Malaysian income: bread and butter, affordability of owing a house

JUST a few months back, a social media post on food price comparison between United Kingdom and Malaysia went viral and attracted plenty of attention.

This interesting post offered a peep into the average cost of living and purchasing power of Malaysians nowadays.

A Malaysian, Rysherz Rayn, posted on his Facebook that with about £5 (around RM33.50), he could purchase bananas, a box of grapes, 10 apples, an ice lettuce and five packets of his favourite chocolate in London. In Malaysia, the same items would add up to about RM44.

He went on to share that £5 is an hourly pay for a part-timer in UK. While in Malaysia, the average hourly pay for a part-timer is at about RM4. In other words, to afford the same items that a British buys with an hour pay, it may cost an average Malaysian 11 hours of work.

The post created a lot of discussions, some expressed shock and disappointment, others thought UK is too far away for comparison. To make it more relevant and familiar for Malaysians, I did a quick price check on Australian food.

Based on online information and personal experience, buying essential items such as a dozen eggs, 1kg of apples, a lettuce, and a loaf of sliced bread cost about A$9 (RM28) in Australia; on the other hand the same items come up to about RM20 in Malaysia.

In Australia, the minimum wage per hour is A$17.29 (RM53.50), while ours is only RM4.30 based on the minimum monthly wage of RM900.

Though this situation doesn’t paint the overall picture of the living standard in Malaysia, it does illustrate our average cost of living and purchasing power.

If we take a bigger picture, our issue of bread and butter relates closely to brick and mortar, which is the roof over our heads. When our wages are stretched in purchasing daily items compared to other countries, there is no surprise that our housing affordability level is also low.

According to the “Making Housing Affordable” report released by Khazanah Research Institute (KRI) in August, Malaysia’s median house prices were 4.4 times median annual household income in 2014. This signifies a “seriously unaffordable” housing market because an “affordable” market should have a “median multiple” (median house prices as a multiple of median annual household income) of 3.0 times based on global standards.

If we only take Kuala Lumpur into the computation, the median house prices is even higher at 5.4 times (based on annual median income of RM91,440, and the median for all house prices in Kuala Lumpur at RM490,000). Housing for Kuala Lumpur is categorised as “severely unaffordable”.

It is good that KRI reported the issue and highlighted that our country should gear towards improving the elasticity of housing supply and respond to the needs of all segments. However, other than supply, we should also look into the fundamental issue of our income level.

I remember when I first started working in 1961, my salary was RM628 and my first car was a Peugeot 404 which cost RM7,724. A single-storey house in Klang during that time was RM13,000. It cost me only one year of my salary to buy a car, and less than 2 years’ salary to afford a house.

Young graduate

However, a similar car today costs around RM100,000, and a landed house in Klang easily costs RM350,000. Looking at the salary of a young graduate which ranges from RM2,000 to RM3,000 nowadays, it takes 3 to 4 years of their salary to buy a similar Peugeot or equivalent car, and 10 to 15 years to purchase a house.

A recent news article pointed out that, only one out of two PR1MA housing loan applications are approved. It is ironic that even with affordable housing, the rakyat can’t afford a home.

The scenario and comparison above show the challenges of our young generation in securing a house today. It is unfortunate that when our car and house prices grow as a result of inflation and demand, our income doesn’t grow in tandem.

I also remembered in the 1970s, Malaysia and South Korea were started on the same level playing field in terms of gross domestic product (GDP).

According to data from International Monetary Fund (IMF), our estimated nominal GDP per capita in 1977 was US$1,084 (RM4,791), while South Korea was US$1,042 (RM4,605). During that time, when I travelled overseas with our strong currency, people in those countries looked up to me.

However, the IMF data shows the estimated GDP per capita in South Korea today is US$28,338 (RM125,256), while Malaysia is only US$10,654 (RM47,091). Other regional countries such as Taiwan and Singapore are also progressing at a fast pace, in which their estimated GDP per capita now are US$22,464 (RM99,293) and US$53,604 (RM236,935) respectively.

Back to the fundamental issue of our housing affordability, other than providing more affordable housing, the Government needs to move the rakyat up the value chain and increase the nation’s income level.

We know that the authority has been aspiring to do so under the 11th Economic Development Plan. One of them being to attain a per capita income of US$15,000 (RM66,000) by year 2020.

To expedite this, the Government and relevant authorities have to improve the competitiveness and productivity of the nation, so as to catch up with the other countries in the region.

