You are on page 1of 22

International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.

6, 389-409

Spatial Data Infrastructure for Malaysian Land Administration

Abdul Rashid Mohamed Shariff1, Abd Halim Hamzah1, Ahmad Rodzi Mahmud1, Nik Mohd Zain Nik Yusof2 and Hishamuddin Mohd Ali3

Spatial and Numerical Modelling Laboratory, Institute of Advance Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia,,

Department of Land Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia,

Department of Property Management, Faculty of Geoinformation and Real Estate, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract Land administration started with a manual land tax collection and subsequently moved towards computerised system to improve the land information delivery services. However, three factors in non-technical integration issues (institutional, legalisation and social) have turned out to be the main problems for land administration stakeholders especially at national level for multi-government countries. The implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructures can reduce nontechnical integration issues among land administration stakeholders to produce better decisions for a spatially enabled government. The result from this research could act as a guideline for the making of policy, strategy and management for land information delivery services for multi-government country (federal, state and local). This research will be useful for land administrators, land strategy management decision makers and multi-land researchers in land ownership, land use and land value fields. Keywords: Spatial Data Infrastructure, Land Administration and Information System

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial Works 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. DOI: 10.2902/1725-0463.2011.05.art17


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

1. INTRODUCTION Today, government agencies are moving towards creating and updating their land information infrastructure to improve land information delivery services. The players of land administration such as land surveyors, lawyers, planners, appraisers and land administrators are experts in designing, creating, defining and managing land parcels and associated rights in land administration activities. By the mid nineteenth century, land administration involved buying, selling, mortgaging and leasing of rights of lands. By the mid twentieth century, land administration and cadastral officials involved associated legal and surveying professionals, assuming that they understood land markets, and have developed appropriate professional skills to serve the needs. Land administration is more of a multi-disciplinary endeavour with a focus on land use; land management; land information delivery services and supporting framework for trading in complex commodities toward spatially enabling government. The objective of this paper to identify the key issues related to the implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructure for Malaysian land administration, focusing on land information delivery services from a non-technical integration perspective. 2. LAND ADMINISTRATION SCENARIO The land administration field, including the structure of an institutional, land multiactivities, legal protection, Information System (IS) is practiced at federal, state and provincial or district government level. The implementation of an SDI for land administration activities such as registration, taxation and development can help the government to move towards a spatially enabling government. UN-ECE (1996) and Steudler and Williamson (2002) defined land administration as "the processes of determining, recording and disseminating information about the tenure, value and use of land when implementing land management policies. It is considered to include land registration, cadastral surveying and mapping, fiscal, legal and multi-purpose cadastres and land information systems. In many jurisdictions, land administration is closely related to or facilitates land use planning and valuation/land taxation systems, although it does not include the actual land use planning or land valuation processes" (p. 3). Land administration started with mapping or land surveying field and involves several activities such as land registration; land acquisition; land development; land consent (related to land dealing transaction) and land enforcement as a guide for manual tax collection. Land administrations are concerned with the social, legal, economic and technical framework within land managers and land administrators (UN-ECE, 1996). Williamson and Wallace (2007) mentioned that


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

the primary tools of land administration are based on the current practices such as land surveying, land registration and databases run by government organisations or institutions (federal/national, state and provincials/districts). Enemark et al (2005) also stressed that land administration SDI, particularly with the core cadastral components are important infrastructures, which facilitate the implementation of land policies in both developed and developing countries. Williamson et al (2005) further explained that land administration is presently moving towards information management stage using IS especially to revolutionise collection, management, presentation and use of spatial information. Such a system can support land markets and is concerned with the administration of land as a natural resource to ensure sustainable development.
Figure 1: Cadastral Systems Facilitate Three Key Attributes of Land Administration toward Spatial or Land Information
Attribute Information on land Ownership/tenure Social Stability (Economic Growth, Efficient Land Market, Security of Tenure and Investments)

Land Ownership/Tenure (Land Rights Legal Means)

Land Value (Valuation, Taxation Fiscal Means)

Land Use (Planning Control Environmental Means)

Collateral and Tax Basis (Financial Services Public Services) Attribute Information on Land Value

Land Development (Resource Management Environmental Sustainability) Attribute Information on Land Use


Source: Adopted from Dale and McLaughlin (1999), Steudler and Williamson (2002) and Enemark et al (2005).


