|
|
A STUDY ON SQUATTERS LEGAL BATTLES IN THE MALAYSIAN COURTS: WHITHER EQUITY?
NOR
ASIAH MOHAMAD, DR
INTRODUCTION 2005 was the year where most states in Malaysia wanted to declare themselves to be zero squatters’ states. To date, irrespective of failures or success for the aim, the effort remains. Most of the states in Malaysia are still striving towards zero squatters’ objective. At one glance, such effort reflects the peculiar perception of the governing authorities towards squatters. Furthermore, it also shows that squatters cannot be accepted and should be deleted from the dictionary of any country aims towards becoming a developed country. In Malaysia, the presence of squatters has to a certain extent affects the image of becoming a developed country. Hence a serious and concerted effort has been geared up to ensure the above mission becomes a reality. Thus the presence of a small group of community known as “squatters” seems to be intolerable. METHOD OF RESEARCH This study use internet search and library research to analyze the cases brought to courts by the squatters. In this regard the study wishes to see the justifications or cause of action for the case, the courts view and also the action taken by the local authorities in dealing with squatters. It is rather puzzling that despite being helpless, weak, poor and defenseless state of the squatters, there is considerable number of cases involving squatters being brought to court. This study is confined only to cases involving squatters and local authority or cases brought to court by any land owners that also involve squatters and public authority. For this purpose, the cases reported in the Current Law Journal Malaysia and also the Malayan Law Journal has been referred. BACKGROUND OF CASES There are about 40 reported cases some of which are actually repeated reports due to appeals. In most cases, the squatters moved in group and represented by lawyers. Out of the numbers, there are l5 cases which reached the appeal courts. The squatters can be categorised into local or Malaysian, immigrant with proper entry documents and permanent resident status and illegal immigrant. Most of the cases that heard in courts involving local Malaysian. The parties both appeared as plaintiff and defendant or appellant and respondents. Even though the years of report recorded from 1970s to 2004 alone, it does not deny the existence of the squatters’ case beyond the years. Cases also involve land within and outside local authority area. However, local authority may involve indirectly in providing the utilities and amenities to the squatters. DEFINING SQUATTERS According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatter) squatting is an act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Squatters often claim rights over the spaces they have squatted by virtue of occupation, rather than ownership. In this sense, squatting is similar to (and potentially a necessary condition of) adverse possession, by which a possessor of real property without title may eventually gain legal title to the real property. A squatter settlement therefore, can be defined as a residential area which has developed without legal claims to the land and/or permission from the concerned authorities to build. There are essentially three defining characteristics that help us understand squatter settlement: the physical, the social and the legal with the reasons behind them being interrelated. (http://www.gdrc.org/uem/define-squatter.html)
In Malaysia, squatters include those who are found occupying state land or private land without any permission from the owner. And those found without any basis whatsoever will be categorized as squatters’ simpliciter and the law has a clear procedure dealing with this class of squatters. However, those who become squatters due to expiry of terms of temporary occupation license or due to any dispute relating to right to tenancy will be subject to a different set of procedures of eviction. Moreover, under the Malaysian law, squatters have been perceived as criminals and in some cases classified as trespassers and thus will be judged according to the provisions of the laws. In other words, the word squatters has been seen as a term arising from social and legal problems while trespassers are those subject to civil action under the law of tort. However, recent trend from the cases show that the courts are more inclined to penalize the squatters thus more enforcement have been done. In some cases, they have been classified as trespassers and they are guilty under the law of tort. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SQUATTERS
Section 48 of the National Land Code 1965 (herein after shall be referred to as the NLC) no adverse possession against the state. This provision is very important. It clearly prescribed that there is no room for any persons who claim that they have been in possession of state land for a certain number of years thus the state Authority should alienate the land to them. S 48 determines the only way to get land is through the proper procedures under the NLC. Regardless of the time span an adverse possession can never give the claimant the right to occupy the land.