Latest news with #LandOrdinance
Daily Express
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Express
Sabah legalises 40 villages, reallocates forest land with minimal impact
Published on: Tuesday, July 08, 2025 Published on: Tue, Jul 08, 2025 By: Sherell Jeffrey Text Size: KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah State Assembly has approved the removal of 16,729 hectares from 10 forest reserves to legalise 40 villages in seven districts, benefiting over 12,000 residents. Assistant Minister Datuk Nizam Abu Bakar Titingan said these villages, some existing since 1985, deserve legal recognition and land security. Most of the land (15,978 hectares) comes from the Sipitang area, aiding 36 villages in Sipitang, Tenom, and Kemabong. Smaller areas in Pitas, Ranau, Kalabakan, Tawau, and Sebatik will also gain village status, with some land used for border security and public facilities. Despite the reductions, Sabah's total forest area drops only 0.47pc, from 3.575 million to 3.558 million hectares. The government will replace the removed land with areas of equal size and quality, aiming to meet its goal of protecting 30pc of Sabah's land under the 2018 Forest Policy. The Bill also sets the stage for these villages to be officially gazetted under the Land Ordinance, ensuring legal, welfare, and development benefits for the communities. * Read full report in tomorrow's print paper or log in or sign up for e-paper and premium online news access. * Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram and/or WhatsApp channel(s) for the latest news you don't want to miss. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
Borneo Post
05-07-2025
- General
- Borneo Post
Of matters about native land rights
Surveys of native rights over land may take a long time to complete, but it will be worth the effort and the expenditure. — Bernama photo BEFORE the formation of the Federation of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963, the rights and interests of the natives of Sarawak over land had been recognised by law. MB Hooker, in his book 'Native Law in Sabah and Sarawak', printed in Singapore by the Malayan Law Journal Pte Ltd, 1980, writes: 'The source of law applicable in the courts in Sarawak was placed upon a more formal basis with the enactment of the Law of Sarawak Orders (16th February 1928) which provided that the law of England, in so far as it was not modified by orders of the H.H. the Rajah and so far as it was applicable having regard to native custom was to be the law of Sarawak.' Sarawak became a Colony of Great Britain in 1947. In 1949, the Sarawak Government published a book called 'The Handbook of Sarawak'. On land matters, one entry at Page 68 of the booklet states: 'All land in the Colony is Crown Land except where portions are alienated under the Land Ordinance or are claimed by Customary Native use.' The Sarawak Land Code 1958 sets out how land rights are acquired; how the land in the colony was classified; provides the document showing who owns what and where; and even how the rights are acquired and even how these rights are lost. The Kapit Conference Sarawak was a colony of Great Britain for 17 years. Since Sept 16, 1963, it has become part of the Federation of Malaysia. The formation of Malaysia was important to the natives of Sarawak in terms of the native rights over property such as land. Feb 15, 1962 was an important date in the political history of Kapit District. The leaders of the Iban community of that district consisting of 51 Penghulus, led by Tun Temenggong Jugah Barieng, were eagerly waiting for the arrival of the members of the Cobbold Commission. The Commission was to conduct a survey of opinions of the people in the district as to whether or not the people would support the formation of a new nation called Malaysia, consisting of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak. The 21-one chiefs were ready with a list of what they wanted on behalf of the people in the district for inclusion as terms and conditions of the entry of Sarawak into Malaysia. They submitted 13 proposals. Relevant to our discussion today are two important demands. No 3 of their proposal was that: 'Adat Lama (traditional custom) to remain under the control of the Government of the State of Sarawak.' The other proposal, No 4, was: 'Land to be under to be under the control of the State.' The leaders were referring to the future of the people in the longhouses in the district. They demanded recognition and protection of their rights and interests in land, and the related customs and traditions that created these rights and interests. The recommendations were duly recorded by the Commission which, in turn, had passed them on to the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), another body responsible for the necessary drafting of legislation in respect of the proposals, wherever appropriate. In return the leaders, on behalf of the Kapit residents, accepted the proposal to establish Malaysia, subject to the terms and conditions that they had submitted to the Commission earlier. Since Sarawak had already enacted a land law in the form of the Sarawak Land Code 1958, there was no necessity for a new land legislation for the state. The sole right to legislate matters relating to land in the state… belongs to that