May we suggest that an independent survey is done to determine the answer to the above question? Based on our own assessment, the general public or house buyers have the perception that the housing minister and Ministry of Housing is around for the sake of protecting the developers more than the house buyers. The minister of housing, despite having its powers under the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, part V, has failed in his duties since the inception of the Act.

Historically, the minister has never enforced its powers in a preventive manner or on a proactive manner. The argument that the Act is biased against the purchasers is not without basis. Even the Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) as provided by the Act is biased in its design. This can be seen in both Schedule G and Schedule H of the Act.

As an illustration, let us look at part of the Act where the purchaser is in default of payment. Once a purchaser delays his payment, the developer is given the right to charge and collect interest on the overdue amount. In the event that a purchaser ignores the respective notices, the developer can terminate the agreement, which leads to heavy losses for the purchaser.

While we admit that it is wrong for the buyer to delay any payment when the property under construction is progressing well, the same cannot be said when a project is delayed.

For example, the instances where a property is delayed over several years and the developer continues with their antics of finishing the construction without credible and substantiated project finalisation. They use the clause of termination to collect money from purchasers who are already in debt, which in our view is ghastly unfair.

Under such circumstances why isn’t the minister of housing using his unrestricted powers to protect the purchasers? Since the rights of termination are now regulated by the ministry they could have easily controlled the developer. But why didn’t the minister do this?

From our perspective, once the developer has failed to complete a particular project during the agreed and specified period, he has lost his rights as specified in the agreement. So why is the developer still being awarded with immunity and powers to act unilaterally even when a project is delayed?

Why doesn’t the minister use his powers to protect house-buyers? It is time for these matters to be brought to court to obtain a clear legal interpretation. It is time for us to take the minister of housing to court for his failure to protect the house buyers’ interests.

The writer is the president of the Abandon Property Owners Association, Malaysia (Victims).