(Kabra Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad bin Shahlan & 6 Ors or Persons Unknown [1992] 2 CLJ 817; Immetec Sdn Bhd v Yong Tai Hoong & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 390. Section 40 of the National Land Code emphasizes that the only authority to alienate land in Malaysia is the State Authority alone and none others. Thus the law that prescribes that occupying any land without any consent from the owner is illegal is the National Land Code 1965. However, most of the actions against squatters’ are undertaken under the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulation 1969 while action against the squatters particularly the eviction is taken under Order 89 of the Rules of the High Court. Section 425 of the NLC further provides that it is an offence to occupy state land, reserved land or mining land without the consent from the State Authority and the person shall be penalized up to RM10.000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Though the law is clear but it lacks of enforcement. In practice, there is no jurisdiction per se that provides for the clear authority to evict squatters. The problem is worst when the issue turns to be a political issue. Thus, each body tries to point fingers to others instead of doing a concerted effort. As result, there is lack of enforcement and the squatters being left occupying the land for a long period and in some cases, their occupation survived based on special protection by certain quarters. It should be mindful that the provision under section 425 and 426 of the NLC deal only with the issue of evicting squatters from state land. In the case of private land, the owner normally invokes the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulation 1969 or the Specific Relief Act or the law of torts depending on the seriousness of the case. Section 426A of the National Land Code 1965 provides in detail the procedures for arrest or demolishing of squatters hut or seizure of squatters’ property. It gives authority to the Police officer not below the rank of Inspector, the Registrar, Land Administrator, Settlement Officer or other officer duly authorized by the State Authority may without warrant:
In order to exercise their duties, the officers are required to produce an authority card to be prescribed by the State Authority. Section 426(3)(4)(5) illustrate the procedures regarding arrest as well as seizure of property. There should be no delay of producing the arrested at the nearest police station. There should be proper notice in writing of the seizure and the grounds thereof to the owner and the notice should either be handed personally or by post or at his place of abode if known. But, if the act of seizure is done in front of the person therefore no such notice is required. Street Building and Drainage Act 1974 This Act provides the definition of squatters’ hut which underlines the authority for the local council to act against the squatters. Another civil action against the squatters is if it is proven that they have trespassed on any private land thus they can be charged for trespass and a claim can be made against him. The Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974, s 70(1) provides that no person shall erect any building without the prior written permission of the local authority. This Act determines the power of the local authority in dealing with squatters. Civil Law Act 1956 However, according to section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956, no land owner is allowed to take personal action against the trespasser except through court. However, the cases provide authorities that self help remedy shall be allowed though not encouraged in order to minimize any bigger consequence. Order 89 of the Rules of the High Court provides that: Where a person claims possession of land which he alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his license or consent or that of any predecessor in title of his, the proceedings may be brought by originating summons in accordance with the provisions of this Order
This summary procedure enables a person such as the registered owner of a piece of land or the registered lessee to obtain for the recovery of his land which is wrongfully occupied by a trespasser or a squatter. The Order does not stipulate that only the registered proprietor may invoke its provisions. Since the law is silent thus, it is for the court to determine whether a particular plaintiff has standing to make the application. (Shaheen Bt Abu Bakar’s , [1990] 1 MLJ 825. This Order only applies to a trespasser which includes a person or persons who entered or remained in occupation without the license or consent of the person making the claim or that of any predecessor in title of his. (Chiu Wing Wa & Ors v Ong Beng Cheng [1994] 1 CLJ 313; Titular Roman Catholic Bishop of Penang v Stephen Ramachandran [1994] 1 LNS 202; [1994] 3 MLJ 4; Bohari Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] 1 CLJ 647; Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v Penghuni-Penghuni Kuil Muneswaran Alayam aatu Kuil Muniandy Maha Kali Alayam [1994] 1 CLJ 164 Cases showed that a number of cases deal with squatters occupying private land while initially the squatters actually occupied state land. But after the land been alienated to any company or developer for development thus the new registered owner will take action to evict the squatters. In most cases, the private owner seeks the help of the authority to evict the squatters and for this purpose the authority including the local authority will take action under the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulation 1969. In Chong Wooi Leong & Ors v Lebbeys Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 644, the occupier has occupied the land based on promises made by the politician. Based on the evidence, the court has said that the appellant has a right in equity thus they were entitled for compensation. Many of the developers and the land owners have agreed to offer a certain kind of scheme in order to relocate the squatters. These schemes include an offer of RM25,000 low cost house, Rm2,500 would be borne by the developer, RM1000 relocation fee, RM3000 as bus fare for kids to go to school. There were also cases where a cash of RM6000 offered to the Malaysian and a slightly lower amount was offered to non Malaysian. In most cases, some of the squatters still reluctance to depart with their ‘lands’ for several reasons known to them. In this situation, as far as equity is concerned, the authority has tried to give justice them. In Bohari Taib’s case, the court decided that there are only two reasons to oust O 89:
