Share This

Sunday, 17 November 2013

China on road to depeen reforms



The Communist Party of China (CPC) has to acknowledge the market's decisive role in allocating resources as it is proven to be the most effective, said President Xi Jinping when explaining a key document about reforms.

China will deepen its economic reform to ensure that the market will play a "decisive" role in allocating resources, according to a decision on major issues concerning comprehensively deepening reforms, approved by the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee on November 12.

Entrusted by the Political Bureau of CPC Central Committee, Xi, also general secretary of CPC Central Committee, explained the decision at the session. His explanation was published in full on Friday.

Xi considered the definition of the market's role a major theoretical achievement of the decision.

A proper relationship between the market and government remains the core of China's economic reform, Xi said.

To build such a relationship is to settle whether the market or government plays a decisive role, he said, adding that the market is proven to be the most effective.

Over the past some 20 years, China has established a socialist market economy but there are lots of problems, Xi admitted.

The market is not orderly and many seek profits through illegal means. The market for key production factors, such as labor, capital and land, are lagging behind, he said.

Market rules are not unified and there are prevailing departmental and regional protectionism, he warned, adding that a lack of full competition stops the inferior from being eliminated.

China has to follow the basic law of the market economy and work on the problems of an underdeveloped market system, excessive government intervention and weak supervision of the market, he said.

Accepting the market's decisive role will help the Party and society develop a correct idea about market-government relations, help the country transform the economic growth pattern, help the government change its functions and help curb corruption, he said.

However, Xi noted that to let the market decide does not mean to let it decide all.

"The socialist market economy needs both the market and government but they play different roles," he said.

The government will maintain a stable macro-economy, provide public services, safeguard fair competition, supervise the market, keep market order, promote sustainable development and step in when the market fails, he said.

The market had been defined as a "basic" role in allocating resources since the country decided to build a socialist market economy in 1992.

For a long period of time after 1949, the idea of market had been a taboo associated with capitalism.

Even after the reform and opening up in 1978, the country had

struggled to define the market and some dogmatists still questioned whether socialism could accommodate the market economy.

It was not until the 14th CPC National Congress held in 1992 that a socialist market economy became a consensus.

At the 15th CPC National Congress in 1997, the Party noted that the market, under state macroeconomic control, should be the basic means of allocating resources.

At the 16th CPC National Congress in 2002, the Party said it should leverage to a greater extent the basic role of the market in allocating resources.

At the 17th CPC National Congress in 2007, the Party decided that it should introduce institutions to give better play to the basic role of market forces in allocating resources.

At the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, the Party said it should leverage to a greater extent and in a wider scope the basic role of the market in allocating resources.

"Now, the CPC Central Committee believes that the condition is ready to bring up a new theoretical expression of this issue," Xi said. - Xinhua

China stays on road to reform 

Staying on course: A souvenir with an image of President Xi Jinping (left) and the late leader Mao Zedong on sale at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, during the meeting of the Central Committee of China’s ruling Communist Party, at which major reforms were discussed. — EPA

THE business of China-watching intensified lately for the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

This was a special occasion in also doubling as the first anniversary of President Xi Jinping’s leadership of the party and of China’s Central Military Commission.

It is a measure of China’s rising global status that such domestic occasions should attract serious worldwide attention. The same does not apply for other countries.

Some analysts believe that the world’s second-biggest economy will, by the end of Xi’s term in a decade, become the world’s biggest – and continue to outpace the US and other economies thereafter.

Since economics remains the prime determinant of a nation’s various attributes, China’s economic achievements are closely watched because they indicate its prowess in other spheres as well.

For this particular occasion, there is another reason for Beijing as the world’s centre of attention – Third Plenums are traditionally the stamping ground for new priorities and directions. That it coincides with a new leadership makes for a packed global gallery.

Speculation about Xi’s leadership peaked in the lead-up to this occasion. Opinion was divided over whether China would lean towards reform and further opening up, or veer towards Maoist conservatism.

Xi’s personal style was no help to the betting classes. In keeping his cards close to his chest, he was not one to telegraph his intentions and preferences ahead of time.

Then there was the complication of the Bo Xilai affair. The fall of the former rising star was said to be a sideshow obscuring internal party politicking.

