1.

ABSTRACT

The Malaysian housing industry landscape is developing and growing in complexity,

with increasing demand, growing competition and frequent reports of abandoned
projects, poor quality and delayed delivery. Government in Malaysia have tried to
mitigate the problem of housing inconsistency over the last three decades. This paper
has highlighted that a practical housing policy in Malaysia should attempt to resolve
the contradictions of housing delivery in the housing market. The suggestion to
implement the Build-Then-Sell (BTS) Housing Delivery System by the Malaysian
government is an effort to confront the problem in Malaysia. However, it needs the
cooperation of housing developers who have been used to the system of first selling
the houses and then building them, known as the Sell-Then-Build (STB) system.

Keywords: Housing delivery, Housing delivery system, Housing policies, Restrictions,

Malaysia

2.0

INTRODUCTION

Improving customer satisfaction is recognized as a critical success factor to all

companies. In this context, the Malaysian housing industry has had to address the
major sources of house buyers dissatisfaction in the wake of an alarming incidences
of abandoned projects, delays, defective houses and shoddy workmanship (Khalid,
2010). In the housing industry, delivery system form one of the keystones of customer
satisfaction. The prevalent Sell-Then-Build (STB) delivery system is a major source
of late delivery and defects caused by shoddy workmanship besides inferior-quality
building materials (Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 2009). In view of the
persistent manifestation of unfavourable housing projects, the Build-Then-Sell (BTS)
system was implemented to mitigate the problem. As the immediate aim of developers
is to sell their houses, choosing effective delivery systems to improve sales and
address customer satisfaction and others issues are of utmost importance.

Over the last few years, many communities have revealed their rising conflict
over the governments perceived reduced levels in housing delivery. These issues
have become common news items and are highly broadcasted and politicised.
Housing is a highly politicised and argumentative issue, especially in developing
countries like Malaysia, which experience rapid development and as a result,
enormous competition for housing exists. Although shelter is a basic human need, it is
also more than that: housing is about everything other than houses. It is about the
availability of land, about access to credit, about affordability, about economic
growth, about social development, about environment (Leung, Hui, & Seabrook,
2007). In addition to these, it also suggests getting access to services and
infrastructure, as well as generating feelings of security and pride in living in a home.
Public and private developers and co-operative societies constitute the three
parties that are involve in developing housing projects in Malaysia. Housing
development by these groups is centred on economic planning established by the
government through the Five-Year Malaysian Plans. With nine economic plans being
implemented to date, housing development in Malaysia has undergo various stages
with focusing on different priorities at each stage. Beside enhancing quality of life,
these housing projects also produce economic generating processes (Chau, Wong &
Yiu, 2007). Housing development, being part of the property sector, contributes
significantly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As depicted in Table 1, data from
NAPIC (2009) illustrates the property sectors contribution to the GDP, the least being
6.32 % in 2005.

Table 1.1 Property Sector: Significant Contributor GDP

Property Sector: Significant Contributor GDP
2005
2006
GDP (RM Mil)
49,250
475,192
Value of Transaction
(RM Mil)
Property Transactions/
GDP

2007
505,353

2008
528,804

2009
528,860

8,407

28,697

36,490

41,307

41,841

6.32%

6.04%

7.22%

7.81%

7.91%

Source: Key Economic Indicators, NAPIC (2009)

In essence, the housing sector contains two-pronged objectives: one is to

construct buildings and secondly, is to construct correlated infrastructure. The growth
of housing development in Malaysia has been impressive despite numerous restraints
and weaknesses. Reports provide evidence that the housing industry has developed
enormously with time, particularly in the private sector which has been given the
order to spearhead housing development in Malaysia.

Figure 1.1 Residential Supply in Malaysia from 2009 to 2013

Source: Property Market Report 2013

Housing development, which is further divided into landed and non-landed

property, involves a major sector of the construction industry (Yong, 2006). Landed
properties include the construction of single-storey and double-storey terrace houses;
2 storey terrace houses; semi-detached houses; bungalows and house types which
are constructed on individual, independent plots. On the contrary, non-landed
properties constitute high rise buildings such as flats, apartments, condominiums and
townhouses where each individual owner obtains a strata title as joint owner of the
land on which the construction is built.

