Share This

Showing posts with label golf management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label golf management. Show all posts

Monday, October 29, 2012

The demise of BJCC, a memorable day for Penang Golf Club (PGC)?

THE new Penang Golf Club (PGC) entity has been launched with much aplomb.

Taiyo Resort (Pg) Bhd chairman Datuk Eiro Sakamoto said it was a historical day that the 18-hole Bukit Jambul Country Club (BJCC) had been renamed PGC.

“I’m overwhelmed and happy with the huge turnout.

“The name Penang Golf Club is also easier to remember,” he said during a press conference at the club in Bukit Jambul on Saturday.

In conjunction with the launch, the PGC also hosted the 2nd Penang Chief Minister’s Golf Tournament which saw a participation of 180 participants.

“This is a very positive sign. Many members are happy to see our efforts in renovating our courses, purchasing 100 new golf buggies as well as building a new coffee house and the Sakurajima Japanese Chinese Restaurant at the club.

“And the renovation was completed 14 months ahead of schedule,” said Sakamoto.

“We will continue to make PGC and Penang known to golfers and tourists, both local and overseas,” he said.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said the renaming was a testimony of the confidence the state government had on Sakamoto to help realise the aim to turn PGC into an international golf course.

“Hopefully, this will also allow us to have more international golf tournaments in the future,” he said.

- The Star Metro

Related posts:
BJCC renamed Penang Golf Club, welcome to the newly upgraded Penang Golf course   

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

BJCC renamed Penang Golf Club, welcome to the newly upgraded Penang Golf course

THE renovation project at the 18-hole Bukit Jambul Coun-try Club (BJCC) golf course in Penang has been completed well ahead of its scheduled time.

The upgraded section is slated to open to golfers starting this Saturday.

Island Golf Properties Bhd chairman Datuk Eiro Sakamoto said the RM11mil golf course, which would be known as the Penang Golf Club, had been completed 14 months ahead of schedule.

“The course has been leng-thened slightly, and is now a par-72 golf course instead of its previous par-71 course.

“Among the upgrading works done were the resurfacing of the tee boxes, fairways and greens as well as the careful tendering of the golf lanes,” he said.

“The bunkers have also been redone. In addition, the subsoil drainage throughout the golf course has also been carried out to allow the smooth flow of rainwater,” he told a press conference at the club premises on Saturday.

All systems go: Sakamoto (left) having a discussion with Penang Golf Club chief operations officer Johnny Khoo at the newly renovated 18-hole golf course
 
Sakamoto said the cow grass at the fairways had also been replaced with Bermuda grass.

“The putting greens, the area surrounding the pin flags, have also been covered with an imported grass known as TifEagle, a hybrid type of cultivated grass that enhances the smoothness and fineness of golf greens,” he said.

Sakamoto also said approximately RM2.5mil had been spent on 100 new all-weather golf buggies for the new golf course.

“In the coming months, we’ll also upgrade the clubhouse building at a cost of RM4.5mil. We already have a new restau-rant known as the Sakurajima Restaurant which serves both Japanese and Chinese cuisines.

“We are now looking at a terrace coffee house and new changing rooms,” he added.

He also said the new golf course with all 18 holes would be open on Saturday during the 2nd Penang Chief Minister’s Golf Tournament.

“Chief Minister (Lim Guan Eng) will launch the game at noon,” he said.

By CAVINA LIM The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

Monday, October 15, 2012

Golf clubs in Malaysia face closure with new tax

Golf industry cries foul over new form of taxation and there is definitely a cause for concern.

Golf clubs in Malaysia face an uncertain future with the new tax issue hanging over their heads.

THE Malaysian golf industry has come under threat of closure again and this time it comes from the Inland Revenue Board.

The IRB now wants to tax all the 180 proprietary clubs (private commercial clubs) on the advance licence fees since the clubs were set up.

The advance fee is the collection of 80% of membership fees that they collect when folks first sign up.

This amount is collected in advance and slowly released into the balance sheet of the companies for the period of the trust deed.

While the industry disputes that the money was taxable as it was a sum that they had to refund if there was a breach of the trust deed, the IRB said it was income to the club and thus is taxable.

The total amount the authorities want the clubs to cough up is more than RM600mil – a sum the golfing industry cannot afford to pay and this could spell the end of many clubs in the country.

A spokesman for the Malaysian Association of Golf & Recreational Club Operators (Magro) said it was not as if the clubs had not been paying taxes or had been hiding the advance fee from the IRB.

He said that the clubs had been in touch with the IRB from the start and had proposed the normal way of taxation based on services.

“This was accepted until 2010 when the IRB wrote to a few clubs and after conducting field audits, decided that the advance fee was taxable.

“The total bill is over RM600mil and they wanted to back tax us all the way to the day the very first member signed up,” the spokesman said.

However, the IRB after several rounds of discussion agreed to cap the backdate of taxation and allow the amount owed to be paid over three years.