state. Politicians, especially those walking in the corridors of power both in Peninsular Malaysia and in the Borneo states, need to champion the cause of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia more vigorously than they have done hitherto. As they are holding the political power via the Unity Government, they should cooperate and collaborate in terms of working out an effective land legislation that recognises the legal rights of the indigenous landowners – Orang Asli in the peninsula, and the natives of Sarawak and Sabah. Those politicians in Sarawak should appreciate the interest shown by Nurul Izzah Anwar, deputy president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), in the determination of land rights of the natives of Sarawak or Sabah. She has the right to comment on the affairs of the natives in Sarawak, and be concerned with the erosion of rights of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia. The local political leaders should be concerned with the protection of rights over life and property, eg land. Instead of disparaging her comment on the survey of Native Customary Rights (NCR) land in Sarawak, the local politicians in power should have kinder words about her, taking her comments on NCR survey as a useful feedback on the programme. Apparently, Nurul Izzah's view on the perimeter of NCR land in Sarawak has hurt the feelings of a few local politicians. The policy to determine the extent of rights to land claimed by the natives of Sarawak by means of the perimeter survey has been supported by the federal government with funds since 2010. The policy was modified at a later stage of the programme, someone having recognised the need for a settlement of rights to enable the issue of a tie indefeasible title under Section 18 of the Sarawak Land Code. If Nurul Izzah was criticising the policy of the state government in terms of delays of surveys of NCR lands, why the fuss over the statement? Is this reflective of the federal government policy? In fact, the federal government should initiate legislation in terms of Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 2007. I would prefer to use Part V of the Sarawak Land Code 1958 survey to determine the land rights: the settlement of rights. The objective is to procure for the claimant of rights a title, which is indefeasible as provided for in Section 132 of the Code. However, if the government can justify that the current policy is more effective than the other method, let them go ahead – as long as they get the job done, and the title to land surveyed is issued to the claimant or owner if there was no fraud, not even constructive fraud in the process of acquiring the land. * The opinions expressed in this article are the columnist's own and do not reflect the view of the newspaper. land native land rights NCR sarawak
Daily Express
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Express
GRS Govt's best gift to Sabah's natives
Published on: Sunday, April 27, 2025 Published on: Sun, Apr 27, 2025 By: Dharma Lingam Text Size: Flashback: Our front page report on April 18. THE Hajiji-led Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) Sabah Government deserves the highest accolade for doing what no other previous State Government dared to do – put an end once and for all to the land scandals, some involving big plantation companies, arising from fraudulent land transactions. Where genuine innocent land applicants don't even know their lands had been approved and changed hands without their knowledge many times over. The amendments to the Land Ordinance at the State Legislative Assembly on April 17 and which was the front page lead story in the Daily Express the following day would now make it an offence to acquire Native Title lands through fraudulent means and without exercising due diligence. There have been many instances, for example, of natives giving their Mykad particulars in the hope of being included in bloc applications but ending up being deceived. Owners of such lands now face the prospect of having to surrender these lands, if it has been established that they have been acquired illegally. The Daily Express had over the years published related reports on such land scams. These were in: 18-09-2014 – Daily Express - and in 20-12-2014 – Daily Express - Before the colonial administrator set foot on Sabah (North Borneo), native customary laws which have immense influence on local communal tribes had existed. When the British North Borneo Company acquired the various territories which now comprise present day Sabah, they had considered it imperative to recognize the significance native customary laws and it was preserved under Article 9 of the Royal Charter in verbatim 'In the administration of justice by the Company to the people of Borneo, or to any of the inhabitants thereof, careful regard shall always be had to the customs and laws of the class or tribe or nation to which the parties respectively belong, especially with respect to the holding, possession, transfer and disposition of land and goods, and testate or intestate succession thereto, and marriage, divorce and legitimacy, and other rights of property and personal rights.' Subsequently the colonial administration introduced a number of legislation specifically relating to native affairs with written law that specifically