To prove to the court that the initial entry is lawful Implied consent or licence on the part of the owner pursuant to which the occupation continued thus if the plaintiff can show any of these two elements, thus he can deny the right of the defendant to simply evict him and take possession of the property without going through any court proceeding and proof of the elements would qualify him for a kind of right in law or in equity. eEmergency (Clearance of Squatters) Ordinance 1969 The Emergency (Essential Power) Act 1979 was once challenged as an outdated and irrelevant act since Malaysia is no more under the state of emergency. However, in most cases, the court held that such law is still valid and enforceable. As a result of having various jurisdiction governing squatters thus when the local authorities decide to take action against them, thus the best law to be invoked is the Emergency Act 1979. As far as the Local Government Act 1976, nothing is mentioned about squatters or action against squatters. Part II of the Regulation is the powers of the local authority to demolish squatter huts erected on state land while Part III is the power of the local authority to demolish squatter huts on private land. THE PROBLEM In Malaysia, prior to the introduction of the registration land system i.e. Torrens system there were various types of practices such as native customs or adats relating to land that had been adopted by the people. The backgrounds of people in Malaysia have portrayed the various land systems practiced by the people. For example, under the Malay customary tenure in which one of the famous principles was those who enliven the land shall become the owner of the land has long been recognized and practiced before the introduction of Torrens system by the British. Thus, the introduction of the registration for any dealing involving land has to a certain extent shaken the practice and becomes a disturbance to the people. Thus, it is not a surprise where some people especially in the rural areas still believed that they have the right to the land in which they had put their sweat and efforts. Thus claims for land ownership against state authority is expected in certain rural area as happened in Sidek v The Government of Perak. Unfortunately, nowadays, the mushrooming of squatters area are more in the urban than rural area. Certainly there should be answers to this problem. To make matter worst, there are individuals, VIP or not, who has influenced, encouraged and promised the squatters to settle on the land, work on it, transform it to become a liveable area, turning thick jungle to become a residential area and enliven a discarded swampy or rubbish area to become a decent settlement area. Unfortunately, one fine day he was told that he is a trespasser, he has 7days to leave the house that he has been living for the past 10 years undisturbed. Now, the land belongs to a company who will turn the areas to become a big shopping complex. What is left to the settler is a battle in court or an option to live in a long house which seems to be small as compared to his wooden single storey bungalow. It is said that urban migration has driven global estimates of the number of squatters over one billion people, with 200,000 added every day. The situation in Malaysia is bearable. While to squat in many countries is in itself a crime; in some others it is only seen as a civil conflict between the owner and the occupants. Property law and the state have traditionally favored the property owner. However, in many cases where squatters had de facto ownership, laws have been changed to legitimize their status. It is said that the United States Homestead Act is an example of such legislation. Again, it is doubtful whether Malaysia will adopt this kind of policy. The present situation base on the current law does not seem to support such policy. Furthermore, although the process of land alienation is known to the public, unfortunately, the basis for alienation is not transparent. Nobody knows why A gets land and why B’s application has been rejected. Whether land alienation system in Malaysia gives equal right to everybody to get land or else the basis of alienation should be made clear and known to the public. WHY DO PEOPLE SQUAT? There are many reasons why do people squat or how squatters settlements come into existence. In Malaysia the reasons vary from economic factor such as poverty, thus cannot afford land or housing, social factors such as legal or illegal immigrant, urbanisation or political factors such as encouragement or promise from the political leaders etc. Looking at the various causes for squatting therefore, it is rather unjust to simply categorise all squatters as squatter per se or squatters simpliciter. It is submitted that there should be a clear category of squatters and the proper categorisation would fairly determine the right solution to them. Apart from the above the reports and study about squatters reveal that the squatters chose to stay in squatters or slum area because they make money by renting out portion or the house to others. Some of them actually afford to stay at a better house but chose to be in squatters area so that they can avoid renting at other places. Though initially the occupation is on temporary basis, the accessibility to the working place and high living standard has caused their stay to become longer and indefinite. WHY SQUATTERS REFUSE TO COOPERATE? 1 The lack of work in the resettlement areas is among the complaint about the resettlement area and is the biggest hurdle in the government's attempts to peacefully remove the squatters. 2. Uncertainty to the promise for new shelter, hence temporary house seem to be permanent. 3. The smaller size of land and house provided by the government at the temporary shelter or low cost house. 4. Lack of facilities, social problems, unhealthy environment, unsuitable for child bringing. 5. High cost of living cause pressure and insecurity. 6. Support from certain quarters such as politicians, NGO and government agencies. 7. Complacent with a no rental stay and free to rent out the house. 8. Problem of getting finance for he new house. 9. Renting status of the new house which they prefer hire purchase.
