Message from PFMD Chairman (July 2011)

Meeting with Representative of China Property Management Institute
With the kind arrangement of the Development Bureau, we are able to commence an ice-breaking meeting with the mainland officials recently in respect of the possible mutual recognition of professional qualifications between HKIS and China Property Management Institute (CPMI). A visiting team from the Guangdong Province visited our Institute on 21 July 2011. Members of the team include 廣東省人力資源和社會保障廳岳 向前副處長、廣東省住房和城鄉建設廳潘偉堂處長、廣東省物價局價格認證中心蔣朝勝主任、廣東省人力資源和社會保障廳唐汪峰主任科員and our old friend the President of GDPMII 許建華。The preliminary aim of the meeting was to explore the feasibility of starting-off mutual recognition of professional qualification in the Guangdong Province. The visiting team was received by our Senior Vice President, Chairman of PFMD and Vice Chairman of GPD. We have briefly introduced the history of HKIS in Hong Kong and PFMD to all members by showing our HKIS Corporate Video and PFMD publications. They demonstrated keen interest of PFMD's four core competencies, namely "Property Asset Management", "Corporate Real Estate", "Project Management" and "Property Management", as described in our Brochure.

While exchanging views on how members of both Institutes could acquire the professional level of membership, we introduced the three Universities in Hong Kong which provide undergraduate surveying studies and the various procedures of attending our APC. The importance of mandatory CPD was also emphasized. The delegation noted that the key difference between HKIS and CPMI members is a professional HKIS member in Hong Kong may practice individually without attachment to an organization but members achieving registration standard of CPMI must be employed by a registered organization.

The visiting team was also briefed that HKIS is one of the ten major professional institutes in Hong Kong and we have representation in the Legislative Council. After the meeting, there was a guided tour to our Surveying Learning Centre, Library and Administration Office and team members were impressed by our facilities which support our members' needs. It is anticipated that HKIS should organize a delegation to visit Guangdong Province in the near future for further exchange of views. I will keep all members posted regularly on any further Development

Lifts and Escalators Bill
Members may have already been aware of, the Development Bureau and EMSD had put forward a Lifts and Escalators Bill to the Legislative Council in April this year. A Bills Committee was set up to scrutinize the Bill. HKIS was invited by the Bills Committee on 24 June 2011 to offer views and to attend its Committee Meeting held on 17 July 2011. A cross-divisional working group was set up. Members of the working group include the Chairman of PDD, the Vice Chairman of BSD and me. The working group met on the 4 July 2011, thereafter a paper was drawn up and submitted to the Bills Committee on the 8 July 2011. Please find below some key points of the paper for members' reference.

1. Responsible Person

  • Responsible person should be the owner rather than the property manager considering the right to pay and privilege to enjoy utilization.
  • New 24-hours reporting requirement is considered harsh and technically unfeasible for small unmanned building.

 

2. Service Quality

  • Independent lift (or escalator) engineer separated from the employment of a contractor is recommended to enable a more objective supervision.
  • Performance pledge for various approval, inspection and certification by EMSD should be introduced. Independent certification can be an option to speed up such process.

 

3. Disciplinary Arrangement

  • Considering a more stringent penalty system is introduced, a more thorough decision-making process of taking disciplinary action is recommended. More laymen representation in respective boards and panels was proposed.


4. Code of Practice and Guideline

  • Codes issued by BD and EMSD should be aligned with flexibility allowed for A&A works. Performance-based solution can be an option to meet new requirements.
  • Opinion from building owners and property managers should be considered while drawing up the new Codes.

I attended the Bills Committee Meeting on 17 July 2011 and have elaborated our views to the Committee. Our opinions attracted much media coverage in the following day. Details of the Bill and other related information, including our written submission, are available at the website of Legislative Council. PFM Surveyors are strongly recommended to view these documents and offer your further views to the Bills Committee.

Regulation of the Property Management Industry
I reported in earlier issue of Surveyors Times that the Home Affairs Department (HAD) had published a consultation paper in connection with the proposed regulation of property management industry. Consultation period was ended on 15 March 2011. Recently, HAD compiled the results of public consultation into a report and the report had been submitted to the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative Council. Prior to the Panel held its meeting of 8 July 2011, HAD invited various professional institutes to a briefing session which was held on 30 June 2011. Council Member Mr Kays Wong and I attended the briefing session. It was noted that HAD intended to pass this new regulation at around year 2013.

As a practicing PFM Surveyor, I would like to share with you some key elements of the HAD’s report.

a) Licensing of Property Management Company

  • License will be required in order to enhance service quality of the industry.
  • There will not be any grading of license to avoid labeling effect of small company.
  • Company providing merely security, cleaning and specialist service will not fall into this licensing regime.
  • Owners' corporations will not fall into this licensing regime in the meantime. HAD committed to providing more training and outreaching services to OC. There may also be an advisory panel being set-up to offer free advice to OC.
  • Owners managing their own building, not by a separate property management subsidiary, may also be exempted from this new requirement.


b) Licensing of Individual

  • Probably only practitioners, holding overall management responsibility, will be licensed. Front-line and operation staff will not fall into this licensing regime.
  • The level of license is subject to further consideration.


c) Authority

  • Probably an independent organization under a statutory ordinance will be established. It will perform dual function including issue of license as well as promotion of service quality of the industry.
  • Members of the Authority would be nominated by the CE and representing the trade profession.
  • It will be self-financed but the license fee would not be too significant in order not to cause obvious effect on management fee.
  • It would probably funded by levy of extra tax on property conveyancing. Initial proposal would be 0.01% of transaction cost.


d) Transitional Period

  • There will be a three year transitional period after enactment of the new legislation.
  • There will be a Advisory Committee formed during the transitional period to offer advice to government on setting-up of the new Authority.


The full HAD report submitted to the Panel on Home Affairs can be downloaded from the Legislative Council website. As the new regulation would create far-reaching effects on PFM practitioners, I would like to urge all members to view the report. If you have any comments that you wish to draw to the Council's attention, please feel free to email to me at [email protected].