When we talk about the affordability of our brick and mortar, the most fundamental way is to address the underlying problem of our bread and butter, i.e. our income. Until and unless our wages buy us more eggs and rice, it will be a challenge to afford a house.

- Viewpoint Food for Thought by Alan Tong The Star

Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and awarded the Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI Malaysia Property Award. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related posts:

Malaysia’s residential housing market ‘severely unaffordable’, said Demographia

Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore, Japan and the US; Budget 2015 brings little joy

Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore

, Japan ...

Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore, Japan and the US; Budget 2015 brings little joy. File picture shows houses under construction in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia has a 'severely unaffordable' residential homes ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

Malaysian property market likely to regain momentum post GST

Malaysian property market likely to regain momentum post GST 

03 Jan 2015

CIMB Research head of research Terence Wong said in a report that this would be a “tricky” year given the pick up in sales momentum in 2014 on expectation of property prices rising post GST. He points out developers have ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

Chinese women's marriage criteria,logical search for a mate

72% of women consider housing as a key requirement for a marriage partner, says the latest report of the Chinese Marriage Status Survey 2014, issued by China’s leading marriage service provider Baihe.com on Jan.11, 2015.

Researchers collected the results of 73,215 online questionnaires and held in-depth off-line interviews with 200 single men and women from 34 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions.

Why still single?

The report shows that 63% of single men and women spend an average of more than six hours alone on their rest days; and 32% spend more than 10 hours alone. Surfing the internet, hanging out with friends, and just “quietly” staying at home have become the top three activities for single people.

32% of single women follow TV dramas while 67% of men scan websites, killing their private time at home.

The report concludes that the main reasons for remaining single is too much time spent alone - too few social contacts is the top obstacle to meeting the right person. 80% of single women report this.

Gender differences in marriage requirements

Nowadays, love is no longer the only passport for two people to enter marriage. The report says that more than 40% of single men and women are only willing to get married with a person in a suitable situation. People are becoming ever more rational and realistic when choosing their spouses.

The top three concerns for single men are appearance, physical health, and emotional experience. Single women attach more importance to a partner’s financial situation, physical health, and career.

33% of single men and 27% of single women have experienced interference from parents in their relationships.

Focus on housing

The report shows that 71% of women view housing as a key requirement for a potential marriage partner. 18% of women counted car ownership as one of the basic requirements, a rise of 9% compared with 2012. Both men and women said that a stable income and some savings were important factors.

Nearly 60 percent of women do not intend to have a second child, according to the report, although China has relaxed its birth control policy to allow couples to have a second child if either parent is an only child.

The report also shows that 33% of women think that Chinese men do not deserve Chinese women, in terms of "self-accomplishments and ability to care for themselves." - (People's Daily Online)

The logical search for a mate

‘Love’ takes a back seat when seeking prospective life partners

LOVE is not the only criterion for marriage in China. A recent survey shows that more than 40% of Chinese look to marry someone who suits them in appearance, educational background, social status, income and other characteristics.

Baihe.com, a major dating portal in China, released its 2014 Chinese Marriage Status Survey Report on Sunday.

The site has tracked marriage trends in the country since 2007.

The latest results show that 44.4% of male and 49.7% of female respondents said the reasons for their choice of a marriage partner include their prospective mate’s coming from a family of equal social rank.

“This means people are much more rational when it comes to the marriage decision,” the report said.

“They would like to match each other under every single standard. Love is no longer the only pass.”

The report also said that more than 70% of female respondents said they would consider marriage only if the male partner owns property.

And more than 70% of the women hoped their future husband’s income would be double their own.

Zhou Xiaopeng, the chief marriage consultant at Baihe.com, characterised the phenomenon as “supermarket marriage”, where people come with “money in hand” and want to select the best “products” after shopping around.

Tu Ying, a researcher at the portal, said that seeking a partner with quantifiable requirements is efficient.

“In everyday life, it is more and more difficult to find the right person and get to know him or her – not to mention the cost it comes with,” Tu said. “If people start with quantifiable standards, and then develop their relationship based on that, it is more likely to be a stable relationship.

“Starting marriage with money cannot guarantee stability from the beginning.

“Every relationship needs cultivation from each side.”

Zhou Xiaozheng, a professor of sociology at Renmin University of China, attributes the new approach to marriage choices to changes in society.

“Chinese people’s view of choosing a mate has undergone many changes,” Zhou said.