PRAYERS FROM THE SQUATTERS The cases show several grounds or basis for application made by the squatters. In most cases irrespective whether the opponents are a public authority or private owner, the plaintiff prayed for inter alia:
Issue – does the supply of the amenities constituted an implied consent from the authority? ANSWER: If the land is a private land, the issue of entitlement for proprietary right based on promise and providing amenities does not arise at all since the owner is not the right authority in land alienation If the land is state land, the issue is relevant. However, the National Land Code 1965 has clearly identified the authority that has the right to alienate land i.e. the state authority. Under the National Land Code the State Authority refers to the ruler or the governor of the state as the case may be. In practice, it refers to the Executive Committee chaired by the Chief Minister. However, under the principle of estoppel if the plaintiff can show that their occupation resulting from the representation, express or implied, encouragement even by acquiescence or by conduct which have made the plaintiff to believe that there is an assurance by the representor which has induced him to spend some money thus equity will not let the representor to escape without actualizing the plaintiff’s equity. However, promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel cannot be invoked against the State or a local authority in carrying out its statutory duties. (Govt of Negeri Sembilan & Anor v Yap Chong Lan & Ors[1984] 2 MLJ 123 Issue 2 –Does any official or frequent visit either by the dignitaries or certain government officers would create an implied promise or assurance thus entitled the squatters to claim that they have a legitimate expectation for an alienation of a piece of land from the state authority? Relying back to the argument that no promises or assurance whatsoever may come from any person other than the State Authority shall bind the State Authority to grant land to squatters.
Simple approach taken by the court in dealing with application by squatters (i) Determine whether the plaintiff has the right to occupy the land (ii) If not, it is an offence under section 425 of the NLC (iii) If the plaintiff applied for an injunction to stop the owner or the developer or his agents from entering the land, thus, based on (ii) the plaintiff has no serious question to be tried
PRAYERS BY THE DEFENDANT WHO IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY, STATE GOVERNMENT
PRAYERS BY THE DEFENDANT WHO IS A PRIVATE OWNER OF THE LAND
PROCEDURES There is a slight different of procedures involving squatters on private land and squatters on state land. Under Part 11 of the Regulation, the local authority has the power to demolish squatters’ hut erected on state land without giving notice to the occupier. While Part 111 of the Regulations is the power of local authority to demolish squatters hut on private land by giving 7 days notice to the owner and the occupier. In Yusuf bin Awang v Datuk Bandar Bandaraya Shah Alam & Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam,[2004] 1 LNS 383, the issue of notices has been discussed in detail. In this case, the plaintiff has applied to the court to prevent the defendants from demolishing his house. There were a lot of discrepancies as regard to the way how the 12 notices were sent and responded. One of the notices were left unsigned with the words “tiada kerjasama”, one with signature left blank with a note “notis ditampal”, another one received but by different people thus unsigned, never received nor signed with note “tiada kerjasama”, with a note diberi kepada En Nasir (orang lain). It was argued further that the notices were undated, defective as did not indicate the correct law, no signature and no relevant official stamps of the respondents representatives, the notices contravened the Essential (Clearance of Squatters) Regulation, 1969, the Regulation had never been gazetted, plaintiff never receive notice from the land owner prior to notice from the defendants and the defendant had acted ultra vires the Essential Regulation. In this case the judge held that the defendant failed to serve the notice according to the strict compliance of the law. According to the court, every notice must be served according to section 385 of the Municipal Ordnance (Cap 133) which in this case, the defendant had failed to locate it. Section 385 had been repealed and replaced with section 108 of the Local Government Act 1976. This section provides that service of a document to an occupier may be complied with by personal service, or serving it at the last known address known to an adult member of the household, leaving the documents at the last known residential address or business address in an envelope addressed to the occupier, or posting it by prepaid to the last known residential or business address. Looking closely at the requirement of strict compliance of exercising the obligation to give proper notice is actually an act of equity. Failure which the local authority has failed to exercise its equity jurisdiction. SQUATTERS AND ISLAM It is reported that the Prophet saw have said “anyone who revives any ownerless land shall become the owner of the land”. The history has also shown that the early land system in Malaysia is based on the Islamic law as well as the customary practices. Thus, it is not a surprise that some of the us believe that if they revive any ownerless land thus the land should become theirs. Unfortunately, the land system that we subscribe never recognize any right or interest which lack of registration. As a result, no matter how long is the period of tenancy over any piece of land, only a piece of paper called Register Document of Title that determines whether one is the owner of the land. What is the relevancy of the above saying of