The Selangor state government has acknowledged a significant governance challenge affecting thousands of residents: 310 strata schemes totalling 35,817 residential units currently lack either a joint management body (JMB) or a management corporation (MC), structures essential for coordinating maintenance, collecting fees and managing common facilities in multi-unit properties. The disclosure came during the state assembly sitting at Bangunan Dewan Negeri Selangor in Shah Alam on August 12, when Selangor housing and culture committee chairman Datuk Borhan Aman Shah detailed the scope of the problem and outlined preliminary remedial measures being considered.

The absence of formalised management structures in such a large number of properties points to deeper systemic issues within residential governance across the state. According to Borhan, the primary culprits behind this management vacuum are persistently low maintenance fee collection rates, which deprive building communities of financial resources needed for upkeep and repairs. Weak governance practices compound the difficulty, as does a fundamental absence of awareness and responsibility among property owners regarding their obligations to contribute to and participate in maintaining shared spaces. For Malaysian residents, particularly in the Klang Valley and other urban centres across Selangor, this fragmentation of management responsibility creates practical hazards—poorly maintained common areas, deteriorating infrastructure and vulnerability to disputes that can fester for years without resolution.

The implications of this governance gap extend beyond mere inconvenience. Without a functioning JMB or MC, strata schemes lack the legal infrastructure to enforce compliance, negotiate with developers over defects, or make collective decisions about repairs and improvements. Residents in these 310 schemes face a patchwork situation where some buildings may operate informally through ad hoc arrangements, while others experience near-total absence of coordination. This creates disparities in living standards and exposes vulnerable residents—particularly those in older buildings or lower-cost properties—to deteriorating conditions and mounting arrears in necessary maintenance.

The state government has signalled its commitment to addressing the problem through a multi-pronged approach centred on strengthening implementation of the Strata Management Act 2013. Borhan outlined plans to enhance the capabilities of existing JMBs and MCs through structured training programmes, professional courses and engagement sessions designed to improve financial management competence. This recognition that many committees lack the necessary skills to administer budgets, manage contractors and handle disputes represents a pragmatic acknowledgement of the human capital constraints limiting governance effectiveness across Selangor's residential landscape.

Beyond capacity-building, the state intends to launch targeted awareness campaigns directed at property owners, emphasising their rights and responsibilities within strata schemes. The government also plans to introduce a star-rating system for building management, creating competitive incentives for improvement and transparency in governance quality. Such initiatives draw on lessons from other jurisdictions where ratings systems have driven compliance and encouraged better practices, though their effectiveness will depend on rigorous implementation and meaningful consequences for poor performers.

The role of the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) remains critical but contested. Selangor assemblyman Rajiv Rishyakaran from Bukit Gasing pressed the government on why COBs were not more aggressively exercising their statutory powers under the SMA to appoint professional property managers to intervene in problematic strata schemes. This question highlights a tension between regulatory forbearance and assertive intervention—regulators must balance allowing communities to self-organise against stepping in when governance failures threaten resident welfare.

Borhan's response acknowledged these complications, noting that several strata schemes encounter genuine obstacles to forming proper management bodies, including unresolved handover disputes with developers and lingering conflicts among residents that require COB intervention. These friction points are familiar to anyone tracking property disputes in Malaysia: developers sometimes withhold defect liability period transfers, residents disagree over financial obligations or past management decisions, and without skilled mediation, communities can become paralysed. The recognition that COBs are playing an important role in untangling these conflicts suggests the regulatory body is attempting to be more proactive, though the sheer scale of the problem—310 schemes—indicates capacity constraints or prioritisation challenges.

A meeting to form an action committee addressing this issue has already been convened, signalling governmental intention to move beyond rhetoric. The specifics of this committee's mandate, timeline and resource allocation remain unclear from the public record, but its formation at least formalises the issue as a state priority rather than a secondary concern. For Malaysian stakeholders—residents' associations, property managers, developers and consumer advocates—this signals an opening for consultation and input into solutions.

The scale of the governance vacuum raises broader questions about how Selangor and Malaysia more generally enforce property law and protect resident interests. With 35,817 units across 310 schemes lacking formal management structures, potentially hundreds of thousands of residents are living in properties where collective action is fragmented or absent. This creates opportunity for disputes to escalate, maintenance standards to slip and the social fabric of residential communities to deteriorate. The problem is not unique to Selangor—other states with large urban populations likely face similar challenges—but Selangor's size and density make it the bellwether for residential governance across Southeast Asia's most developed corridor.

Implementation will prove decisive. Training programmes and awareness campaigns, while necessary, require sustained funding, skilled trainers and genuine engagement from communities that may already be demoralised or divided. The star-rating system must be credible and consequential to drive behaviour change. COB intervention must be consistent, fair and adequately resourced. Without these conditions, the state government's announcements risk becoming symbolic responses that fail to dislodge the underlying systemic problems—low participation, weak financial discipline and fragmented accountability—that created the governance vacuum in the first place.

For residents, the path forward depends on both state action and community mobilisation. Property owners in the affected 310 schemes must recognise that formalising their management structures through JMBs or MCs, despite the administrative burden, protects their investments and improves their living environment. The state government's commitment to support this process through training and regulatory clarity creates a genuine opportunity for transformation, but only if residents seize it. In the meantime, the 35,817 units operating without formal governance remain vulnerable to the accumulated costs of neglect, dispute and decay that plague Malaysian residential communities left to their own devices.