“In the past, marriage was arranged by parents, which reflected the will of family or country. Then it became a personal choice, or socalled love choice. And now it is more related to material standards, or what we call materialism in marriage.”

“This is simply because people live in a materialistic world: A couple needs an apartment to live in, which costs a lot; the couple needs to find a good school for their children, which costs a lot; the couple who live far away from their parents need to find a way to support them, which also costs a lot,” Zhou said. “It is a vicious circle.”

Zhou said to reverse the materialistic trend, the country needs to continue its anti-corruption campaign and improve social welfare, and young people need to know that money is not the solution to everything. - China Daily/Asia News Network

A Malaysian household needs monthly income of RM14,580 (US$4,486) to buy a home in Malaysia

Klang Valley still affordable 

KUALA LUMPUR: You must have an average household income of RM14,580 a month to afford a home in the Klang Valley, according to a recent study.

The study – spearheaded by Sime Darby Property Bhd in collaboration with the Faculty of Built Environment of Universiti Malaya – takes into account the current household spending trend, price of homes and mortgage rates.

It found that certain groups of buyers interested in strategic areas can have access to houses that are priced at 56 times their household income.

The study also found that this same group can afford to spend up to 26% of their monthly household income to service a mortgage.

It identified strategic areas in the Klang Valley that are considered not only accessible but have the potential to appreciate in value. They include Nilai, Denai Alam, Bukit Jelutong and Bukit Subang.

A report of the study said that houses in selected areas in the Klang Valley remain accessible to homeowners who may be looking to invest in a second home.

The Housing-Income Index which was launched here yesterday by Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, who said the survey results would be useful for potential house buyers.

“The Index and its key findings had been reviewed by the ministry, and we find that the information is valuable as it can help policy makers and developers work hand-in-hand to build more houses that are not only accessible. but which can appreciate in value,” he said.

Abdul Rahman hoped that other property developers and the academia can carry out similar surveys in the country.

Based on the findings, Sime Darby said that 68% ofplanned housing schemes in the Klang Valley were in the accessible range.

“We intend to utilise the results to develop innovative, high quality products that are accessible and meet market needs,” said Sime darby Property managing director Datuk Seri Abd Wahab Maskan.

The Housing-Income Index was developed to gain a better understanding of home-owner profiles, specifically household incomes and spending patterns in relation to owning a home.

The study covered 1,529 respondents, of whom 1,183 were home owners at 12 locations: Bukit Jelutong, Denai Alam, Bukit Subang, Bandar Bukit Raja, Subang Jaya, USJ, Putra Heights, Ara Damansara, Mont Kiara, Melawati, Kajang and Nilai.

Purchasers want affordable homes but in safe neighbourhoods - However, Cheaper areas but few buyers

PETALING JAYA: Affordable homes are still available in the Klang Valley but many areas with houses priced around RM400,000 and below are not preferable to buyers.

Real-estate agent Michael Edward said areas such as Taman Sentosa and Taman Seri Andalas in Klang are examples where the houses are affordable but there are few pickers because it lacked security facilities and gated community features.

“Buyers want affordable pricing, safety and location when they buy a house. But most affordable houses that are available are usually under the older projects and may have a high crime rate. This puts off potential buyers,” said the Klang-based agent with Rina Properties.

Responding to recently-released Sime Darby Housing-Income Index, which said that one must have an average income of RM14,580 a month to afford a home in the Klang Valley, Edward said the survey probably interviewed respondents who owned properties in Sime Darby’s housing projects where prices were much higher compared to other areas.

“If other housing projects besides Sime Darby’s are taken under the survey, the average household income should be lower,” he added.

Describing the survey as “putting the bar too high”, real estate agent Jeremy Jones said the average household income of RM14,580 per month in the Klang Valley could be applicable to properties valued at RM950,000 to RM1.3mil in strategic locations.

“This is probably to purchase a double-storey house in areas such as Ara Damansara, USJ Heights and Glenmarie, Shah Alam where Sime Darby has developed its housing projects,” said Jones, who is attached to Ramdar Properties.

On whether selected areas in the Klang Valley remain accessible to potential house buyers, Jones said although there was affordable housing in various pockets within the Klang Valley, new buyers tended to look for a new environment and preferred to have their home within a gated-community.

“Therefore, choices for such housing become available to affluent buyers only,” he said.