Bo’s supporters tended to look past his controversial hardline tactics, corruption allegations, his wife’s involvement in murder and his Maoist-inspired opposition to Beijing’s reforms. In his defence, they instead questioned Xi’s commitment to reform.

However, any antipathy Beijing had to Bo would also be averse to a Maoist resurgence and therefore be pro-reform. There was also no question of Xi’s priority in targeting corruption and promoting the rule of law.

Nonetheless, for many the doubts about China’s leadership direction persisted. And the question would be settled by the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee.

Now those who were never in any doubt about Xi’s reform drive feel vindicated. Fence-sitters are also more convinced than ever that Xi and Prime Minister Li Keqiang will take China further along the road of reform.

Doubters are now puzzling over the general nature of official public statements from the plenum. They are stumped by an apparent shortage of specifics.

However, generalities indicate only a lack of details, not a reversal of direction. And given the presence of conservatives like Bo still in the party hierarchy, reformist leaders would do well to avoid advertising their plans to prevent obstruction and sabotage.

Xi is certainly not one to telegraph his intentions and preferences ahead of time. Former Singapore premier Lee Kuan Yew has observed that Xi is not demonstrative while still retaining his affable style.

Besides, Third Plenums of the 21st century have also been less hortatory and more cool and businesslike. A modern China headed by state functionaries rather than ideological patriarchs is where the Xis and Lis are at.

Over the long term, it has been a process of evolution for China’s leadership. In comparisons between Xi-Li and their immediate predecessors Hu-Wen, Xi is said to be more open and approachable.

Xi and Li are also regarded as more purposeful and cosmopolitan, a style that matches the contemporary demeanour of their international counterparts. And style still accounts for much, notwithstanding the weight of official policies and procedures.

Several views from Hong Kong, as expressed through the South China Morning Post newspaper for example, regard Xi’s leadership as clearly Dengist rather than Maoist. That effectively reaffirms the reformist road.

To that extent, this Third Plenum produced no surprises. Continuity and consistency are key to China’s development, and Xi is tasked with ensuring that trajectory in particular.

The polar opposites of Mao and Deng remain a bifurcation – and an ironic one at that. Their differences are strategic and ultimately ideological rather than personal.

Deng the Establishment rebel, the last Long March veteran, the final Paramount Leader and the Other Helmsman who turned China around is still deeply revered, including by the younger generation.

Young professionals and bureaucrats in their 30s, whether in official Beijing, bustling Shanghai or rural Hubei province today have no hesitation to say they are Dengist. They do not denigrate Mao, not even for his excesses and horrors, they just admire his party alter ego.

This is the political status quo of China today. It should therefore be no surprise that the party and state machinery, in carefully reviewing and sifting through contending candidates, has produced leaders that exemplify this bearing.

Thus Xi is no closet Maoist for prescribing self-criticism and attempts at censorship. Some tactics may appear conservative, but the overall strategy is still reformist.

The Third Plenum was clear in promoting the status of the market from “basic” to “decisive.” For this and similar moves, Xi and Li are considered pragmatists in moving modern China forward another notch.

In Beijing today, much of this pragmatism amounts to letting the market determine the economy, allowing the economy to inform governance, and ensuring that good governance safeguards society’s interests through due public regulation.

That also approximates to the “socialist market economy” Deng introduced 35 years ago. Since then, the concept has resulted in moves like cutting red tape, cleaning up a messy credit market and establishing a free trade zone in Shanghai.

Many suspect the best days of Xi’s presidency are at hand. His father is cited as a hero of progressive social development in his time.

Besides the current drive against graft, there is also a campaign against pollution. It is serious enough to require productive heavy industries like steel to cut capacity, with larger plans to move away from polluting sectors in favour of cleaner and more modern industries.

The home-grown company BYD for example not only designs, builds and markets its range of electric vehicles, but also plans to produce vehicle batteries for automobile companies around the world.

China is not only a large and rapidly growing economy, but one focused on the cutting edge of several technologies: ICT, high-speed trains and renewable energies among them.

Earlier this month, a skeptical BBC asked whether this latest Third Plenum will prove as decisive as the ones in 1978 and 1998. The short answer is that it can, depending on the prevailing national interest.

China today differs from the China of Mao’s era in one fundamental respect. The state will now do all it can to meet the nation’s current and future needs while delivering what the government wants, more than simply what the party prefers.