Figure 1.2 Summary of Supply of Housing Stock by Units and Types

Source: Property Market Report 2013

Housing delivery framework includes housing construction or housing supply

and the exchange channels that intervene in the market process and impact supply and
demand. In the housing construction, developers are the main supplier of housing
units as they are an agent of change for the physical land use to housing construction,
and gather all the required resources and supervise development process completion
and sold. Malaysia has unique housing policies which not only necessary to deliver
150,000 housing residential units per year to fulfil forecast demand, developers also
need to meet approved conditions for the supply of low cost social housing as well as
social engineering in the form of Bumiputera discounts.
In Malaysia, there are two types of delivery systems currently, namely the
Sell-Then-Build (STB) and Build-Then-Sell (BTS). The STB is a more common
concept in many Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan.
Literature about STB reveals its existence in Malaysia for more than four decades
(Yusof et al., 2007). Even though the STB system has fruitfully supplied houses in
Malaysia, the cumulative difficulties faced by STB house buyers have forced the
government to find a solution and initiate a more effective housing delivery system
such as the novel Build-Then-Sell (BTS) approach.

3.0

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1

Housing Delivery System

3.1.1

Sell-Then-Build

A critical feature of the Sell-Then-Build (STB) system is that it permits developers to

sell the housing units and collect progress payments after they get advertisement
authorisations from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) (Yusof
et al., 2010). These incomplete houses might be sold at the planning or construction
stage (Leung, et al., 2007). An unbuilt house is promoted and sold when the potential
buyer is shown a plan, an attractive brochure or a model house. Nevertheless, the
design and workmanship may not necessarily be the same as the actual house that is
going to be completed in the future.
Interested buyers are obligated to submit 10 percent of the price of the house
as a deposit to the developers after signing the Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA).
This is followed by regular payments in compliance with the construction progress
(Leung et al., 2007; Yusof & Shafiei, 2011). The SPA, which is the agreement
between a buyer and a developer, shapes the buyers agreement to buy the house and
the undertaking to make progress payments (Leung et al., 2007c; Yusof et al., 2010).
Progress payments are returned directly by banks to the projects Housing
Development Account when it is certified that the house has achieved specific stages
of completion (Yusof & Shafiei, 2011). House buyers will be granted the title to the
property after all the payments are made and after the application to get the Certificate
of Completion and Compliance (CCC) has been referred to the local authorities
(Yusof et al., 2007).
In Malaysia, the STB system has been effective in fulfilling the housing needs
for all income groups for over 40 years (Yusof et al., 2010). In specific, this system is
advantageous to the developer as it increases and improves the cash flow of the
housing development and the payments obtained in the presales can be used for
reinvestment in other construction projects (Leung et al., 2007). To the buyers, the

system is believed to offer differing choices in terms of the desired location, size and
facilities.

Despite its merits, the STB system also has intrinsic risks such as the risk that
is transferred on to the buyers by the developers in respect of the capital required for
the uncompleted houses (Leung et al., 2007). House-buyers are deeply impacted
financially if they borrow from banks to cover progress payments. They need to
afford the monthly payments and also the interest for the two or three years which is
the minimum period for the project to be completed. In the meantime, they have to
pay rent for their current accommodation, which contributes to their expenses if
developers fail to complete the project on time (Yusof et al., 2010). Consequently,
based on a purely rational perspective, the STB system can be burdensome to house
buyers.
Moreover, developers are prone to take advantage of the STB system (Yusof et
al., 2010). Complaints from the house buyers range from shoddy workmanship,
delayed completion and abandoned projects (Chau et al., 2007; Leung et al., 2007;
Yusof et al., 2007). The practice of the STB system that lets just about anyone to be
developers may cause some serious consequences, such as the possibility that a
project is abandoned or cannot be resumed (Yusof & Shafiei, 2011). This rampant
problem is evidenced by statistics from MHLG which shows that in 2001 alone,
80070 house-buyers faced abandonment of the projects of their purchased homes
(HBA, 2004). The house buyers are the hardest hit when developers run away without
completing the project due to financial problems (Yusof et al., 2010).
Much has also been said about the quality of STB houses. Fen, (2007)
suggests a strong fundamental connection exist among early down payment, the
incapability to observe the developers at work in the construction stage and the
developers poor quality workmanship. Leung at al. (2007) argues that potential
buyers are frequently given imprecise, inadequate or even ambiguous information in
the presale brochures and show house. This is augmented by HBA (2005) which
suggests that the widely promoted model house is not a rational pointer of the quality
of the actual unit. Yusof and Shafiei (2011) conclude that the agreement signed
between developers and house buyers upon the purchase of the house requires certain

standards, though this agreement has little influence on the quality of the constructed
house. Due to these problems in the STB system and in a bid to protect the rights of
house-buyers, many stakeholders in the housing industry have challenged the
implementation of the STB as an effective housing delivery system in Malaysia
(Yusof et al., 2010).

