,tenant: 47.9%), motorcycle parking (owner: 50.8%, tenant:46%). Almost half of the owners (46%) and tenants (43.2%)were satisfied with the duration of the maintenance. Overall,48.9% of the owners and 45.1 % of the tenants were satisfied

with the maintenance quality of the management.

Table 8 shows the respondents' satisfaction on common

facilities usage at their low-cost vertical residential building.

Overall, the mean value shows that the satisfaction of

respondents' on common facilities usage is below thanneutral level (M < 3). Both owner (57.3%) and tenant

(63.5%) respondents are dissatisfied with the car parkprovided. Others common facilities such as corridor space,

lift usage, noise disturbances, building safety and vandalism

received a neutral response at a high percentage in both

owners and tenants. 45.3% of owners and 47.6% of tenants

feel neutral about the corridor space. Similarly, 44.4% of

owners and 49.2% of tenants also feel neutral about lift usage.The majority of owners and tenants feel neutral about noise

disturbance (owner: 52.1%, tenant: 42.9%), building safety(owner: 40.2%, tenant: 39.7%) and vandalism (owner: 41.9%,

tenant: 38.1 %). In addition, 38.1 % of tenants are dissatisfiedand the same percentage of tenants feels neutral, about

vandalism that happened in their housing area.

Table 9 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards commonfacilities usage at their medium-cost vertical residentialbuilding. As can be seen in Table 6.11,36.6% of the tenantsare dissatisfied with the car parks while 35.1 % of owners aresatisfied. The majority of the respondents are satisfied withtheir corridor space (owner: 56.6%, tenant: 48.1%) andswimming pool (owner: 60.8%, tenant: 57.7%). 53.7% ofowners and 48.4% of tenants are satisfied that there are no

noise disturbances at their housing surrounding. Meanwhile,52.9% of owners and 53.1% of tenants are satisfied withsafery of the building. For vandalism, the majority ofrespondents (47.5% of owner and 51.9% of tenants) aresatisfied that no serious vandalism has occurred at theircommon facilities.

Table 10 shows the respondents' satisfaction towardssafety services provided by 1MBIMC at their current low-costvertical residential building. The result shows that 47.6% of

tenants are not satisfied with the safety of their building,while 38.5% of owners feel neutral. The majority of both

owners and tenants feel neutral about fire safety (owner:

43.6%, tenant: 46%) and building design (owner: 55.6%,

tenant: 54%). The majority of owners (44.4%) and tenants

(41.3%) are dissatisfied with the implementation of tire drill

during their stay at the house. Meanwhile, 35.9% of owners

and 46% of tenants are also not satisfied with the securityservices provided. It can be concluded that tenants at low-cost

houses are more satisfied with the safety services comparedto the owners.

Table ]0: Respondcms' satisfaction towards safety services (Low.cosn

""','''I)

SOCUnlY

S............'OlSttllifityl

Table 11 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards safety

services provided by the JMBIMC at their medium-cost

vertical residential building. Based on mean (M) data, results

of all respondents interviewed for safety services provided are

above neutral (M > 3), with the exception of the

APNHR April 2015

implementation of fire drill (M < 3). As can be seen, the

majority of owners and tenants are satisfied with the safety

services that have mean, M, over 3. The data in the Table IIshows that a higher percentage of respondents are satisfied

with the safety of the building surrounding (owner: 51.1 %,

tenant: 48.8%), tire safety (owner: 55.9%, tenant: 48.8%),building design (owner:' 51.) 'Vo, tenant: 44.6%) and security

(owner: 47.2%, tenant: 45,1%). Moreover, 35.4% of owners

and 44% of tenants are not satisfied with the implementationof the fire drill. From the result, it can be seen that tenants in

medium-cost vertical residential are more satisfied with thesafety services compared to owners in low-cost vertical

residential.

Table ~I: Respondcnt~' satisfactiontcwards saferyservices (Medium.cost)

Mtlll

,M)

Sto",.Jli:yS<:f"I'im(Xt:u:.i1iYI

4.& F:'{) InJ 19.1 14 .i.21

Table 12 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards thecommitment shown by 1MB/Me. From Table 6.14, it can beseen that the majority of owners feel neutral about residenceorganization activity (32.5%), problem solving by theJMB/MC (40.2%) and how they manage residents'complaints (41%). This finding differs from tenants, wherethey are not satisfied with the residence organization activity(44.4%), problem solving by the JMBIMC (39.7%) and howthey manage residents' complaints (34.9%). It can beconcluded that tenants are less satisfied towards JMBIMCcommitment compared to owners.