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

Enemark et al (2005) stated that the IS related to land administration should be concerned with providing detailed information at the individual land parcel level. It will bring benefits to both the individual and the community in future. These benefits include: i. ii. iii. iv. Guaranteeing ownership, security of tenure and credit; Facilitating efficient land transfers and land markets; Supporting management of assets; and Providing basic information in physical planning processes, land development, environmental control and backbone for society.

The land information infrastructure for land and properties should be parallel with the interrelated systems within the four areas of land tenure, land value, land use and land development. This should be organised at the national, regional/federal and local government levels based on relevant policies for data sharing, cost recovery, access to data and standards. From that, they can build efficient and effective access to land market and land use management in land administration. The Bathurst Declaration stressed that sustainable development needs sound land administration (good land information; better land policy; better land administration and management; and better land use) (UN-FIG, 1999). Thus, Steudler (2007) identified the following land administration toolbox principles: i. Land Policy Principles (such as state and national land policy, role of land administration to supporting in land market and managing natural resources); Land Tenure Principles (such as recognition of indigenous and information tenures); Land Administration and Cadastral Principles (such as national land information system and implementation of reform); Institutional Principles (such as government, ministerial, departmental structure and decentralisation); Spatial Data Infrastructure Principles (such as SDI roles in supporting land administration and development of infrastructure vs. business system); and Human Resource Development and Capacity Building Principles (such as sustainable long-term capacity of educated and trained personal to operate the system in both public and private sectors).

ii. iii. iv. v.


The expansion of our land administration to support the trading of complex commodities offers many opportunities for land administrators. For example, land information as one particular commodity can provide the potential for significant change of the way societies operate, and how the governments and the private sector do business. The fundamental idea can rebuild land administration to support emerging needs of the government, business and society to deliver more 391

International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

integrated and effective information, and to use this information throughout government and non-government processes by organising technical systems in the virtual environment around a particular place or location. At the same time, land administration can support several norms to achieve good governance such as sustainability, efficiency, transparency and accountability, equity and security. 3. LAND ADMINISTRATION AND SDI GSDI (2004) summarised that Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) are technologies, policies and institutional arrangements available to facilitate access to spatial data. SDIs provide a basis for spatial data discovery, evaluation and application for all levels of government (federal, state or local/provincial level), commercial sector (profit sector and non-profit sector), multi-level academic and the public. SDIs facilitate the conveyance of virtually unlimited packages of Geographic Information (GI) with the use of standards and specifications. The creation of specific organisations or programs for developing or overseeing the development of SDI, particularly by the government at various scales can be seen as the logical extension of the long practice of co-ordinating the building of other infrastructures necessary for on-going development. Rajabifard et al (2003) identified the following four SDI initiatives based on different groups of people, organisations and agencies in the development and implementation of SDI: i. ii. iii. Regional SDI or Global SDI - interested to cooperate with multiple countries in different fields which need lower data resolution; National SDI - using lower resolution or small scale data, frequently producing and using data at lower level of detail and cover broad areas; State SDI - using large scale and particularly land parcel data. However, it uses less detailed data covering large regions that pertains to a particular layer; and Local SDI - creates and uses a great deal of detailed information covering small area or smaller scales within jurisdictional boundaries and needs the framework dataset as a base for applications and frequently data integration.