dealt with rights of the natives over land entitled the Native Rights to Land Proclamation of 1889 with the preamble 'for the protection of Native Rights to Land'. The 1902 legislation was a code of native land tenure which made native land rights registrable and provided for the procedures regarding the practice of cultivation. The Native Rights to Land Proclamation of 1889 read together with the 1902 legislation was to form the basis for the introduction of the Land Ordinances of 1901, 1913 and 1930 culminating in the renaming of the 1930 legislation as the present day Land Ordinance. The concept of native lands was introduced to prevent lands held by the natives in North Borneo (Sabah) from being disposed of to the non-natives with the primary beneficiaries of native lands land being 'the rural poor natives' or 'small-scale farmers'. These native lands are restricted from sale, lease, transfer of title and charge (mortgage) to non-natives similar to the concept of Malay Reservation Land that were introduced by the British in the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang in 1913 to avoid lands held by the Malays in those states from being disposed of to non-Malays. The native land is a special law and the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930 prohibits the attachment in execution of any NT land. Section 17 of the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930 repeats the provisions first introduced in 1883 against dealings in native lands with non-natives. The purpose of the restriction is to keep such lands in the hands of natives and to prevent access of non-native in areas where their presence is not favoured. The restriction applies also to charges but an exception is made to enable natives to obtain credit from specified financial institutions on the security of their native titles. However any sale and enforcement of a charge is limited to natives. Moreover, a trust cannot be created on such land to persons who are non-native. Now the world will be able to see what is being exposed about public listed company, businessmen, professionals, plantation, investors and developers engineering an exceptionally dubious and intricate scam to grab native lands by exploiting the land system of the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930. A cleverly concealed modus operandi concocted by these public listed firms, businessmen, professionals, plantation, investors and developers are by coordinating and obtaining Land Applicants (PT) involving naïve and vulnerable natives induced into believing that they would be able to secure lands by furnishing their ICs to these middlemen orchestrated by these public listed company, businessmen, professionals, plantation, investors and developers. The intention and blatant act of these public listed company, businessman, professionals, plantation, investors and developers as main conspirator are in furtherance of their plan to exploit native lands for logging timber, property development, agriculture, palm oil plantations and pure greed to own and deal in native lands that is explicitly forbidden by law. They mobilised their clandestine operation through using natives NRICs in applying for unalienated lands of the standard procedure under section 70(1) that allows Natives to apply without delay for State land at PPHTs throughout the Sabah. When the State Authority approves the application, the land will be alienated and a land title will be issued to the applicant. Land applications means property of native land's designee who applies by submitting land use applications regarding the unalienated lands. Land applications approved for native titles are subject to cultivation conditions as to commencement. It is basic law that land applicants are not conferred any land law rights. The Land Rules (Section 46) (G.N. 505 of 1930) - Section 2 subsection (4) clearly states that, LAs are not conferred with any right whatsoever to the land applied and acceptance of any such payment shall not constitute any undertaking that the application will be approved. It is important to remember that a person is presumed to have legal capacity unless it is proven that one lacks capacity as in the case of land applicants. Capacity is a legal concept that describes whether a person can legally enter into a contract. Legal capacity is the ability to: (i) make a binding legal agreement, (ii) sue another person and (iii) make other decisions of a legal nature such as land transaction. Yet, public listed company, businessman, professionals, plantation, investors and developers had regularly pursued LAs (PTs) in almost all their land dealings. They exploited the land system of the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930, a unique and a modified Torren's system that is exemplified by indefeasibility, charges and compliance of land law requirements on entry, registration and notation of interests. It is prudent to note that this is not the result of any 'innocent error' on their part but a vital element in the furtherance of their illegal exploit of native land grabs, corrupt practice, backhanders and gross tax evasion. The using of vulnerable native and employees by way of nominees are clearly to deploy as their native land grab industry foot soldiers. Indefeasibility is the key principle of the