3.1.2

Buy-Then-Sell

Since STB takes many critics from customers, it was mandatory upon
practitioners in the housing and construction industry to scale up provisions of the
housing delivery systems. As a result, the idea of applying the BTS system was deeply
debated over two decades (Yusof et al., 2010) until the government proclaimed that
the new BTS system would run in parallel with the conventional STB system for a
two-year trial period in 2007. This was an effort to solve the problem of abandoned
housing projects as well as enhance the quality of housing yet deliver greater
protection to house buyers (Yusof & Shafiei, 2011). In essence, the BTS system
requires developers to sell the house only after it is completely built in the completed
property market with the CCC readily issued (Yusof et al., 2010; Leung et al., 2007).

In Malaysia, there are two types of BTS, namely which are 100 percent BTS
and Partial BTS (Yusof et al., 2007). In 100% BTS, buyers are not obligated to pay
any down payment or any progress payments. Developers can sell the house only after
the house is completely built with the CCC issued. This system is advantageous to
house-buyers who have the opportunity to assess the house before buying it (Yusof et
al., 2007). The 100 percent BTS slightly different from partial BTS whereby partial
BTS allow developers to sell the house with a certain amount charged as down
payment and the rest to be paid only when the house is finish constructed.

The government has permitted the partial BTS incorporating the 10:90 BTS
model. The model instructs that house-buyers have to pay 10 percent of the contract
price as a deposit after the signing of SPA which is put in a stakeholder account to be
returned to developers once they have completed the houses (Yusof et al., 2007). The

remaining is to be paid after the house is completed together with the CCC granted to
the house-buyers (Yusof et al., 2007). The 10:90 BTS model is a integration of the
STB and the BTS model, with the 10 percent deposit functioning as the purchasers
bond to the contract.

As demonstrated by the previous discussion, contrary to STB that utilizes the

periodic instalment payment method, the BTS system necessitates developers to
discover a substitute source of project financing. In this case, developers have to be
financially sound before starting a project (Yusof et al., 2010) to evade the
abandonment of projects. Moreover, in this new system developers have to be more
systematized, in that they must be more careful about completion time and the quality
of the houses they build. This system may mitigate the problems in STB, hence
eventually give more protection to the house-buyers (Yusof & Shafiei, 2011).

There are thus significant differences between the BTS and STB systems.
Basically in BTS, house-buyers have the chance to observe and evaluate the house as
the primary step towards house-purchasing. The house buyers may consider to buy if
the house meets their requirements and expectations which fulfil their level of
satisfaction. Whether it is pure BTS or partial BTS, the risk is not onerous to house
buyers. The need for substitute delivery systems that adapt effective housing
construction practices has been acknowledged worldwide. For instance, the BTS
system has also been launched towards this objective in various countries, specifically
the UK, USA, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Long and China. The BTS model
as practised internationally can be categorised under three groups i.e. 100 percent
BTS, variant BTS and lastly, Build and Sell (BAS).

3.2

Barriers and Restrictions of Housing Delivery

3.2.1

Finance

Funders are cautious of the cost and difficulty of developing in Malaysia and will be
concerned by practices and policies that intensify risk and uncertainty. For instance,
the increased use of affordable housing appraisal mechanisms signifies a risk of
future, often unsealed, additional costs. This can discourage funders or increase the
cost of capital. Additionally, the larger the bureaucratic requirements levied before a
development can start, the more ambiguity that is existed for developers and hence the
less likely they are to fund and the more costly funding will be. The World
Bank/International Finance Corporation showed that there are many processes to be
followed and the whole process of handover last up even almost 1 year in developed
and developing countries. This is demonstrated that in the delay in processing
certificate of completion and compliance, which is a measure of bureaucratic
processes associated with Malaysia land administration practices. The delay is
distinguishable to the movement of files from one office table to the other. It is
supposed that some land owners would choose to remain to operate in the informal
market rather than stride through the web of bureaucratic procedures associated with
title processing. This involves not upsetting to process and register their title
documents thereby effectively avoiding themselves out from accessing mortgage
finance and its substantial negative impact on housing delivery in Malaysia.