Williamson et al (2003) observed the growth of regional SDIs such as Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and The Pacific (PCGIAP) that happened in parallel with the conferences and forums on SDI at national level. SDI development at national level is normally driven by the national mapping agency or national land agency. The responsibility for SDI initiative in Malaysia is led by the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure. However, the SDI activity for land administration or cadastral activities in several countries are under the state or provincials/district authority. Williamson et al (2005) identified


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

four factors based on the relationship between SDI implementation and land administration. These are: i. ii. iii. The objective of SDI is to link people to data; If a country is made up of multi governments, the SDI must have both interjurisdictional and intra-jurisdictional linkages between the different levels; The SDI concept must evolve from First Generation (Product Based Model such as definition of data, collection of data and integration of data) to Second Generation (Process Based Model such as knowledge infrastructure, capacity building and more coordination); and Understand that SDI is not a database; it is an infrastructure which links people to data and comprises policies, access technologies and standards.


The concept of people-relevant data in the land administration field can provide richness to the implementation of SDI, which distinguishes it from the typically small-scale data in national, regional or global SDIs. Williamson et al (2003) observed that the last decade had seen the evolving SDI concept focussing on National SDIs. There is an expectation that next decade will focus on large scale SDIs and particularly those related to land administration activities. Mohammadi et al (2006) highlighted the two stage focus in the development of the National SDIs. The first is the technical stage (such as application; standard; and interoperability) and the second is the non-technical stage (such as arrangements of a single standard of data model; awareness of existing spatial data; and development of collaboration models). Mohammadi et al (2006) again highlighted that the integration of multi-sourced datasets not only involves geometrical and topological datasets and correspondence of attributes but should also provide social, legal, institutional, policy mechanisms and technical tools. At the same time, the non-technical stages are mostly handled by managers, strategy-makers and policy-makers in interaction with other layers of spatial data stakeholders. 4. LAND ADMINISTRATION TOWARD SPATIALLY ENABLING GOVERNMENT Masser et al (2007) observed that the vision of a Spatially Enabled Government (SEG) is to establish an enabling infrastructure that will facilitate the provision of the place or location for all human activities and government actions, decisions and policies. The enabling infrastructure provides the set of tools combining technical, institutional, legal and policy aspects that can be used to assist the delivery of sustainable development at all levels of government and society. Such spatial enablement allows business transactions to be linked to a place or location and further facilitates the evaluation and analysis of relationships


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

between people, business transactions and government. Masser et al (2007) identified that a SEG plans to achieve three broad goals: i. More effective and more transparent coordination, where voters are able to access the spatial information they require to evaluate the choices made by elected decision makers; The creation of economic wealth through the development of products and services based on spatial information collected by all levels of government agencies; and The maintenance of environmental sustainability through regular and repeated monitoring of a wide range of spatial indicators distributed throughout the world as a whole.



Williamson and Wallace (2006) also stressed that bringing spatial enablement into land administration requires ability, and the utility of land information is significantly improved by spatially enabling information, geo-referencing significant core data, graphical mapping and overlaying of details and descriptions. Spatial enablement and interoperability of the core information layers enable hierarchical access and use (among other uses). At the same time, the real-time, pinpoint accuracy in land identification and measurement might be thought necessary: indeed demands for land information accuracy, comprehensiveness, completeness and accessibility through the hierarchy of local, regional and national governments in a country are frequently voiced.
Figure 2: SDI and Land Administration Arrangements in Land Management Model

Sustainable Development (Economic, Social and Environmental)

Land Policy Framework


Land Administration Functions (Land Tenure, Land Value Land Use, Land Development)

Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI)

Land Information Infrastructure

Country Context (Institutional Arrangements)

Adopted from Enemark et al (2005). Source: Rajabifard & Binns (2006)

Rajabifard and Binns (2006) observed that the organisational structures for land management or land administration must consider local cultural and judicial settings with institutional arrangements to better support the implementation of