A club manager of a popular club in Petaling Jaya said even that concession by the board is totally unacceptable because it will mean the effective end of the golf industry in Malaysia.

“All our profits for the next few years will be wiped out just paying this back taxes. Our club owners will definitely want to exit this business.

“Most of the land we sit on are worth a lot of money and it will make sense for the owners to close down the club and build residential units instead.

At the most, the value of a golf course is only about RM200 per square foot but the houses, condominiums and shops built on top of these land will be worth thousands of ringgit per square foot,” he added.

Already there are several clubs in the Klang Valley, which have either been closed down like Kajang Hill GCC or downsized like KGSAAS, because it is so much more profitable to develop the land into residential and commercial projects.

The owners could also go the way of Palm Garden Golf Club where the owners bought back all the sold membership and turned it into a “premier public course” and thus paying taxes only on income earned from services.

There are about 500,000 members to the 180 proprietary clubs (this ruling by the IRB does not affect members club, at least, not yet) who will eventually lose out in terms of facilities.

There is also the 50,000 direct and indirect workers who will be jobless once the clubs close down.

There is also a tremendous loss of tourism dollars. A total of 120,000 foreign golfers play in Malaysia each year.

They spend an average of four hotel room nights per visit translating into 480,000 room nights. Each of them spend an average of RM300 per night for accommodation and a further RM1,500.

This means that if the golf industry collapsed the country’s economy would lose RM864,000,000 annually.
Let’s not be pound wise penny foolish. The tax dollars can be found through other means and let’s hope the authorities realise this.

CADDY MASTER By WONG SAI WAN

Related post:

Golf courses targeted for re-development - Too valuable for golf?

Friday, March 23, 2012

Malaysian Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2010 deals with unfair contract terms

Contracts
Remember our series of articles on unfair contract terms? Well, it now seems that the Malaysian Parliament is set to finally come up with a law addressing the issue in the upcoming Consumer Protection (Amendment) Bill 2010.

Preferring the approach of amending an existing statute to enacting a wholly new one, the Bill inserts a new Part into the existing Consumer Protection Act 1999, namely Part IIIA intituled Unfair Contract Terms. This Part contains new sections 24A to 24J all intended to address the issue of when businesses seek, via standard form contracts, to impose on consumers terms excluding or limiting their liability when they arise, as well as other terms thought generally considered unfair. Section 1(3) provides that the Part applies to contracts entered into after the coming into force of the Bill.

Section 24A deals with general interpretation in connection with the Part. The definition of a contract in section 2 of the Contracts Act 1950 is retained and a “standard form contract” is defined as a consumer contract that has been drawn up for general use in a particular industry, whether or not the contract differs from other contracts normally used in that industry. An “unfair term” is defined as a term in a consumer contract which, having regard to all the circumstances, causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. Section 24B states that notwithstanding the Contracts Act 1950, the Specific Relief Act 1950 and the Sale of Goods Act 1957 as well as other provisions of the law for the time being in force, the Part shall apply to “all contracts”. This presumably addresses implied terms regarding sale of goods in the Sale of Goods Act 1957, specifically sections 14 to 16 of that Act regarding transfer of title and issues of merchantability and fitness for the purpose for which goods are bought. The section fails to mention the Hire Purchase Act 1967, of which section 7 also deals with implied terms in hire purchase agreements. Also should the Part really extend so broadly so as to include all contracts? Presumably if such is the case, a contract or contract term proscribed by law, such as those in the Schedules to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, or financial or securities contracts, or contracts or bills of consignment or lading, be included as well?

Section 24C and 24D are probably the most important sections in the new Part. The Malaysian Parliament has preferred to split the question of unfair terms into two, dealing with terms that are procedurally unfair (section 24C) and substantially unfair (Section 24D). Section 24C(1) proscribes that a contract term is procedurally unfair when

i. It results in an unjust advantage to the supplier (ie. the business relying on the term in question) and/or;

ii. It results in an unjust disadvantage to the consumer;

iii. On account of the conduct of the supplier; or

iv. On account of the manner or circumstances that the contract is entered into between the supplier and the consumer.

Section 24D(1) holds that a contract term is substantially unfair when;

i. it is in itself harsh;

ii. it is oppressive;

iii. it is unconscionable;

iv. it excludes or restricts liability for negligence;

v. it exludes or restricts liability for breach of express or implied terms of the contract “without adaquate justification”.

