MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the urban development of Hong Kong has been proceeding rapidly. Thus, problems involving property management, repair and maintenance have become matters of concern to the local community in recent years. There are many different causes to these problems, including loopholes in the present system. In order to plug the loopholes, the Government is planning to amend the Building Management Ordinance (BMO). I have actively participated in the related discussion. As I have participated in the work of the owners’ committee of my residential estate, I know very well that many issues need to be tackled.
The problem of building maintenance and repair will worsen as time goes by. Old residential buildings require many repair works and new residential buildings constructed in recent years are suitable for living for more than 50 years due to improved construction techniques and building materials. Hence, property owners of new buildings, for the sake of their property’s value, will pay more attention to maintenance and repair as compared to property owners of old buildings. Besides, the longer a property exists, the more repair works it will require. Hence, more and more building maintenance and repair works will be required in the future. The motion moved by Mr Tony TSE is thus an appropriate and timely one. If we can carry out building maintenance and repair works promptly and properly, many problems can be avoided.
Different aspects of work are involved if one wishes to properly monitor and take forward repair and maintenance works of a building. First of all, a general meeting needs to be convened. The present requirement on the quorum of general meetings is 10% of the property owners. However, a building works project can be endorsed if the property owners representing 50% of the shares in aggregate at the meeting support the resolution concerned. The 10% quorum is indeed too low. When the 10% threshold was laid down in the past, the Government meant to set a lower threshold, so as to enable building repair resolutions to be endorsed more easily. But it is now proven that the low threshold has led to many problems because the large sums of money involved in these building repair projects have attracted many lawbreakers. They first make use of the loophole of the system to set up owners’ corporations (OCs), and then take advantage of the low threshold to commit acts of corruption and fraud, including colluding with contractors to make huge profits. Moreover, OCs only need to secure the support of property owners representing 10% of the shares in aggregate to endorse a resolution. In reality, many property owners have never been consulted on the resolution or may not even know about the details. Disputes thus arise when OCs ask property owners to share the cost of the repair works.
Hence, the Government intends to amend the BMO and has already completed the relevant consultation earlier. I agree with the Government’s proposal in setting a higher quorum, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the property owners of a building, so as to encourage more property owners to support and take part in OC meetings and to better consult the views of all property owners to forge a consensus. However, the quorum cannot be set too high; otherwise, it will be difficult for OCs to successfully convene meetings and in turn carry out repair works for the buildings. I thus find 20% an appropriate threshold. Besides, regarding resolutions to be endorsed at a meeting, the Government has proposed to increase the supporting votes required to owners representing 75% of the shares in aggregate at the meeting. I hold that 60% will be a more appropriate threshold because it may be difficult for resolutions to be endorsed if the threshold is set too high.
Moreover, we need to plug the loophole that exists in the system of the instrument of authorization. We commonly call this instrument a proxy. Given that repair works projects are a piece of “fat meat”, lawbreakers who wish to get this “fat meat” do not scruple to forge these instruments in order to get an OC established. They may also make use of the forged instruments to have a resolution on repair works project endorsed. In this connection, the Government has already proposed to lay down a series of measures to tighten the arrangement concerning proxies.
I basically agree with the Government’s proposal, but I hold that punishment and penalties should be meted out on the regulations concerned, such as prescribing a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a certain amount of fines. Given that building management may involve the handling of a large sum of funding, or even hundreds of millions of dollars in some residential estates, it is a great temptation for corruption activities. Hence, this issue must be handled with rigour, so as to stamp out the possibility of corruption. That said, my aforesaid proposal is more applicable to large residential estates. As for small residential estates or single residential buildings, exemption may be granted in order not to cause complications to them.
Besides, I hold that a third-party verification mechanism should be put in place to verify the proxies. For instance, mediators, auditors or lawyers can act as a third party to verify one third of the proxies received by means of, say, random telephone verification, so as to stamp out the possibility of forged proxies. Moreover, if the convenor declares that certain proxy is void, sufficient time should be made available for informing the property owner concerned and for appealing against the decision.
At present, the Property Management Services Bill is under scrutiny by the Legislative Council. The Bill seeks to strengthen monitoring of property management companies and introduce a mechanism for disciplinary actions, so as to standardize the service quality of property management companies. I thus believe that property management companies should play a more vital role in monitoring the work of building maintenance in the future. I so submit.