This basic distinction may still escape the understanding of many. The recent Third Plenum has gone some way to rectify that, but proof of it is already evident in recent years.

The rest will come soon enough. The point is that a transforming China with an eye to its future progress has opted for reform not only because it wants to, but more because it has to.

Behind The Headlines by Bunn Nagara

Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) Malaysia. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Friday, 15 November 2013

ABC Network's kids say the darndest things

During a children’s segment in a late night talk show in the United States, a child proposed to wipe out the Chinese as a solution to the US$1.3 trillion (RM4.17 trillion) debt to China. The Chinese were not amused.

 
At the network's office in Houston (top left), Washington and Los Angeles (right).



A POPULAR Chinese idiom, Tong yan wu ji, loosely translated means that one should not take offence at what a child says.

The phrase is used to show that a child should not be taken seriously when he or she utters something improper or inauspicious, especially in an unacceptable manner.

It implies that kids say the darndest things, which are candid and laughable at times.

But when a child proposed to wipe out the Chinese during the Jimmy Kimmel Live show as a solution to the US$1.3 trillion (RM4.17 trillion) debt to China, the Chinese were not amused.

During the ABC Network’s late-night programme that was aired on Oct 16, a segment was dedicated to a group of young children having a light-hearted roundtable discussion.

When host Jimmy Kimmel asked for suggestions on how to pay China back, a blond boy answered, “Shoot cannons all the way over and kill everyone in China,” slamming his hands on the table.

“Kill everyone in China? Okay that’s an interesting idea,” Kimmel responded with a laugh.

Another child suggested building a huge wall to prevent the Chinese from coming after them, to which Kimmel replied, “That will never happen.”

Kimmel later asked the panel of four, “Should we allow the Chinese to live?”

The kids had mixed opinions – the screen showed a girl raising her clenched fist, shouting “Yes!” while the blond boy stood by his earlier answer.

“But if we don’t allow them to live, then they will try to kill us,” said another girl who tried to talk some sense into the boy.

“But they’re all going to be killed (first),” two kids, including the blond boy and the girl who had earlier shouted “yes” out loud, argued.

Kimmel wrapped up the segment, noting that it was an “interesting edition of the Kids Talk – the Lord of the Flies edition”.

(Lord of the Flies, a novel by William Golding, tells the story of how a group of boys govern themselves on a deserted island after a plane crash.)

This particular segment has sparked a backlash with viewers commenting that the skit was racially insensitive.

Protests were staged outside ABC studios, prompting ABC and Kimmel to apologise, but the controversy has not died down.

As of Thursday morning, more than 104,000 online signatures were collected on the White House petitions page, urging the Obama administration to investigate the show.

Since the petition had reached the 100,000-signature threshold in 30 days, the White House was compelled to issue a formal response.

Meanwhile, in China, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang told a press conference that ABC should reflect on its mistake and respond to the Chinese Americans with a sincere attitude.

On Wednesday, China’s state broadcaster CCTV reported that it had received a response from White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden.

“As the President has stated publicly, the United States welcomes the continuing peaceful rise of China. He believes it is in the United States’ interest that China continues on the path of success, because we believe that a peaceful, stable, and pros­perous China is good for the United States, China, and the world.

“The comments reported on the Jimmy Kimmel show do not reflect mainstream views in the United States on China,” she said.

The controversy has also ignited discussions on the Internet as well.

Nick Zhang Xu, who made waves in cyberspace last year with a video of him speaking English in 10 dif­ferent accents, responded with a video titled “Jimmy Kimmel, you owe us an apology”.

Since it was uploaded to Youku – the Chinese equivalent of YouTube – about 20 days ago, it has been viewed more than 35,000 times.

“What kind of education do the kids have in America? They can just shout out loud ‘kill everyone?’” Zhang asked.

“‘This is an interesting idea.’ You find it amusing. You don’t call it wrong in the first place. What’s the matter with you?”

While sending a strong message across, it was hard not to note that Zhang had attempted to inject some humour into the video as well.

“You know what? We can make shows (to defame you) too. We are really good at remaking things.”

Some Youku users threw their support behind Zhang and agreed that the Kimmel’s skit had painted a larger picture on the culture of violence and hatred.