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

land policies and good governance. The land management or land administration activities needed to support sustainable development are described by three components, namely: Land Policies, Land Information Infrastructures and Land Administration Functions. The development of SDIs plays a central role in facilitating a countrys land information infrastructure. 5. MALAYSIAN LAND ADMINISTRATION Usually the term land administration in the context of the Malaysian Government refers to the Department of Director General of Land and Mines (for federal government) and State and District Land and Mines Office (for state or local government). However, after reviewing the definition based on Dale and McLaughlin (1999); Steudler and Williamson (2002) and Enemark et al (2005) land administration for the Malaysian Government in fact involves three ministries with several activities. The Malaysian land administration structure is based on the combination of three levels of governments (federal, state and local). The federal government is involved in national vision, mission, policy or strategies formulation, financial budget and human resources management; and the state or local government is involved in the implementation of road map related on land administration elements toward a successful Malaysian electronic government. Figure 3 shows the structure of land ownership for the Malaysian land administration.
Table 1: Land Administration Elements for the Malaysian Government
Land Administration Elements Malaysia Government Ministry: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Agencies: Department of Director General of Land and Mines (JKPTG) State and District Land and Mines Office (PTG & PTD) Several activities: Involves land registration, land disposal, land consent, land revenue, land enforcement, land alienation, land development and land acquisition. Involves several legalisation such as National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965), State Land Rules, Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 318), Federal Land Commissioner Act 1957 (Act 349) and Land Acquisition (Compensation) (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1948. Ministry: Ministry of Housing and Local Government Agencies: Department of Federal Town and Country Planning (JPBD) Several activities: Involves strengthening the physical, social, and economic development system in urban and rural areas especially to upgrade

Land Ownership/ Tenure

Land Use


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

the standard of living. Draft and implement planning methodologies, policies, plans and guidelines. Involves several legalisation such as Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172), Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171), Uniform Building By-Law 1984 and Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133)

Land Value

Ministry: Ministry of Finance Agencies: Department of Valuation and Property Services (JPPH) Several activities: Provide accurate, comprehensive and timely information regarding the demand and supply of property for government agencies, property developers and all parties involved in the property industry. Provide comprehensive, quality and up-to-date property data especially property demand and supply data from various parties. Portray the actual situation pertaining to the demand and supply of property. Develop and maintain a national property stock warehouse. Advise the government on property development.

Source: JKPTG (2007), JPBD (2006), and JPPH (2006) Figure 3: The Structure of Land Ownership Activities for Malaysian Land Administration with SDI
Focus on Federal Government Land (such as lands of Ministry or Federal Agencies and as an advisor for state government land activities such as law and policy) National SDI level

Department of Director General of Land and Mines (JKPTG) (Federal Level)

State SDI level

Land and Mines Office (PTG) (State Level)

Department of Director General of Land and Mines (JKPTG) (State Level)

Local/District SDI level

District Land Office (PTD) (District Level)

Focus on State Government Land (such as alienation of land, disposal of land, enforcement, land development, land acquisition and land revenue)

Source: JKPTG (2007)

Yidris (2005) emphasised the structure of the Malaysian land ownership for land administration and land law practices based on the Torrens system introduced by the British. Three main land laws are in use: National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) implemented at all state for peninsular of Malaysia only; Sarawak Land Code 396

International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

(Cap 81) implemented for Sarawak only; and Sabah Land Ordinance (Cap 68) implemented for Sabah only. The structure of the Malaysian land ownership activities is based on Part VI, Chapter 1, Article 74, and Second List (State List) in Ninth Schedule stresses that the Legislature of a State may make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List (Malaysia Federal Constitution, 2008). However, Part Three, Chapter 1, Section 40 (Malaysia National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations, 2008) also stressed all property in State land, minerals and rock material within the territories of State. However, Part VI, Chapter 1, Article 76 Clauses (4) (Malaysia Federal Constitution, 2008) mentions that the federal government has the power to ensure uniformity of law and policy such as to make laws with respect to land tenure; registration of titles and deeds relating to land; transfer of land; mortgages; leases and charges in respect of land; and local government. 5.1. Malaysian Land Administrations and SDI