On Monday, Sime Darby Property Bhd in collaboration with the Faculty of Built Environment of Universiti Malaya released the finding of a study that indicated that house buyers must have an average household income of RM14,580 a month to afford a home in the Klang Valley.

The study was conducted on 1,529 respondents aged between 21 and 60. Ninety-four per cent of them were married and 59% of them worked in the private sector.

Contributed by  G. Surach The Star/Asian News Network

Related stories:
1. Four unit limit for bulk sales by developers
2. Salaries not going up as fast as prices of homes
3. Netizens share their views on property prices

Malaysisia changes over the last 42 years; quanity yes, quality?

The ascend to the throne of our new King, 42 years after he was last installed, is a time to reflect on our achievements.

I WAS at the installation of our new King the other day. Twice as King, he has seen Malaysia change from what it was then and now. He also mentioned in his speech that he witnessed the efforts of the Prime Minister at that time, Tun Abdul Razak, the father of our current Prime Minister.

I sat in the audience, reflecting on some of the positives that have taken place in our country and took some notes on my Blackberry.

The key thought that ran through my mind was how much things have changed over the last 42 years. Here’s how much:

·We moved from a low-income, high-poverty country to a high-middle-income economy. Our next transformation is to become a high-income, developed country with quality of life for everyone.

·Our infrastructure has increased by leaps and bounds. Roads and highways have been built and traverse all parts of the country. We are putting in a mass rapid transit system in Kuala Lumpur to take us to the next level.

·We have modern retail outlets – supermarkets, hypermarkets, shopping complexes, malls and entertainment outlets and we are helping mom-and-pop stores to modernise too.

·We are moving towards greater freedom in all spheres with the repeal of the Internal Security Act, establishing clear rights for peaceful assembly and affirming the rights of online expression and social media liberties, amongst others. The Government has also made amendments to Printing Presses and Publications Act, while the Prime Minister is also talking about changes to the Sedition Act.

·Religious freedom has actually taken strides forward. There is now explicit statement of freedom to import (instead of implicitly before) and publish the Alkitab (the Bible). Indeed, since the 10 points resolution, many Alkitab have been imported and printed locally, without any difficulties with the authorities.

·We have moved to an extensive “social welfare” system e.g free primary and secondary schools, virtually free public health system, and one of the lowest consumer prices for fuel, LPG cooking gas, sugar, electricity, flour, gas, and so on with high subsidies from the Government.

·We have moved to greater focus on rural poor. Under the transformation initiatives, for low-income groups, three million lives were positively impacted in 2010 and 2011.

·We have put up an explicit and substantive roadmap to transform Malaysia further. We will build upon the great achievements we have made between the times of the rules of our current King and work towards our vision 2020 - to make our country a developed one with its people earning high incomes.

Considerable achievement

Just to show the extent our achievements over the last 42 years, I have constructed a table of some key indicators. You can see for yourself how much things have changed, even if you accounted for the fact that a ringgit went a much longer way then.

Our income as a nation – gross national income at the prevailing prices then - increased 64 times over the last 42 years, which is fantastic considering that the population growth over the same period was just 1.6 times.

It’s not surprising therefore that per capita income went up 25 times over the period, a considerable achievement even after taking into account inflation and the drop in value of money.

‘We are putting in a mass rapid transit system in Kuala Lumpur to take us to the next level.’

 

One of the most telling effects of this is that the incidence of poverty has been brought down from nearly half of the population to less than four for every 100 people in the country. That’s tremendous.

The number of schools increased but the impact here would have been understated because while additional schools were built, existing schools would have increased their enrolment considerably.

There was a massive explosion in universities. In 1970, the universities were all public and there were only three. The latest figures indicate that private universities now outnumber government ones almost two to one with 20 public universities and 39 private ones.

A similar situation was seen for hospitals with private hospitals increasing from 46 to 239 while government hospitals rose more moderately from less than 80 to 137.

Average life expectancy, assuming equal numbers of males and female, increased by 17% to 74.1 years, reflecting vast improvement in health levels, which is reinforced by the sharp over 80% drop in the infant mortality rate to seven per 1,000 live births.

World confidence in the Malaysian economy too increased over the 42-year period and this is well-supported by foreign direct investment flows in 2011 of an excellent RM33bil which was 150 times more than that in 1970.

Who would have believed 42 years ago, that Malaysia would make such major achievements in an extremely challenging environment of uncertainty posed by the 1969 racial riots and the drastic and controversial steps that the Government took then to redress racial imbalances and eliminate poverty?

