Wednesday 7 May 2014

Baru's Private Member Bill on NCR land rejected


Baru Bian: Thank you Tuan Speaker. By this motion, Tuan Speaker, I
seek leave to introduce a private members Bill in this august House. The title of the
propose Bill may be cited as the Land Code (Amendment Bill 2014). Amendment of
Section 2(1), Section 2 of the Land Code Cap 1958 edition, hereafter referred to as
the Code is amended as follows:




(a) By adding immediately after the sub-section A of the definition of native
custody land, the following due sub-section (aa). (aa) sub-definition under
sub-section A shall include cleared obliged farm land (Temuda or its
equivalent) reserve forest area (Pulau Galau obliged Pulau or its
equivalent) and terminal land obliged territory domain (Pemakai Menua or
its equivalent); and
b) By adding immediately after the definition of native custody land the
following new definition :-
Native right means right described in the Section 7a Sub-clause 1 created
by or belong to native over land not issued with the document title.
Amendment of Section 5(2). Section 5 of the code is amended as
follows:-
(i) By adding immediately after the word Minister, the last line of sub-
section A the words “after free prior and inform consultation have
been obtained from any person whose native custody over right over
said land are affected and called.”
New section 7a (3) the code is amended by adding immediately after Section 7 the
following section 7a. Transfer etc of custody rights over land. 7(a)(1) the following
are rights belonging to a native over any land in respect of which no document of title
has been issued:-

(a) rights fully law created pursued Section 5 sub-clause 1 or sub-clause 2,

(b) rights and privileges over any land declared as native communal reserved
under Section 6 sub-clause 1;

(c) rights to kampung reserved;

(d) native custody land as define under Section 2 under the definition of
native custody land sub-section (aa).

(2) Any rights described in sub-section 1 may be transferred or transmitted to or
inherited or required by any native;

(3) The transfer transmission inheritance or requisition native rights over land under
sub-section 1 shall in accordance with the system of personal law applicable to the
community to which the native belong and shall be regulated by rules made under
Section 213. I beg to move, Tuan Speaker.

Tuan Speaker: Seconded? Kota Sentosa.
Tuan Speaker: Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat.  I hereby give my ruling.
 Ground One.
 By granting leave for the motion to proceed and its approval thereof will incur an
astronomical sum of money to be paid in terms of compensation to the existing
claims pending hearing in court.
Standing Order 23 (5) “ A motion which directly or indirectly involves any such grant, charge, expenditure, release, remission or  compensation, as mentioned in Paragraph (4)(A) to (D) shall be treated as seeking  grant, expenditure, release, remission or compensation unless the said Minister
signifies in writing that it does not go beyond what is incidental only and not as of a substantial nature having regard to the purposes of the motion”.
Erskine May Parliamentary practice 24th  edition page 537 “ A private member
may not move or leave to bring in a Bill which the main object is to create a charge
by way of taxation or expenditure.

 Ground Two. Standing Order (20) (2) (g) “ Every question shall not be so
drafted as to be likely to prejudice a case under or pending trial before a Court of
Law, an arbitrator or Commission of Inquiry or be asked on any matter which is sub
judice” bearing in mind that there are numerous cases pending in court in relation to
the private members Bill therefore, impliedly seeking a fast solution to the on going
legal cases that are still pending and enhance a further claims therefore it is a sub
judice.

 Erskine May Page 396, “the house resolve that no matter awaiting un
jurisdiction in a court of law including a coroner‟s court for a fatal accident injury
should be brought before it by a motion or otherwise”.

 Ground Three, the motion provides the definition of Pulau Galau and Pemakai
Menua based on interpretation of the court in the case of Madihi Salleh versus
Superintendent of Land & Survey Miri and another but the contention of the State
Government is that in that case the plaintiff Madihi Salleh was a Malay and that
therefore, not being an Iban, the NCR definition of Pulau Galau and Pemakai Menua
does not apply.

The decision of the court in the case of Nur ak Gawan versus Superitendent of Land & Survey Bintulu and another, the interpretation of Pulau Galau and Pemakai Menua did not reach the affect court namely the Federal Court.
Whatever interpretation and definition the court may give on Pulau Galau and
Pemakai Menua, the Court does not have the power to legislate this definition. It is a
well established principle of law that the power to legislate lies in Parliament. It is
Parliament that legislate the law. This Bill is premature because the State Government is committed to come up with legislation that will give definition to Pulau Galau and Pemakai Menua. This is within purview and power of Parliament.
The State Government has declared its intention to table a propose legislation on the
relevant amendment of the Land Court. This propose legislation has a better chance
to see the light of day because it will be table by the Government of the day that
command more than two third majority to approve the Bill.

 Ground 4. Standing Order 82 “No member shall appear before the Dewan, or
any Committee thereof, in any capacity for which he is to receive a fee or reward, or
as an advocate for any party”.

 Section 31(1) Dewan Undangan Negeri Privileges Empowers Ordinance “ No
member shall in the Dewan or any Committee without leave of the Speaker or
Chairman of the Committee raised articulate or solicit support from other members
for any matter or proposal or scheme on behalf of any client or person for which he
act in a professional capacity or reward in monetary or in any other form”.

 Erskine May Page 80, Declaration of interest in debate. “ In a debate, a
member is required to declare any relevant particularly interest of benefit of whatever
nature, whether direct or indirect that he may have or may be expecting to have.
Just, thus the rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules
relating to legislation in requiring declaration of both relevant past interest and
relevant interest which the member maybe expecting to have in the future.

It is the responsibility of the member having regard to the rule of the house to judge whether
a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to require a declaration. The basic test of
relevance is similar to that for registration that a financial interest should be declared
if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the members‟ speech.

 Page 81, Declaration of other proceedings of the house. Declaration of relevant interest is required on order paper when taking any written notice including (i) questions (ii) early day motion and amendment to them or any name in support  of such motion and amendment (iii) a notice of motion for leave to introduce a 10 minute rule and so forth. A motion for presentation of Bill with those grounds now, I  would like the question to be put to vote for the House to decide whether to give
leave for the motion to proceed.

 Standing Order 45 (3) “ Leave being granted on a question put and carried, the
Bill should be deemed to have been read the first time and ordered to be printed and
a copy of the Bill shall be delivered to the Secretary”. The Question before the
Dewan is that the motion on application for leave to introduce a private members Bill
in the Order Paper in the name of the Ahli Yang Berhormat for Ba‟ Kelalan be
approved.

Question put to vote

Tuan Speaker: Members who want the leave be granted and the motion to proceed
for are 14. Members against the leave should not be given are 52. Motion is
therefore, dismissed.


No comments: