EVERY government construction project usually begins with first settling the land matter, either via land acquisition or land swap.

The public normally pays more attention to the transaction value, as well as the relationship between the beneficiary and the government.

As a result, the question about land management is often neglected, escaping public scrutiny.

Citing controversial land deals, Ong Kian Ming, MP for Bangi, mentioned RM50 billion debts incurred by Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd, the RM100 million retirement ‘gift’ to jailed former prime minister Najib Razak and the RM2 billion land purchase by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) in 2017.

The Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd case involves taking on loans from EPF and KWAP for land, and then leasing it back to the government.

At the same time, a small portion of land was gifted to Razak, flouting Ministry of Finance guidelines, while for the BNM land deals the authority’s independence and autonomy are called into question.

However, better federal land management with increased accountability and transparency could have prevented such controversial land deals to a certain extent.

The public should demand and emphasise improved governance of federal lands.

Separate assets owner from management

Federal government land is administered by the Federal Lands Commissioner (FLC), except for lands held by a particular ministry or agency, which are managed by the director-general of lands and mines (DGLM), except in Sabah and Sarawak.

The role of DGLM is to consult, co-ordinate and standardise land administration matters. Currently both FLC and DGLM are held by the same public servant appointed by the king.

Separation of the respective functionality and roles on land management by the FLC and DGLM would certainly improve accountability.

An example, often cited as a good model to describe the workarounds for separation between assets owner and management, are MRT Corp (owner) and Prasarana (service operator).

Increase accountability and transparency

The FLC also should be accountable to parliamentary public accounts committee (PAC).

Besides the routine parliamentary questions session and auditor-general’s reports, PAC should be empowered to scrutinise land-related affairs due to significant public interest.

More transparency is needed on federal land management. Setting up an integrated database would be required for transparency and accountability.

The database should publish the statistics of federal lands as well as the records of land transaction details involving the federal government.

It should also include details of land expropriation, background of the projects and the developers involved.

The database should emulate the National Property Information Centre (NAPIC).

At the same time, the FLC should be empowered legally to become advisers to the federal government for land deals, so that this could help avoid impractical, poor or vested interest decisions.

In conclusion, procedural justice should always be advocated by civil society as a watchdog to encourage the government to focus more on improved governance and prevent further mismanagement, which could erode public confidence in the government.

Accountability (public inquiry) and transparency (public scrutiny for public interest) are two important elements which could exert significant influence to prevent misconducts in future. – October 10, 2022.

* Nick Tan Beng Teong graduated with Bachelor of Economics at University of Malaya. A member of Agora Society, Tan believes in policy reforms in order to build a better nation.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.