But despite the scepticism and the lack of confidence then, we succeeded and succeeded well. Yes, we could have done better, but then we can always do better and anyone could have done better. What counted was that we met our major targets.

We find similar scepticism now to our efforts to make yet another great transformation, a giant stride to become a developed nation with its citizens earning high incomes and enjoying a better quality of life than ever before.

Promising figures

We aim to do this in a bit more than eight years in a rather challenging and competitive environment. And I dare say we know how to do it. We have it pretty much mapped out in quite some detail.

The initial figures are promising, despite all the nay-saying which continues to give me the transformation blues. But yes, we will rise above the blues as we did before and make this a better nation for each and everyone of us.

The results for 2010 and 2011 are great with most of our targets not just met but exceeded, often by a lot. See the comprehensive annual report on economic and government transformation in the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) website for details.

Rome wasn’t built overnight, likewise Malaysia too. We are blessed as a country. Whilst we know there are shortcomings, we also need to count our blessings even as we overcome the shortcomings and other obstacles.

And we shall overcome – of that I am very sure.

Transformation Blues - By Idris Jala

America’s Vanishing Middle Class

Tweet

E.D. Kain, Contributor




Any analysis of wages earned in prior decades and wages earned today needs to take into account the fact that a lot of non-white-males have entered the workforce. Still, these are troubling numbers from John Cassidy of The New Yorker:

Median earnings for full-time, year-round male workers: 2010—$47,715; 1972—$47,550. That not a typo. In thirty-eight years, the annual earnings of the typical male worker, adjusted to 2010 dollars, have risen by $165, or $3.17 a week.

If you do the comparison with 1973 it is even worse. The figure for median earnings of full-time male workers in that year (when O. J. rushed two thousand yards and Tony Orlando had a chart-topper with “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree”) was $49,065. Between now and then, Archie Bunker and Willie Loman have suffered a pay cut of more than twenty-five dollars a week.

Now check out this chart from Mother Jones:


The gap is only growing wider, and the structural issues at the heart of the gap are becoming more entrenched in this current recession. The problem isn’t with income inequality per se. There will always be income inequality, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing so long as the people at the bottom aren’t living in poverty. The problem is that you reach a certain point where income inequality becomes a destabilizing force both economically and politically.




And while a number of consumer goods have gotten cheaper over the years – like personal computers and all the stuff you can waste time with online – important and essential items like healthcare have gotten much, much more expensive:



Now we can quibble about why costs have risen so much, and really there’s a number of reasons. If you want an in-depth look at those reasons, you should read Aaron Carroll’s series on health costs. One way or another we’re talking about a major expense for middle and working class people, and that’s on top of growing education and housing costs. The big essentials are breaking the bank for many Americans, even if we can afford refrigerators and flat screen televisions.

Does this mean we need more regulation or less? Does it mean we need higher taxes and more redistribution? I would propose a grand bargain along these lines:

• Let’s deregulate the economy as much as possible, eliminating barriers to entry from as many fields as possible, and allowing the DIY economy to flourish. This includes a bunch of supply side stuff in the health sector.
• Let’s do away with the corporate income tax altogether to encourage domestic investment, especially since this tax is just passed along to consumers.
• Let’s reform the progressive tax code to be way more progressive – especially on the top tiers. The top earners in this country can afford to spread the wealth around.
• Let’s get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA and replace them with straight-up single payer health insurance for everyone. Simplify and save money in the process. Take the burden off of employers.
• Let’s let markets do their thing and public options do theirs. We don’t need Romney’s “unemployment accounts” – unemployment insurance works just fine. I’d be more sanguine about private savings accounts if markets weren’t so prone to crashing, but as it stands Social Security just needs some tinkering to be perfectly sustainable.
• We should invest more in our public institutions, from schools to universities to public libraries. We should also invest a lot in our public infrastructure, and we should use higher fossil fuel taxes to make those investments.

That’s a broad sketch – and I do mean sketch – of my basic blueprint for market-social-democracy (or something like it). Less government in how we actually interact with people, whether that’s running a business out of our home or smoking marijuana, coupled with a more focused public sector geared toward providing basic services (transit, healthcare, education, etc.).

Oh, and quit spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on war. Keep those dollars here in America and put them to better use. We can defend our country just fine without getting our nose in everybody else’s business.

Newscribe : get free news in real time