In my experience this is not the only case of agent misrepresenting, I have personally met 2 such instance.

In one of the case whereby the owner is malay, the agent said to me where got bumi units in this condo, its all non bumi already when sold. That's pretty suspicious by itself so when I asked for the s&p to give it a check, the agent retracted and said to confirm with the owner first where its bumi unit or not.

Yes, I do think that bumi units are hard to move, so sell it harder but in a moral way. Some agents just like unscrupulous that ..

Another fav tactic of theirs are to advertise lower price in iProperty or any other place, and once we made a call, the unit is usu sold, even when you are making the call on the very same day the advert is posted,
and they'll proceed to push a similar unit with a price tag far higher than posted. Very very frustrating to deal with people like that....

Well said. I believe in time, racial politics and policies have no place in Malaysia, time favor multiracial parties in the sense that society can only move upwards in sophistication over time.

Along with bumi quota, I hope leasehold status too. Its really unnecessary burden to homestayers and is only here because of the legacy of an old british system.

Okie well.. in my limited knowledge,
leasehold land really ONLY exist in commonwealth nations, and it varies in slightly different forms in each countries, some
will allow only up to 30 years or 50 years of lease (thailand, sg), in Malaysia its commonly 99 years while S'wak is 30 yrs if not mistaken.
But in UK itself, lease will extend up to 999 years.

'Leasing' the land comes from feudal system really, where no commoners actually 'owns' the land, they merely 'borrow' it while giving
tithes to the land owners.

While in modern UK this is still in force, at least 999 years is acceptable in terms of preserving the value long enough.
Some project locally while taking into account the holding period & construction period, it can be less than 90 years left..

Further to add, renewing the lease takes into calculation the value of the land WHEN the lease is renewed. The current market price
is used regardless of whether you bought it 50 years ago or not. Is this fair to leasehold land holders vs freehold?

This post has been edited by 1ullaby: Mar 7 2011, 12:04 AM

Alright, communist legacy systems aside, as you cant expect to own something if the policy is everything to be "shared equal".
Regardless of whether we have more freehold than leasehold in the past, the government can actually do something to it instead
of making things complicated. Come on, why maintain a policy that burdens the system when not every mechanism is oiled and greased?
And to serve what purpose?

For PJ case it the end its still to the discretion of the state government. Else at current PJ land price, it will be bad ... whether 2/3 or 1/10,
its still at current market price, whereby the people are supposely the owner of the land.
Case by case basis yes, residential land remains hopeful for premium reduction, but why put this burden on the people ..
For something that is uncertain, the value gets discounted ..

This post has been edited by 1ullaby: Mar 7 2011, 12:22 AM