3.2.2

Third Party Land

Assembling large sites will frequently include obtaining third party interests which
can be costly and time consuming. At its most simple it may be waiting for a lease
expiry, or purchasing a freehold interest. This can increase ransom situations and

create delay where there is no time pressure on the vendor. The use of local
authorities powers would speed up land assembly however authorities are unwilling
to do so which leads to costly, lengthy and cumbersome process. Where a site is in an
area designated for development,, there should a assumption of using authority
powers and early commitment to do so.

3.2.3

Infrastructure Provision

Infrastructure provision can be vital to allow a development to proceed, but housing

delivery is not in the control of the developer. If developers are no longer able to
deliver infrastructures that they have beforehand, this can impact on when
development can be delivered or occupied, or the quality of the place created.
Delivery of utilities and infrastructures can prolong development, especially in growth
areas where there is a lot of new developments. The issue tends to be one of capacity
with delays to connection, which can be worsened by poor communication with
suppliers. Delivery of more strategic infrastructure, such as transport, will be
dependent on ensuring the funding, powers and delivery which can take years or even
decades but is critical to unlock many strategic sites in Malaysia. This constraint has
been identified as one of the critical factors to housing delivery provision. There is no
gain saying the fact that provision of infrastructural facilities like roads, water,
electricity, sewerage systems and comprehensive city planning and development
engenders capacity building and stimulates the private sector to get on housing
provision. However, successive administrations have failed to provide this basic
infrastructural facilities resulting in increasing urban poverty, housing shortages, poor
infrastructure and poor sanitation in the face of rapid urbanization of Malaysia.

3.2.4

Skills and Labours

The complexity of major developments necessitates an extensive range of highly

technical skills, employed directly by developers and through consultants. The
industry is highly cyclical and shrinks significantly in recession and struggles to
recover as the market does. In a growing market development can be delayed as it

takes time to employ the key personnel and attain technical advice and assessments.
Similarly, engaging adequate labour in a buoyant market can be challenging. The
industry needs to put more effort in promoting and advertising careers in construction
and development, including apprenticeship opportunities.

3.2.5

Increasing Land for Housing

In spite of the housing delivery crisis and need for the public sector to raise funds,
public sector land is not being released quickly enough for development. Public land
should be instantly released to deliver new homes, including affordable homes.
Disposals should value delivery and quality as much as price. To make sure that
disposals are efficient for the authority and those tendering, especially smaller
developers, authorities should be taking mitigation steps to avoid burdensome,
lengthy and expensive bidding processes that have the effect of limiting the number of
interested parties.

3.2.6

Lack of Secure Access to Land

Land is a critical element in the property development process and its accessibility is
important to efficient and sustainable housing delivery. Land accessibility, according
to Omirin (2007) involves land tenure security, land affordability, land availability and
the ease with which land is acquired. Extensive and intensive literature pursuits reveal
agreement among analysts that approachability to land postures the greatest struggle
to urban housing production in many developing countries, like Malaysia. Evidence
abound in urbanization studies in developing countries to support the fact that where
even if land has been made available, the poor is able to provide themselves with
some form of housing. Thus of all the ingredients of housing, land is of dominant
importance. Getting access to land for building construction in Malaysia is a very big
challenge since land allocation procedures is embedded with so much corruption that
only land speculators who are ready to pay huge amounts as bribe get land allocated
to them directly from the government. This land is consequently put into the open

market and only those who can pay so much and can afford the land from the
speculators end up getting the land. This high cost is perpetually transferred to
whoever that will either rent or buy the property when it is eventually constructed.

3.2.7

High Construction Cost

Land is expensive to obtain as it is usually sourced from either the government or the
traditional land owners. Either way, land does not get directly to those who need them
for housing development. As a result of this, by the time it gets to the soon-to-be
developer, the land is attained at very expensive and exuberant rate that will increase
the cost of the construction which regularly build houses expensive and delivery a
challenge. Besides, high costs of providing infrastructure like roads, drainages,
electricity, portable water and telecommunications are expensive to put in place in
Malaysia. For a developer to deliver decent and habitable housing he will need to
provide infrastructure which often cost more expensive. Most areas remain
undeveloped and anyone who is interested in developing a house will have to sort out
his own utilities like buying his own transformer and this naturally will be transmitted
to the final cost of delivering the houses.