Table 12:Respondents satisfaction towards JMB!Me Commitment (Low-cost)

V"Y M~anSsl,i,f...J Sau.",. 1M)

~ ~,~ ,n

r-

2.89 2.59

J~ !.~J 1.63

32 J1ll .Hi

MOI1ois",~,tird Di"nisficd 1\.,'11]

7

Table 13 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards theirJMBIMC commitment. From the Table 6.15, nearly half ofthe owners and tenants feel neutral about the commitment of.1MB/Me. About 46% of owners and 43.4% of tenants feelneutral about 1MB/MC encouraging residents to participate inresidence organization activity. A high percentage of owners(42%) and tenants (46%) feel neutral about the problemsolving by 1MB/Me. Lastly, 43.6% of owners and 46% oftenants respond neutral for 1MB/MC to solve the identifiedresidents' problem.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, this research indicates that respondents living

in medium-cost residential building are more satisfied than

respondents living in low-cost vertical residential building.

Furthermore, the findings revealed that owners are more

satisfied than the tenants on their vertical residential building.

These findings are based on the mean value of each variable

analyzed. For the 1MB/MC, the respond from both low-cost

and medium-cost are similar. The main problems faced by the

JMBIMC, either in low-cost or medium-cost vertical

residential building, are the collection of maintenance feefrom the residents, residents' attitude, poor design and

construction quality, and insufficient car parks. The findingsof this survey addressed two of the research objectives, whichare to examine the households living experience in strati tied

properties, and to explore the strengths and weaknesses of

current process and procedures of managing vertical stratified

properties.

REFERENCES

I. Act 663 (2007), Building and Common Property(Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, PercetakanNasional Malaysia, Berhad.

2. Act 318 (2008), Strata Titles Act 1985 and Rules andOrder, International Law Book Services, Kuala Lumpur.

3. Ahmad, B. R. (2003). The Effect of Faulty Design &Maintenance Works On Sustainable Housing

8 APNHR April 2015

Environment. In 1st APNHR Conference on Housing &Sustainable Urban Development (pp. 1-4).

4. Ali, A. S., Kamaruzzarnan, S. N., Sulaiman, R., & Peng,Y. C. (20 I0). Factors affecting housing maintenance costin Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management, 8(4),285-298

5. Liias, R. (1998). Housing in Estonia.Creating marketthrough conflicts. Yhteiskuntasuunnittelu, The FinnishJournal of Urban Studies, 36, 22-33.

6. Linariza, H., and, V. Ashok. (2003). "FacilityManagement: An Introduction." Journal of TheMalaysian Surveyor. 1st Quarter: 13-19.

7. Mohd-Noor, N., Hamid, M. Y., Abdul-Ghani, A. A., &Haren, So. N. (2011).Building Maintenance BudgetDetermination: An Exploration Study in the MalaysiaGovernment Practice.Procedia Engineering, 20(0),435-444.doi: http://dx.doi.org/lO.1016/j.procng.2011.11.186

8. Noraziah Azmin (2006). The study of problems faced byproperty management in managing the high risecondominium in Malaysia. Masters thesis, UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia.

9. Ong, A. (2009). The production of possession: spirits andthe multinational corporation in Malaysia. AmericanEthnologist, 15( I), 28-42.

10. Sherwin, D . ( 2000 ). ' A review of overall models formaintenance management ' , Journal of QualityMaintenance Engineering, 6(3) , 138 - 164

11. Suffian, A. (2013). Some Common MaintenanceProblems and Building Defects: Our Experiences.Procedia Engineering, 54(0), 10 I-I 08.

12. Tiwl T. L. (2009). Managing High Rise ResidentialBuilding in Malaysia: Where are We? In Proceedings ofthe 2nd NAPREC Conference, INSPEN, Bangi : rNSPEN.(pp. 1-25).

13.Vanier , D . J .( 200 I ). ' Why industry need assetmanagement tools' , Journal of Computing in the CivilEngineering, 15( 1) , 35 - 43 .

14. Strata Management Act 757 (2013).15.Unit, E. P. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011-2015.

Putrajaya: Prime Minister Department.16.Vagias, Wade M. (2006). Likert-type scale response

anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism andResearch Development, I.

17. Helleman, G. and Wassenberg, F. (2004). The renewal ofwhat was tomorrow's idealistic city: Amsterdam'sBijlmermeer high-rise, Cities, 21 (1), pp. 3-17.

18.Wan, N. A. (2013). Case Studies in Public Housing:Selangor Housing the Nation: Policies, Issues andProspects (pp. 249-260).

19.Wong, L.T., Chow, W.K. & Kwan, s.c.v. (2000). ABrief Review On Fire Regulations For Old HighriseCommercial Buildings In Hong Kong. InternationalJournal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes,2(4), 153-160.

20. Wong, 1.F. (2010). Factors affecting open buildingimplementation in high density mass housing design inHong Kong. Habitat International, 34(2), 174-182.

21. Yau, Y., Ho, D.e., Cahu, K. & Lau, W.(2005).Estimation Algorithm for Predicting thePerformance of Private Apartment Buildings in HongKong. Structural Survey,Vol 27(5):pp 372-389.