the Prophet in the present situation in Malaysia. Certainly what has been said by the Prophet is binding. Unfortunately, applying the application in Malaysia, one can argue that s 40 of the National Land Code has clearly declared that all lands in Malaysia other than alienated land, reserved land and mining land shall belong to the State and the State Authority is responsible for the management of the land. In other words, there are no such terms as ownerless land as far as Malaysia is concerned. Therefore, any person found occupying state land without the proper approval from the State Authority shall be considered as criminal under s 425 of the National Land Code 1965. However, if a person has been given licence to occupy state land and he has stayed there for a very long period without conforming to the requirement under the law, and throughout the period he has never received any notice or reminder from the authority, does that create a legitimate expectation on his part that he has been recognized in some way or another that he is or he shall become the owner of the land or his licence shall be renewed? In Teh Bee v K Marithamuthu, [1977] 2 MLJ 7, the appellant, a TOL holder has occupied state land in which he has been issued a Temporary Occupation Licence and he has occupied the land for about 21 years despite his failure to renew the licence. K Marithamuthu argued that he has the right under equity to be given the right to renew the land or the right to be alienated with the land. However, instead, the authority has decided to alienate the land to a new owner and the court has confirmed the decision of the State Authority and held that registration is everything under the Torrens system. Thus being a person without having a registered right, K Marithamuthu has lost his right to Madam Teh Bee who has just been named as the registered owner of the land. The emphasis of the right in equity has become the main argument in many cases involving squatters and trespassers. Tracing the main purpose of equity, it is found out that the principles of equity has developed due to the rigidity of the common law thus the unsatisfied victim shall refer his case to the King or the Court of Chancery for a better remedy. The decision of the Chancellor to issue a new writ or to give a remedy under the name of justice and good conscience has developed the principles of equity. Therefore, the prayers for equity is normally undertaken when the plaintiff is in the opinion that the law cannot give them proper justice or the appropriate remedy. In cases involving squatters, the law clearly provides that the only way to obtain land is through proper alienation by the State Authority. While due to reasons as mentioned above, the squatters or the ex-licensee may not find it justified for the government to simply reject their application while at the same time alienate the same piece of land to a new person(s) or company. In Sidek v The State Government of Perak, [1982] 1 MLJ 313 Sultan Azlan Shah, CJ has clearly stated that the squatters has no right in law or in equity. In this case, Sidek and a few others has CJ (Malaya) . The Judge has made the decision eventhough there was a clear evidence showed that there were promises made by the authority where in this case the promises were made by the Director of Land and Mines and it was reported in the news paper. The statement that squatters has no right in law and in equity has become a golden quote and quoted in few other cases after Sidek’s. such as Chong Wooi Leong & 29 Ors v Lebbey Sdn Bhd and Sentul Murni’s. The court further said that mere promises are not sufficient to bind the government to alienate the land to the promisee. The National Land Code merely provides alienation when the procedures laid down by the NLC are clearly followed. The promises made by the relevant people have seemed to be among the important arguments put forward by the squatters as well as the ex-licensee or occupiers holding over. For example in Bohari Taib & Ors v PTG Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, the TOL holder has been assured that if the TOL land been developed for 5 years, they will get a 99 years leasehold land. However, the promises have not been materialized due to some changes in political scenario. The fact that there were cases where some squatters managed to get land through settlement without permission and that has become the precedent for others to follow suit. In Sidek’s case, only Sidek and few unfortunate settlers did not get the right to the land while the majority of them managed to get the land Another case, Chong Wooi Leong & 29 Ors v Lebbey Sdn Bhd [1998] 3 AMR 2053 also involved rehabilitation and occupation of swampy and dumping site for a long period. The swampy area has turned to become a decent residential area with reasonable infrastructure including road, electricity, musolla, dan other social facilities. Various promises made by various parties including the political people, the community leaders and also the government officers. In one incident, part of the village caught by fire and the villagers were given green light to rebuild their houses. In fact, they have been advised by the authority to make proper application to the State Authority and alos promises that the application shall be expedite and properly considered. Unfortunately, again the application failed and the village was alienated to a developer and all settlers were ejected as squatters have no right in law and in equity. A similar fate was destined to the settlers in Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd lwn. Ahmad Amirudin & 3 Ors [2001] 4 AMR 4092 where at the end of the day the fortunate land developer has been bestowed with the land long been occupied by the poor villagers. Legally speaking, the authority has acted in line with the provision of the law and there