3.2.8

Development Control

The process of development control includes the regulation of the detailed aspects of
physical development. There are two levels of development control, one is the macro
and the micro. At the macro level, the aim is to control the subdivision of land. The
subdivision plan should be drawn at the adequate scale and details. At the micro level,
the objective is to control the development of the individual plot and structure within
the sub-division. At the level of individual, development control fundamentally
involves the designing of building plan to satisfy specified standards and ensuring that
the actual development imitates to the approved plan. At the macro level
indiscriminate subdivision of plots is taking place daily in low density layouts in the
state. At the micro level it takes between half to 1 year or more for a plan to be

permitted. Numerous relevant and irrelevant documents are required for plan approval
by the town planning authorities in the state like Environmental Impact Assessment
Report (EIA), undertaken of a Structural Engineer to supervise the construction and
unreceipted approval/processing fee. The foregoing identified administrative
corruption, bureaucratic bottlenecks pushes up the cost of approval thereby negatively
impacting housing delivery by the private sector.
3.2.9

Bureaucracy in approval processes

The procedure for getting approval for housing development is spiked with so much
difficulties that approvals take decades to be granted. In some cases greedy and
corrupt approval authorization deny sincere uncompromising developers approval
until they have been made to part with gigantic sum of money to facilitate the
approval. This problem contributes immensely to the challenges in housing delivery
in Malaysia.

3.2.10 Absence of professional advice

The unwillingness of some prospective house owners to engage and pay professionals
is also a major impediment to housing delivery in Malaysia. Most house owners in a
bid to cut cost do not seek professional advice on the best approach for their building
projects. They are most times ill advised by quacks into venturing into housing
projects that fail as a result of poor planning, under costing, use of wrong construction
methodology as well as use of poor quality building materials.

3.2.12

Housing Development Process

Basically, the housing development process involves three main stages (Mohd and
Alias, 2011); the process begins with the pre-development process (planning stage),
followed by the construction stage, and finally, the post construction stage. Every
stage involves various activities and processes, yet, the most crucial part is the
planning phase. The most important process in the pre-development stage is the
approval of the application for the proposed development (Ball, 2010). A developer

must first obtain all the planning approvals before any physical work can commence
on site, along with prior to issuance of any advertising permit by the relevant
authorities (Abdullah, Harun and Abdul Rahman, 2011); due to the thorough
assessment by various departments, this process can be quite time-consuming.

Figure 3.1 Building Licensing and Delivery Process

4.0

CONCLUSION

Housing policy is extremely important in directing the housing process in order to

form well integrated neighbourhoods, containing of quality housing units with decent
access to resources and facilities. It is clear that the housing policy is oppressed with
difficulties and constraints, in trying to align policy with practice. Issues such as
urbanisation and migration intensify the difficulties confronted by government in
addressing the housing backlogs. As a result, many households are not able to afford
or purchase a house independently and need assistance in the form of subsidies and/or
support.
Furthermore, the process of distribution and delivery itself is also a highly
antagonistic and debateable issue, inherently plagued by similar difficulties. The
concerns include integrated housing environments have not been shaped to
satisfactory level, beneficiaries do not always consider their houses to be assets,
limited participation from the financial sector in financing low-income households,
under-spending on budget by housing departments, growth of informal settlements
and finally, housing needs to be provided in the context of a decreasing household
size.
Moreover, Malaysias historical situation, urbanisation and migration, financial
restraints and absence of suitable, available land and buildings, were discussed as
additional challenges influencing housing delivery. Housing allocation and delivery is
an intricate process that is significantly dependent on capacity and resources,
especially on a local government level. Desperation by many to obtain a house and

the services and infrastructure, complicate housing lists and delivery processes as
families move to new housing opportunities.
The future of housing development and delivery is expected to be determined
by the incorporation of government policy on sustainability, the inheritances of the
economic downturns and the rapid evolution of innovative technologies in the short
and medium terms. For developers to remain nimble, structural modifications and
flexible alterations must be implemented, especially during difficult times and when
there is a lack of government intervention.