Torren's system. Under it, a title is made conclusive on registration and the Sabah Land & Survey Department (JTUS) guarantees that the titles are unimpeccable (validity) based on Section 88 of Sabah Land Ordinance. Indefeasibility simply means that something is impossible to be defeated or made invalid or cancelled and is adopted based on the principle of (i) Immediate indefeasibility is a situation where the transferred title is valid regardless of any element of fraud or forgery while (ii) deffered indefeasibility ((concedes or complies) only protects a subsequent purchaser to a title that is defeasible. In other words, if one obtains a title where fraud or forgery is involved, this title could be cancelled. However if the same party sells it to another purchaser who seemingly 'bona fide purchaser' that title is considered to be indefeasible. The indefeasibility therefore defers across one transfer of the title where fraud or forgery is involved to the next purchaser who buys it supposedly in good faith and valuable consideration. Herein lays, the problem the basic element of good faith is described as the absence of fraud, deceit or dishonesty and the knowledge or means of facts of such at the time of entry into a transaction while bona fide (valuable consideration) in general terms clearly refers to the absence of fraudulent intent or deceit. Since the Land Applications (PTs), Power of Attorney, Substitution Under Power of Attorney, Sublease Agreements, Sale and Purchase Agreements, Trust Deed Agreements, Memorandum of Transfer and Memorandum of Charge are dealings in native lands that is explicitly forbidden by law and are shrouded in illegality, it follows therefore that neither parties can acquire good title to pass on the purchaser as the current law passed under Section 88A (2) – explicitly confirms that titles obtained through (i) fraudulent means, (ii) forgery or (iii) unlawful methods would render the title VOID - not valid. The Remedy Lies in the Restitutionary Provision for Lands By invoking the Land Rules (Section 46) G.N. 505 of 1930 – Procedure under section 34 breach of conditions of title, empowers the State Authority to recall these NT lands. Rule 12 (1) owing to the breach or default in observing the conditions of the title and section 12(1) that would render the Public listed company, businessman, professionals, plantation, investors and developers and/or their proxies/nominees in breach or default and is not capable of being repaired or made good due to the circumvention of law/illegality shall revert to the State Authority all right, title and interest of Public listed company, businessman, professionals, plantation, investors and developers and/or their proxies/nominees will subsequently cease and be extinguished. Under the Sabah Land Ordinance, the Director can cancel permits and licenses for prospecting or other land-related activities if there's a breach of conditions or provisions of the Ordinance. The Director of Lands and Surveys, acting under the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930 (Cap 68), the main legislation governing land matters in Sabah, including the issuance and cancellation of land titles may cancel a title deed under specific circumstances, such as surrender or cancellation under sections 112, or orders by the Director under Section 118. The Director can cancel a title deed under the following circumstances: @ Surrender or Cancellation under Section 112: This section likely outline specific procedures and grounds for surrendering or cancelling a title deed. @ Orders by the Director under Sections 119: These sections likely outline specific circumstances where the Director can issue orders related to land titles, leading to cancellation of these NT titles. At first, it may appear that the State Authority can do nothing much about these NT lands but legally; there may be two options available. Firstly, the State Authority can proceed in Public listed company, businessman, professionals, plantation, investors and developers and/or their proxies/nominees to Court. The State Authority may apply for an injunction as one of the equitable remedies that the High Court by its discretion may grant an order to restrain or prohibit the continuance of business operation in these said native lands as the central basis for the State Authority is to impeach the proxies/nominees titles rights to the native lands. The State Authority may also obtain a declaratory order to the effect that this conversion exercise is unlawful, inconsistent and null and void to the policy of the Land Rules and the Sabah Land Ordinance. Hence, the State Authority by invoking 'the new Section 88A (2)' owing to the breach of conditions and provisions by way of forfeiture would cause these lands to revert back to the State Authority. It is a principle of antiquity that whatever that is invalid from the beginning cannot be binding by a subsequent act - meaning whatever is inherently defective cannot be rectified later by validity. There is also nothing to prevent the amendment that allows such power to legislate from having retrospective effect as Article 74 of the Federal Constitution (9th Schedule, list II- State List) states that land is State matter. Dharma is a lawyer specialising on land matters. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
