For Malaysia, this has been the decade of the transformation agenda.
Since Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak came to office in April 2009, one transformation programme after another has been introduced and implemented.
The Government Transformation Programme (GTP) was introduced in January 2010, soon followed by the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) in March 2010.
The transformation agenda gathered momentum after the launch of the 10th Malaysia Plan in June 2010, and we are now into the 11th Malaysia Plan.
Many ministries and departments develop their own respective transformation agenda and it is in line with this encouraging trend that several policies and their respective legislation have been targeted for transformation as well.
The GTP has three phases, namely Phase 1 from 2009 to 2012, Phase 2 from 2013 to last year, and Phase 3 from this year to 2020.
In Phase 1, the mission is to transform operational procedures in order to achieve sustainable change within the civil service.
In Phase 2, the mission is to accelerate the planned reforms, achieve more quantitative goals, remove the trouble spots and gain public support for the advancement of the nation.
As for Phase 3 (the final phase, where we are today) the objective is to complete the transformation agenda so that all Malaysians can enjoy “the rewards of a high-income nation”.
In a nutshell, the ultimate aim of the government’s transformation agenda is social wellbeing of the Malaysian people. This is in sync with the final objective of the federal government’s New Economic Model — quality of life for the citizens.
Perceived in that light, Malaysian laws should, likewise, be transformed. Antiquated laws should be scrapped and replaced with new ones in keeping with the aspiration of the people of today, as well as future generations.
Complex, bulky and incomprehensive laws should be simplified to facilitate compliance and enhance administration. Laws should be people-friendly, not merely business-friendly.
I was, therefore, hopeful that our primary land law — the National Land Code 1965 (the Code) — will come under this national transformation agenda when the Lands and Mines Director-General’s Office (DGLM) issued its Consultation Paper on Feb 1, 2012.
On the front cover of this 89-page document, it is stated that the objective of reviewing the Code is to transform its “legal, administrative and procedural framework” for the purpose of enhancing “the land administration delivery system in Peninsular Malaysia”.
My confidence and high hopes that the Code will be transformed at the end of this review exercise is based on the several recommendations contained in this document.
The document stated (at page 13) that “the proposed reforms are necessary to ensure the land administration system will be able to meet the market demands, boost confidence of property owners and investors, and efficiently provide for regulating the electronic land administration system needs”.
Among the recommendations mentioned are:
IMPLEMENT a single title system;
ABOLISH qualified titles;
ONE-DAY title delivery;
SIMPLIFY renewal of leasehold tenure;
RESOLVE conflict with other statutes that seem to override the Code;
CREATE a Torrens insurance principle to provide compensation for loss suffered by proprietors;
ESTABLISH a Land Court;
ENHANCE Registrar’s powers to correct errors;
INTRODUCE certificate of correctness to curb fraud and forgery;
ENHANCE the Registrar’s powers
in making enquiries;
SEPARATE the substantive from the procedural aspect of the law, and restructure the Code;
STREAMLINE the multiple procedures for land development;
INTRODUCE rent for parcels;
HARMONISE Islamic financial transactions and the Code, and
ENHANCE professionalism of the Land Administration Service.
If we consider the extent of the reform achieved under the recent National Land Code (Amendment) Act 2016 (Act A1516), published in the Gazette on Sept 9, the amendments hardly covered half of the above-mentioned recommendations.
Regrettably, a golden opportunity to transform the Code, in particular to put in place an Assurance Fund (or its alternative, an insurance scheme) to compensate owners for their loss, has been missed.
Likewise, the opportunity to establish a Land Court or a Land Tribunal has also been missed.
The last recommendation deserves further elaboration.
The Consultation Paper stated (in page 47) that our land administration must be reformed “and transformed by legal force to accommodate the needs of the government delivery system, society’s advancements and global commercial needs”.
The Consultation Paper recommended that a new section 8A be inserted in the Code to provide for the establishment of a Land Administration Board “for the purpose of providing accreditation services to land administration in the States of Peninsular Malaysia”.
As I understand it, what is being recommended is the creation of a new Land Administration Board that will subsequently become the governing body of the members of a new profession, the “Land Practitioner” (pending some other agreed name).
As I read this, I am reminded that after I left the Attorney-General’s Chambers in Kuala Lumpur in 1975 and became a young advocate and solicitor, the Legal Profession Act has not yet come into existence.
My point is that if the existence of a Malaysian legal practitioner has long been recognised before the governing law (the Legal Profession Act) and its governing body (the Bar Council) came into being, this proposal to set up the Land Administration Board should get the necessary support and approval by the government.
There are several thousand experienced land administrators (many of whom had retired from high positions in the Land Offices) who can become members of this new profession, if the recommended section 8A had been inserted in Act A1516.
Sadly, there was nothing mentioned about it in the recent amendment. It was a precious opportunity gone to waste.
In December last year, I spoke to Professor Dr Ismail Omar, the president of Persatuan Profesional Tanah Malaysia (Pertama) regarding these various proposals contained in the Consultation Paper.
He told me that he was looking forward to the establishment of the Board, because Pertama had also been drafting a new legislation (tentatively titled “Land Consultants Act”) with an eye to establishing a legal regime for local land practitioners in the future.
When I spoke to him recently about the scope and content of the recent amendments in Act A1516, he was plainly disappointed with it.
I hope the DGLM can revisit its transformation agenda in the future and not let its past valuable research go to waste.
Salleh Buang formerly served in the Attorney-General’s Chambers before leaving for practice, the corporate sector, and then, academia