Debate on Land Code (Amendment) Bill

DEBATE ON LAND CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2007 by Wong Ho Leng, ADUN Bukit Assek on 20th Nov., 2007

Laws are amended in order to improve them.

But this Bill does not do that, despite the voices of the people spoken through the ballot on 20th May, 2006.

The Minister announced the New Land Policy in Miri on 26th May, 2007 without going through this Dewan. Now you are coming back to this Dewan to ask for legitimate authority to the New Land Policy. That is an irresponsible way of doing things.

The Government should hear out all members of this Dewan first, and only then consider announcing the New Land Policy. Not the other way around.

Why has the Government to make life difficult for its subjects?

Yet, everyday, we see the BN Ministers and backbenchers singing that the BN Government cares. If you do care, go for affirmative and proactive action. This is not seen in this Bill.

I will concentrate on 3 issues to show how this amendment Bill is not acceptable.

(1) Clause 4

Clause 4 seeks to amend s.26 of the Land Code. The original section provides that upon the expiration of the lease term, no person has any right to renewal, and the Director may re-alienate the land to anybody on certain conditions.

I cannot think of any reason why a person may become disinterested in the land. There could be explanations why he could not apply for extension. The Lands and Surveys require that all landowners must sign the Memorandum of Surrender and Alienation before extension is granted. What if a co-owner cannot be found or a co-owner is not able to pay the high premium? Then the lease term cannot be extended. The fault lies in the requirement that all landowners must sign the Memorandum of Surrender and Alienation and the heavy premium that they have to pay to get their lease terms extended.

Land is central to the subjects. Possession of land can be threatened by trespass or it can be threatened by Government policies. Today’s amendment to s.26 and the New Land Policy that was announced in Miri threatened the subjects’ right to land.

After the amendment, Section 26 says no persons shall have any right to renewal. How can that be just? The registered proprietor must have the automatic and unconditional right to renew or extend his title when the lease term expires.

Land ownership is a constitutional right. Hence, renewal of lease should be a legal right and not grace. Grace should not be part of the terms and conditions under the amendment to s.26.

(2) Terms and Conditions

These words appear in Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill.

Clause 4 amends s.26 of the Land Code to contain a proviso that the Director may impose terms and conditions before he re-alienates the land to the registered proprietor.

Clause 6 states that the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri may impose conditions and mode of re-alienation.

Why can’t we be more specific what these mode and terms and conditions are? The Government’s administration has to be transparent. No loophole should be allowed which only breeds corruption.

Let us examine some of these terms and conditions which are already known to us:

(i) The premium payable ranges from 25% to 40% of the market price, depending on the category of land. That should not be the case, for that only burdens the people.

The burden will be more seriously felt in an economy which is inflationary and depressive. That is the economic situation now. A lot of people earn a meagre income and because of spiraling prices, cannot make ends meet. So, why burden the people?

(ii) Why the premium payable for agricultural land is 25% of the market price but the Minister may decide on the amount of premium payable for special cases involving the low income group or those living below the poverty line based on merit of each case? Isn’t this fertile ground for corruption? How can we be sure that the Minister will be fair and squeaky clean?

(iii) Why should the Government impose conditions on the new titles that there should be no transfer or dealing, subleasing etc? These conditions are unfair and uncalled for. Why restrict the rights of the registered proprietors?

(iv) Why has the Government disallowed extension to land under section 47 of the Land Code? In many cases, s.47 had been imposed for over 10 years, yet there has been no plan to resume them. Despite the promise by the Government that there is a policy that all s.47 will be lifted upon the expiry of 2 years, yet, the section still remains after more than 10 years on many of the land in Oya Road, Sibu. Why? These land cannot be developed because of s.47. These land leases will expire soon, and the landowners will see their land gabbled up by the Government with no compensation. That is not fair. Yet, the BN says it cares. The yardstick of being caring in the dictionary of the BN is so low indeed.

(v) Will the Government attach a condition that land lease renewal is a grace of the Government? Can the Government attach conditions to the release of the land titles? A specific example can make this obvious. I have come to know that land titles have already been issued by the Lands and Surveys. But the Lands and Surveys will not release the titles to the owners because of a directive from the Government that these land titles can only be handed to them over a ceremony graced by the presence of BN Ministers. Why should the Government use the release of land titles to the owners as a popularity show?

We had already seen what happened in the beginning of May 2006. Ministers came to the Lands and Surveys Department to hand out letters which approved lease extensions. The senior staffs of the Lands and Surveys were reduced to nobody as the Ministers and SUPP candidates gave out letters of approvals to the landowners. This was done as a popularity show. It was an election stunt.

Despite being unwilling, these landowners had paid the premium. So why should they have to wait for the Ministers, in their own chosen free time, to hand the titles to them?

Some of these landowners need the land titles badly to raise money for business, children’s education, or even medication. Why make them wait? Yet you said the BN Government cares.
(3) Financial Expenditure

The Bill says it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. This cannot be true. If Ministers have to fly here and there to give out land titles, with other cabinet Ministers and entourages from BN component parties welcoming them at various airports and entertaining them at hotels and restaurants, with drivers driving them around in posh imported cars etc, there are surely expenses involved. These expenses are incurred unnecessarily.

Everyone is entitled to wonder why the BN Ministers have to become so cheap as to seek publicity stunt and popularity show at the expense of the rakyat?

With these observations, I must put on record my and my Party’s stance that the Government should automatically and unconditionally extend lease terms for 99 years when they expire.

I say that the Bill only reaffirms the draconian and onerous burden on the people envisaged in the New Land Policy and for that reason I do not support the Bill.