But there were also people who believed that the kids’ comments were harmless and called for fellow Chinese to be less sensitive.

“We place too much emphasis on “saving face” and cannot afford to have others making fun of us. This is just an entertainment programme,” a user said.


Contributed by Check In China Tho Xin Y
The Star/Asia News Network 

Chinese Americans protest across US over Jimmy Kimmel's 'kill Chinese' skit

Thousands of protesters, mostly Chinese, rallied in 27 US cities over a perceived anti-Chinese skit that aired last month in a talk show hosted by comedian Jimmy Kimmel.

A rally in New York, one of 27 cities that saw a protest over the ABC talk show, which aired last month. Photo: SCMP 

Chinese state media reported that protests swept across the United States on Saturday. One was staged at the Los Angeles headquarters of broadcaster ABC, which aired the programme. Participants argued that ABC and Kimmel had not taken full responsibility for what they perceived as an insult to their heritage.

The protesters called for Kimmel to be fired over a segment of his talk show called "Kids' Table" that aired on October 16. Both ABC and Kimmel have since apologised for the episode, in which a six-year-old boy said "kill everyone in China" when asked by Kimmel how the US should pay back the country's US$1.3 trillion debt to China. Kimmel responded: "That's an interesting idea."



However, Chinese-American groups were not impressed. While some accepted the apologies that were offered after the subsequent uproar, others viewed them as insincere and demanded more. Charles Lu, chairman of the Roundtable of Chinese American Organisations, told the Los Angeles Times last week that they wanted a formal apology from ABC not just to the groups protesting, but to all Chinese people around the world.

Online pictures of Saturday's protests showed demonstrators, including college students, parents and children, dressed in red T-shirts with logos reading "Teach kids to love, not to kill", and chanting slogans such as "Kimmel must go" and "Shame on you, ABC".

Chinese Americans express their anger in San Jose, California. Photo: SCMPProtest organisers distributed free posters to demonstrators. One featured Kimmel with a swastika just above his head.
"The protest plays an important role in improving our prestige and national cohesiveness," a Chinese demonstrator in New Jersey said on internet chat room Mitbbs. "The parade is intended to raise the social status of Chinese Americans in the US."

The segment also prompted the submission of a petition to the White House to investigate the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show on the grounds of offensive content. The petition garnered more than 100,000 signatures.

Xinhua said 800 people attended a rally in Washington, where a letter of protest to ABC was read out. The letter urged the broadcaster to fire Kimmel and hold a press conference to officially apologise to Chinese communities. It called on ABC to make sure that such "rhetoric of racial discrimination" was prevented by stepping up regulation of its televised content.

No one from ABC attended the event in Washington to accept the protest letter, reports said. Police were mobilised to maintain order, but the day ended without incident.

The demonstrations are believed to have been the largest held by the Chinese community in the US since those just before the Beijing Olympics in 2008 in response to CNN commentator Jack Cafferty labelling Chinese leaders "goons" and "thugs".

Video: Animators in China to Jimmy Kimmel: Why you shouldn't 'Kill the Chinese'



Contributed By  Keith Zhai keith.zhai@scmp.com

Thursday, 14 November 2013

Malaysian Crime Awareness Campaign

 
The woman kneeing the ‘robber’ in the stomach as seen from a video grab.

 PETALING JAYA: Many would be disappointed to find out that the viral video of a woman putting up a brave fight against snatch thieves in her house compound was, in fact, a mere re-enactment.

The video, which was shared on the Malaysian Crime Awareness Campaign’s Facebook page, clearly states that the video was a re-enactment for educational purposes.

The one-minute video showed a woman parking her car in her house porch, while a motorcycle is seen observing the car as she drives in.

As the woman gets out of her car, the pillion rider gets off the motorcycle and slips into the house compound just before the gate shuts.

He then proceeds to snatch her handbag, but the woman tries to cling on to it. Unable to do so, she retaliates and springs into action, kneeing the robber in the stomach and kicking him to the ground.

She then starts pounding on the man until his accomplice comes to his aid by threatening her with a knife.

She flees into the safety of her house as the crooks left after their failed attempt to rob the woman.

Several users commented on the video which was uploaded on YouTube, including Suraya Khan, who posted: “I salute this girl and wish to react like her in the same situation!”