Through well understanding of government policies, Malaysian housing

developers can convincingly expect to improve their competitiveness and
concurrently provide housing products that are reasonably priced and deliver housing
developments that are more cost-effective while still reaching the prerequisite return
on investment. It is recommended that the outstanding housing developer is the one
who can convert risks into opportunities and is capable to adapt to the shifting
business, social and legal environments while conducting the organisation through the
challenges it faces. A widespread programme of transformation is thus required to
accommodate such requirements of the successful Malaysian housing developers
because they are the key movers and the backbone of national development.
The impact of learning-based experience should become the central feature of
planning to show future challenges. Perhaps, together with REHDA, government
officials can established visionary yet practical long-term plans to solve housing
delivery problems because, in many cases, REHDA plays a fundamental function in
connecting relevant issues between the homebuilders and government officials. In the
meantime, the government should earnestly anticipate creating a supportive
environment to improve the competitive advantage of private housing developers via
the necessary policy changes that will deliver multilateral benefits for the government,
homebuyers and housing developers.
Being the fourth largest industry in Malaysia, real estate development plays a
crucial role in stimulating economic growth. Due to the importance of housing, the

government must review and revised certain regulations seriously deemed unfairly
disadvantageous to private housing developers. Eventually, all parties (i.e.,
government, industry players and citizens) stand to benefit from broad-minded, fair
and balanced policies. The establishment of novel approaches and procedures will
certainly predict well for the steady growth of the national economy.

5.0

REFERENCES

Abdul Aziz, A.R., Ho, S.Y. and Jaafar, M. (2006). Competitive resources of private
housing developers: The Malaysian perspective. Journal of Engineering,
Design and Technology, 4(1): 7180.
Abdullah, A.A., Harun, Z. and Abdul Rahman, H. (2011). Planning process of
development project in the Malaysian context: A crucial brief overview.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1(2): 7481.
Abdullahi, B.C. and Wan Abdul Aziz, W.N.A. (2011). Pragmatic housing policy in the
quest for low-income group housing delivery in Malaysia. Journal of Design
and Built Environment, 8: 2138
Ball, M. (2010). The Housebuilding Industry: Promoting Recovery in Housing
Supply. London: Communities and Local Government (CLG)
Chau, K.W., Wong, S.K. & Yiu, C.Y., (2007). Housing quality in the forward
contracts market. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34,313-325.
Fen, N. L. (2007). Determinant factors of implementing build then sell in Malaysia:
Housing developers point of view. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang,
Malaysia.
Gyourko, J., Saiz, A. and Summers, A. (2008). A new measure of the local regulatory
environment for housing markets: The Wharton residential land use regulatory
index. Urban Studies, 45(3): 693729.

House Buyer Association Malaysia. (2002). The house buyers association outlines the
common problems facing the housing industry development industry today.
New Straits Time
Key Economic Indicators, Economic Planning Unit: Property Market Report 2009,
NAPIC
Khalid, M. S. (2010). Abandoned housing development: The Malaysian experience.
Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh.
Leung, B., Hui, E., & Seabrook, B. (2007). Pricing of presale properties with
asymmetric information problems. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio
Management, 13(2), 139-152.
Maruani, T. and Amit-Cohen, I. (2011). Characteristics of developers and their
relations to open space conservation. Land Use Policy, 28(4): 887897.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government. (2009). Housing in the new millennium Malaysian perspective.
Mohd, I., Ahmad, F. and Wan Abdul Aziz, W.N. (2009). Exploiting town planning
factors in land development: Case study of urban housing in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management, 7(4): 307318
Mohd, T. and Alias, B. (2011). The role of housing planning practices in contributing
towards housing oversupply. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 59: 767775.
Omirin, M.M. (2007). Issues in land accessibility in Nigeria. Proceedings of a
national workshop on land management and property tax reform in Nigeria,
Department of Estate Management,University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Property Market Report 2013, Valuation and Property Services Department
Yusof, N.A. (2007). Pemaju swasta dan perumahan kos rendah. Pulau Pinang:
Penerbit Universiti Malaysia.
Yusof, N.A. & Mohd Shafei, M.W. (2011). Knowledge creation and sharing in the
Malaysian housebuilding industry: improving the housing delivery system.

Yusof, N.A., Mohd Shafei, M.W., & Said, I. (2010), 26-28 February 2010).
Dimensions of housing developers' readiness for innovation: The case of the
build then sell system in Malaysia.
Yusof, N.A., Mohd Shafei, M.W., & Yahya, S. (2007). Build then sell models for
housing industry: A review. Journal of Valuation and Property Services, 7(1),
1-20.