is nothing to question their rights in making the judgement. Unfortunately, a close scrutiny from the squatters perspective would offer to us another line of arguments for consideration. PROMISES In Islam, we are taught that Muslim are bound by their agreements. It is sinful to simply give assurance to others and neglect it for certain reasons. Muslim are required to exert himself to fulfill his promises. If the promisor is not a Muslim, does moral teaching or values teach us the same line of teaching. Is it unethical to make promises and later breaches the promises. Islam never classify promises that are bound to be carried out or otherwise. As long as it is a promise, we are bound or just avoid ourselves from making promises. Thus, as in Teh Bee v K Marithamuthu, are we in the opinion that the period of 21 years in occupation undisturbed would create an expectation that they can stay n the land and they might become the legal owner of the land? In Bohari’s case,, would there be a presumption that when the settlers have complied with the requirements as outlined by the authority that they would expect one day the authority will fulfill the promises and the land will become theirs? Morally speaking, should the land become theirs? In Lebbeys’s case, , are promises made by the community leaders, or the officers are mere promises and has no value at all? Are the promises made by the politicians or ministers have no value and carry no effects at all?
DO SQUATTERS HAVE NO RIGHT AT ALL UNDER THE NATIONAL LAND CODE? The literal interpretation of the laws and the cases would answer the question affirmatively. However, why there should be different treatment of those occupying private land and state land where illegal occupation of state land is a crime under NLC while illegal occupation of private land would be liable under tort. Why there should be different treatment? It is a mere trespass and is a civil action. It is agreeable that there is no legal solution for squatters. But, it is submitted that the court can still invoke the principle of equity to help the squatters. It is not necessary for the court to decide for the right of land or proprietory right as the only solution for squatters. Equity offers a variety of remedies including reasonable notice to vacate the land, related payment or compensation for the expenditure resulting from reliance on the promises made by certain squatters pertaining to the right to the land, etc. Equity can provide the right basis to invoke the principle of ihya-ul-mawat as practiced during the time of the Prophet and to be modified based on the need of the society. In practice, the government in certain occasion calls for cooperation from various private sector to help the government develop the country. In this regard, offers can be made to any individual who are interested to revive land in an area to be determined by the government taking into consideration cost and benefit. Furthermore, the government has not benefited free of charge for any development initiated by the private sector. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION 1. Land should not be left idle and empty. The local auhorities must ensure that undeveloped state lands are planted with trees or plants so that people will not occupy them. (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, 30 May 2002, (www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archieve) 2. Squatted social centres/ Long house / Permanent house / Low cost flats. There are many squatted social centre which have normally set up by countries where squatting is legalised. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatter#Squatting_in_the_United_States) Additionally, US states which have a shortage of housing tend to tolerate squatters in property awaiting redevelopment until the developer is ready to begin work; however, at that point the laws tend to be enforced 3. There should be equal access and transparent system on land alienation. 4. Promises to the effect of having a right over land should be discouraged or with proper evidences, the promises should be made responsible in a way or another. No person should be allowed to use his position in order to influence others for their own personal gain and later ignore it. 5. In alienation, priority should be given to those who have been found occupying the land for such a long period which reflect the failure on the part of the authority to play their roles effectively. 6. Squatters problem is not a problem per se. It arises due to many reasons entrenched in the system itself. Thus, there should be a concerted effort from all parties, including the NGO, media, Legal aids bureau, the Ministries such as the rural development to tackle the problems from all aspects. Prevention is better than cure approach should be adopted. 7. The root of the problem is urbanisation and its impact on the people. More job opportunities resulting from urbanisation have caused for migration of people from the rural area to urban area. Thus, the system should be able to foresee this effect and do the necessary preparation. The development cannot be materialized without the presence of all class of workers thus the system should support the needs arising from these changes. Thus, employers should provide accommodation or financial scheme to assist their employees to buy or rent a house. 8. Decent housing will attract squatters to move to the housing prepared by the government without hesitation. 9. Proper statistic about the number of squatters must be gathered from time to time to ensure that there is no free riders who wish to take easy benefit of the scheme offered to genuine squatters. For this purpose, only squatters who are in occupation of the land or house are more qualified for the scheme offered by the government or developers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|