Related:

1.Crime Awareness Day campaign:

 

2 Malaysian Crime Awareness Campaign | Facebook

3."Bangsar Village Kidnapping - Simple Self Protection Tips For Malaysian Crime Awareness Campaign":
 
Related post: 
MyDistress application

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

MyDistress application


MyDistress app has been very useful 

I STRONGLY feel that the police should reintroduce the MyDistress application.

At about 4.30pm on Nov 4, my daughter and her friend had an encounter with a road bully in Shah Alam.

She has the MyDistress application on her phone but she was unable to use it as the application was discontinued by the police.

The man was very aggressive and began kicking her friend’s car when they stopped. He even spat at the lady driver’s face. This was over a lane-cutting incident.

She called me and I advised her to proceed to the nearest police station.

I then dialled 999 and got the operator who asked me too many questions about the incident. Where was the exact location of my daughter, etc?

How would I know their location when they were driving towards a police station?

If my daughter could trigger her MyDistress app, the police would have known her location.

I had on three occasions used MyDistress.

In the first instance, my neighbour, a senior police officer, called to tell me that he had cornered a burglar. I pressed the button on my phone for MyDistress which sent a signal that I had an emergency in my house. The police called and I told them it was my neighbour’s house. Within minutes two patrol cars arrived.

In the second incident, I was on my way to KL Sentral in a Komuter train at around 2pm when my wife, a teacher, called to say she saw a man jumping over our fence.

The train was near Bangsar. I triggered MyDistress. The police called and informed that they had despatched men. On reaching home there were two patrol cars and the police were taking a statement from my wife. What a relief!

In the third occasion, I was praying in a surau at a petrol station in Puchong when I saw a man with a bag and an axe.

I triggered MyDistress. Again the police called to know my whereabouts. Within minutes they arrived and questioned the man.

Kudos for the police with MyDistress.

Contributed by SAMAD RAHIM Shah Alam The Star/Asia News Network

Read more: 

1. MyDistress | MyDistress 
MyDistress is a personal safety application designed based on smart technologies ... the use of MyDistress application and how it works quickly and accurately. 
2.Application Guideline | MyDistress
3.How To Download | MyDistress

Related posts:
1.  Rightways Technologies: Design application: 'Watch over me' created by abduction survivor 
2. Crime Watcher shot, banker killed; are Malaysia sliding to a state of lawlessness?

Sunday, 10 November 2013

Property gain tax won't hurt genuine buyers


Banning DIBS is the right move

FOR many years, the National House Buyers Association (HBA) has been urging the Government to take measures to stem the steep rise in property prices to avoid a “homeless generation” as current property prices are far beyond the reach of many low and middle-income families in urban and suburban areas.This is a ticking time bomb that will result in many social problems if left unchecked.


Real Property Gains Tax (RPGT)

The announcement of the revised rate of tax on gains made in the disposal of properties, namely, the Real Property Gains Tax (RPGT), formerly known as the Anti Speculation Act, under Budget 2014 is far more superior to what had been proposed under Budget 2013 (See table above)

This is because, typically, if the property is purchased directly from the developer, it takes two years (for landed properties) and three years (for strata properties) to be completed.

Hence, under the previous RPGT, speculators could purchase properties from property developers upon their launch and then flip these properties on completion (after two years) and having to pay 10% (i.e. within the 3rd to 5th year).

It is hoped that the revised RPGT rate will deter speculators and, at the same time, not punish genuine house buyers who buy for their own stay or long-term investment. It is worth noting that buyers of residential property could seek a once-in-a-lifetime exemption from the tax.

Budget 2014 is best described as an “excellent mathematical formula” to curb the unbridled escalation of house prices, which has in the last three years skyrocketed. The Government has taken a step in the right direction with measures to slow down the steep rise in property prices due to false demand caused by excessive speculation fuelled by easy housing loans and the previously low RPGT.


Foreign purchasers to pay more

HBA applauds the move to increase the minimum price of property that can be purchased by foreigners from RM500,000 to RM1mil. Foreigners must be prevented from “snapping up” property meant for the lower and middle income.

This artificially inflates prices and creates a domino effect which can result in higher property prices across the industry. This is especially true for development corridors such as Iskandar Malaysia which has seen foreign purchasers arriving in droves and scooping up properties with their advantageous exchange rate.


