Wong sing Nang webpage

1. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I raise to take part in the debate pertaining to the Land Code (Amendment) Bill 1998. The purpose of the bill is to empower the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri to make rules for the assessment of compensation payable to natives for extinguishment of Native Customary Rights over their land and to set out factors to be taken into account for determining the market value of land reserved under Part four (IV) of the Land Code.

2. Mr. Speaker, Sir, Clause 3 of the bill is to amend section 60 of the Land Code so that market value of the reserved land shall be assessed in reference only to the existing use thereof and in anticipation of the continuation of use thereof having regard to the purpose of its use as stipulated in the land title;

3. Mr. Speaker, Sir, Clause 4 of the bill is to amend Section 4, to exclude,
         for   determining market value of reserved land, evidence of sales of
         compensable properties unless the Court is satisfied that such sales
         were made bone fide and not for speculative purpose and the onus for
         providing these requirements are satisfied lie with the persons who
         refer the matter to Court under Section 56(1). Clause 4 also seeks to
         exclude from consideration any enhancement or likely enhancement of
         the value of resumed land as a result of development undertaken by
         the Government in the vicinity thereof.

4. Mr. Speaker Sir, Section 60 of the Land Code sets up the matters to be considered in determining compensation while Section 61 sets up the matters to be disregarded in determining compensation. This amendment bill is to made additional matters to be considered and disregard to section 60 & 61 of the Land Code.

5. Mr. Speaker Sir, compulsory Land Acquisition is indeed a controversial subject for a period of time, the intention of the government will conflict with the interests of private landowners. Apart from empowering the executive to compulsory acquire lands the law relating to land acquisition also seeks to resolve this conflict between the state and private landowner by the provision of adequate compensation. Much frustration has been expressed in some quarters that the take over of/and by the government has been at the unfair expense of the landowner. Undervaluing of the property, delays in payment, and the costs incurred in employment of independant
valuer to help settle disputes, are some of the problem confronting the landowners. The hardest hit are the small landowners.

6. Mr. Speaker, Sir, to a large number of the small landowners. Such compulsory acquisition means resettlement of a home, insufficient money to buy a similar piece of land with the compensated money because the prices has risen too fast by the time compensation was paid, and the problems of finding an alternative means of livelihood.

7. Mr. Speaker, Sir, one of the most important matters to be taken into the consideration as provide under S.60 (1)(A) of the land Code is ?the market value at the date of publication of the notification under Section 47 or, if no such notification has been published, the market value at the date of the posting of the declaration made under S.48.? Other considerations to be taken into account include any increase in the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land resumed will be put; the damage if any, sustained by any person interested; if in consequence of the resumption he is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such charge.

8. Mr. Speakers, Sir, hence market value is but one of the many factors taken into account to determine compensation and is therefore not the actual amount in compensation itself. The Code did not define what market value is but from case law, the generally acceptable definition is that of Buhagiar J. in Nanyang Manufacturing Co. v. C.L.R. Johore:
?The market value of the land may be roughly described as the price that the owner is willing and not obliged to sell might reasonable expect to obtain from a willing purchase with whom he was bargaining for sale and purchase of land?

9. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the imposition of S.47 on private land should be proceeded within a specific period of time. Under present S.47 there isn?t any time frame when after the imposition of S.47, it can legally remain on the said land for the whole duration of the land title. There were many instances where land under S.47 has been there for 15 or 30 years only then the S.48 is imposed and the time for assessment of compensation is the year when S.47 is imposed.

10. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in a decided Miri High Court case in Ting King Yii @ Ting King Yu and 17 others v. Minister for Resources Planning and Anor. (1994) 4 CLJ 435. The lated Datuk John Chong Held that the award of compensation based on the market value at the date of the publication of S.47 notice is perfectly valid. The award was made in line with the provision of S.51(b) of the Code, which inter alia requires the award of compensation to be made in accordance with S.60 under which the amount of compensation to be awarded shall be the market value at the date of the publication of the notification under S.47 or, if no such notification has been published, the market value at the date of the declaration made under S.48?
The Judge further held that S.47 and S.48 of the Code are mutually exclusive of each other and do not form part and parcel of the acquisition process, so that the question of delay 13 years is irrelevant in so far as the making of S.48 declaration is concerned.

11. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the long delay after imposition of S.47 and S.48 declaration has caused great hardship to landowners and it is the prevailing majority view that one way of preventing long delay would be to fix a time whereby notification under S.47 would automatically lapse. Even this view is supported in the Judgment of the then Lee Hun Hoe CJ of Borneo in Superintendent of Land and Survey, Fifth Division, Limbang v. Lim Teck Hoo & Anor (1980) 1 MLJ 58, 1 quote:
?I take the view that under the Sarawak Legistation, it is possible for mere declarations than one under S.48 to be made in respect of land comprised in a notification under S.47. I am aware that where compensation has to be determined with reference to the material date under S.47 any delay in making a declaration under S.48 is bound to cause the person whose land is to be acquired to suffer pecuniary loss if land prices have arisen between the period of notification under S.47 and declaration under S.48 ?. I hope the Government would try to minimise the delay in making the declaration or declarations. One way of preventing long delay would be to fix a time whereby notification under S.47 would automatically lapse. Another way is to withdraw resumption under S.79 as soon as the land is no more required for public purpose.?

12. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is my observation that the Government should seriously consider to impose a time frame for S.47. I propose a period of 5 years after which it automatically lapse. This is in response to the sentiment of the people and a government for those people must be responsible to people feelings.

13. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the present land resumption under the land code is certainly subject to much criticisms. The delay in compensation and the reference to the High Court for adjudication of compensation take a long time. There are so many land reference cases to be decided by the High Court. May the Honourable Minister made a statement in this House, to-date how many land reference cases pending in the High Courts in Sarawak and the yearly breakdown figures. One way to expedite this matter is to considering the setting up of An independent Land Tribunal for Resumption Cases.

14. Mr. Speaker, Sir, In response, the law on compulsory acquisition is governed by the Land Acquisition Act 1966 and they have an Independent Lands Tribunal. The obvious advantages of such tribunals are that they are less formal, more expeditious and more likely to settle speedily. Such Tribunal can be presided over by High Court Judges and member of assessors to be drawn from both the public and private sectors who had professional knowledge and knowledge in arriving at a fair amount of compensation.

15. Mr. Speaker, Sir, An independent Land Tribunal must be established to deal expeditionsly with land acquisition cases an the ordinary courts are faced with a back of case and cannot speedily mere out Judgment