The approach of splitting the dealing with such terms into procedurally unfair and substantially unfair is rather unique and this author knows not of any other jurisdiction within the Commonwealth that has chosen this approach. It is also, in this author’s view, rather needless and unneccessary. A substantially unfair contract term is neccessarily procedurally unfair as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. There is also the troubling question of what would about to inadaquate justification for breach of express or implied terms of a contract. When is the justification adaquate and when is it not? Presumably this follows the approach of determining if whether the exclusion of such terms are fair and reasonable or not, but for this to work the statute itself must give an account of what “adaquate justification” amounts to rather then just simply leave the matter for the courts. Such an approach would be in tandem with those used in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom in their Law Commission’s proposed Unfair Contract Terms Bill 2005, specifically clase 14(1) which provides a test on how contract terms are deemed not fair and reasonable. It is also noted that Malaysia has decided that exclusion or limitation of liability for negligence is to be disallowed outright rather than having it hang on whether such an exclusion or limitation is fair and reasonable or as the Bill puts it “without adaquate justification”.

Sections 24C(2) and 24D(2) at least partially follow the approach of Clause 14 of the UK Bill  (specifcally Clause 14(4) )when they list the considerations to be had when determining when a contract term is procedurally or substantially unfair. The considerations are mostly the same between the soon to be Part IIIA of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 of Malaysia, and Clause 14(4) of the Unfair Contract Terms Bill 2005 of the United Kingdom, and again the latter does not contain needless distinction between what is substantively and what is procedurally unfair. The new section also fails to provide an example of a list of terms that can be thought unfair unlike the corresponding Clause in the UK Bill.

Section 24E states that it is for the supplier (ie the business) to prove that the contract term is with adaquate justification. This is the same as Clause 16(1) of the UK Unfair Contract Terms Bill 2005. Section 24F provides that a court or the Tribunal established by the 1999 Act may deal with any issue of any unfair contract term even if none of the parties has raised the matter, again similar to Clause 21 of the UK Bill.

Section 24G(1) enacts that a court or the Tribunal may declare an unfair contract term under sections 24C and 24 D to be void and subsection (2) is not unlike Clause 24 of the UK Unfair Contract Terms Bill which provides that other clauses of the contract affected are to continue in force without the offending term. Section 24H further provides that a term of a contract can still be held void even if it has been partially or wholly executed. This is a novel idea as it provides more certainty as to the position of the parties in the midst of a continuing contract.

Section 24I makes the contravention by “any person” (as defined under subsection (1)) of the Part an offence. The section is silent on how exactly is the Part contravened. First of all, why “any person”? Is it possible for the consumer to commit an offence under the Part? Or is the inclusion of any unfair contract term by a supplier/business to be made an offence? If this is so, it should have been clearly spelt out. There is also a host of other matters that arise by making unfair contract terms an offence, for instance, it could inhibit freedom of contract. The high penalties involved (RM 250,000 for a first offence and RM 500,000 for a subsequent offence, as well as RM 2,000 a day in which the offence continues) could also be pontentially crippling for small businesses. Other jurisdictions have so far not seen the need to make any inclusion of an unfair contract terms an offence and while the merits of such a move are debatable, it is suggested that a comprehensive study on the move be done at first.

Section 24J empowers the Minister to make Regulations in connection with the Part. This section could provide an avenue to remedy two important defects discovered so far, namely the failure to indicate the extent of the application of the Part and the types of contracts involved and secondly, the failure to provide an list of examplary contract terms that might be thought unfair.

The proposed new Part IIIA of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 as will be introduced by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2010 contains many weaknesses, all of which could and should be addressed by enacting a single comprehensive piece of legislation on unfair contract terms, rather then by simply amending an existing statute. It does not, for example, include unfair notices. Thus while a consumer can now worry less about whether he or she may claim under a defective contract, the same might not be said for a notice, for example, one notice excluding liability for negligence when using a swimming pool or car park, for example, is not covered by the new Part on a plain reading of the Bill, which clearly limits its scope to standard form contracts, and does not mention notices. This is in spite of Domestic Trade and Cosumer Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Sabri Yaakob’s claims to the contrary.

The Bill also makes an unneccesary distinction between procedural and substantive unfair contract terms. It fails to make provision as to what types of contracts exactly are covered by the Part and extending the application to “all” contracts could possibly have unexpected and unfavourable ramifications. It crucially also fails to address the issue of application taking into account where the contract is concluded (ie whether in or outside Malaysia) or what happens when a contract applies foreign law. A test for determining what amounts to “without adaquate justifiaction” is absent, as well as a list of examples of unfair contract terms. What offence created is not clearly defined and the potential effects not carefully studied.

On the other hand, initiative is demonstrated by providing that a term of a cotinuing contract can also be struck down on account of being unfair. On the whole, it is remarked that some form of bulwark against unfair contract terms in consumer contracts is better then nothing but there is room for improvement. It is hoped that those that be can revisit the issue in the future and consider seperate, more comprehensive legislation on the matter instead. It would be interesting, however, to see how the Malaysian courts react to the new legal provisions on unfair contract terms, especially concerning if they would follow the approach of their foreign counterparts in deducing unfair terms, or create their own notions based on the new provisions.

5 July 2010 by  

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumers Association of Penang

Related posts:

Related articles 
Law of Contract online book & recorded lectures (charonqc.wordpress.com)