Banning the Developer Interest-Bearing Scheme (DIBS) 

DIBS is popular with speculators as they pay nothing to make a profit. Their initial down-payments and deposits are sometimes factored into the purchase price by the collusive developers, and some unethical financial institutions do not even require that the developer collect the deposit that has to be paid by the so-called purchaser.

This is one of the factors which induces “bogus” house buyers (which I have written about in this column on Aug 31 entitled: Of Speculators and bogus house buyers) who merely flip the property at the right time.

Kudos to Bank Negara for heeding our call and banning DIBS. It may be worth noting that Singapore banned DIBS in 2009.

Considering the deep pockets of property speculators, the effectiveness of these measures remain to be seen. However, they are expected to make speculation unworthwhile. HBA praises the Prime Minister for putting a stop to DIBS, which is one of the reasons attributed to the steep increase in property prices for three reasons:

1. DIBS encourages speculation as the house buyer does not need to “service” any interest/instalment during the construction stage. This will “lure” and tempt many house buyers to speculate and buy into DIBS projects hoping to flip on completion and make a quick profit with little or no capital upfront. Connivingly, the interest element is “serviced” by the participating developers.

2. DIBS artificially inflates prices as all interests borne by the developer are ultimately imputed into the property price. This in turn creates a domino effect which pulls up property prices in surrounding locations.

3. Bank and financial institution staff conniving with developers using the DIBS model should be investigated on their “modus operandi” in financing those artificially inflated prices (DIBS + sales price) and ignoring guidelines on prudent lending.

Banks and financial institutions are to be prudent and only provide mortgage financing up to the fair value/market value of the property. In this respect, a benchmark of fair value or market value is the current properties available. Somehow, properties sold under DIBS are always priced much higher; 15% to 20% higher compared with those without DIBS.

For standard condominiums costing RM500,000 without DIBS, should the developer market such properties under DIBS, the selling price could be as high as RM650,000. This creates a potential property bubble should the developer default in “servicing” the interest and the borrower/purchaser also defaults. The bank would only be able to recover up to RM500,000 if the said property is auctioned at market value.

In the event of an economic downturn, banks saddled with too much DIBS end-financing could collapse as the losses from such DIBS end-financing will erode the banks’ capital.

The collapse of just one bank/financial institution could cause a systemic collapse of the entire financial industry.

Bank Negara should take action against such bank and financial institution staff who have provided both project financing and end-financing to DIBS projects under the newly-minted Financial Services Act, 2013.

With the RPGT increase, banning of the DIBS and the Government’s aspiration to supply more ‘ownership housing schemes’ at affordable pricing, it is hoped that speculative demand for properties will stabilise to a more realistic level. I have heard that many businessmen do not do business anymore but indulge in property speculation as a livelihood and for income.

It is akin to the stock market dealings that were rampant during a ‘bull run’. Certain things have to be stopped before they become worse like the sub-prime crisis in the US.

If readers were to take a drive around completed projects, they will find signboards advertising units for sale upon the delivery of keys. If the purchaser is purchasing for his own occupation, why is there this need to put up these signboards or appoint estate agents to dispose of the units? It goes to show that some purchasers are merely speculators (not investors) from day one and the banks and financial institutions choose to “close one eye” despite knowing this.

Have the banks ever gone to the ground to check whether the units purchased and financed are actually “owner occupied”? If the property is “owner occupied”, the risk rating is lower and thus, he enjoys a lower interest rate. But if it is non-owner occupied, it should have higher interest rates. Borrowers of “owner occupied” properties are normally required to make a declaration to that effect to enjoy a lower interest rate.

But does the bank participate in this booking of credit risk?

If the property is non-owner occupied, the lending will fall under ‘real estate classification’ and not ‘housing’.

So, there may even be misreporting to Bank Negara and subsequent national statistics.

This column continues next week.

- Contributed by Chang Kim Loong

CHANG KIM LOONG is the honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association (www.hba.org.my), a non-profit, non-governmental organisation (NGO) manned by volunteers. He is also an NGO Councillor at the Subang Jaya Municipality Council.

Related posts:
1. New tax rate on property to keep away flippers
2. Malaysia's high property taxes may not stop prices going up, sub-sales residential houses likely to soar!
3. Malaysia Tax Budget 2014 Updates