NRE (2007) identified the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaCGDI) as the leader for the Malaysian National SDI especially in relation to geospatial data. The functions of the MaCGDI include advising the Malaysian government in the formulation and implementation of policies and the development of information standard for geospatial data that can guide federal, state and private agencies in the geospatial activities. However, SDI implementation for the Malaysian land administration elements of land ownership, land value and land use belongs to various agencies or departments (see Table 1). The relationship between the SDI hierarchy and the components for the Malaysian land administration is shown in Table 2. The federal and state governments handle issues of policy, strategy and finance. The local government is responsible for creating awareness and managing financial and human resources. There is a pressing need for the federal and state governments to help the local government on up-to-date information for the land administration. 5.2. Land Information Infrastructures for Malaysian Land Administration

The development of a land information infrastructure in Malaysia began when the Federal Cabinet officially established the development of the Land Information System on 23rd September 1987 (JKPTG, 2007). The setting up of the National Infrastructure for Land Information System (NaLIS) followed in October 1989; and subsequently, in December 2002, NaLIS evolved into what is today called the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure ((MaCGDI, 2007). However the implementation of IS for the Malaysian land information infrastructure for land administration should now focus on the capability of the IS especially in the fourth era of IS as defined by Ward and Peppard (2002).


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

Ward and Peppard (2002) and Abd.Halim et al (2009) stressed that the Cadastral Information System (CIS) involved three central dimensions: first, fusing IS knowledge and business knowledge to ensure the conception of strategies to utilize technological innovation; to seize opportunities quickly; and to implement these strategies successfully. It includes managing change and making appropriate technology-sourcing decisions and involves knowing the extent of change that the business is capable of absorbing. Secondly, a flexible and reusable IT infrastructure provides the technical platform and resources needed to have the ability to respond quickly to competitor moves, as well as the capacity to launch innovative IS applications supporting new process designs or business initiatives. Meanwhile the third dimension in CIS is the effective use of processes to link IS/IT assets with value realisation; through the application of the technology to create an environment conducive for collecting, organising and maintaining information; together with embracing the right behaviours for working with information. The use process has two aspects; using the technology and working with information.
Table 2: Comparison between SDI Hierarchy and SDI Components for the Malaysian Land Administration Government Agencies



Include several activities such as administration, financial, facilities, human resources, coordination, custodianship, data access, sponsorship, leadership, education & training, policy and legislation (needs successful partnerships & communication between agencies and jurisdictions) Supported by state and local government

Supported by federal government



Include several activities such as geodetic control, topographic features, cadastre map, administrative boundaries, geographic names and localities, street address and position of national & state projects (not definitive and dependent on the priorities of the responsible agency within each jurisdiction) National Geodetic National & State National & Local Control Networks, Land Control Networks Control Networks use & Land covers Following: i. Custodianship Data Circular (PKPA 2001) ii. Pricing and Delivery Geospatial Data Circular (PKPA 2005) iii. Security Order for Geospatial Document Categories Circular (PKPA 2007)


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409



Consistent standards and policy such as National Standards or International (ISO/TC211) are required to enable the sharing, integration and distribution of spatial data; hence standards for data models, metadata, transfer and interoperability of storage and analysis software. Policy particularly needs to be consistent for the pricing and access to spatial data within and between jurisdictions. Following: i. MS1759 (Feature and Attribute Codes) ii. Malaysian Metadata Standard (International Standard Metadata ISO/TC211 19115 : Geographic Information) iii. Geography Name Database and Gazette iv. Land Administration Boundaries and Code Structure (UPI)
Involves the acquisition, storage, integration, maintenance and enhancement of spatial data. Consists of the access and distribution networks and clearinghouse for getting spatial information/datasets to users



State Directory System

Local Directory System Limited for state or local government organisation only

Limited for federal government organisation only

Include users, providers, administrators, custodians of spatial data, valueadded re-sellers and the users can be governments agencies, academia, small or large business or individuals and non-profit sectors Limited for state or local government organisation only

Limited for federal government organisation only

Source: Adopted from Rajabifard et al (2003), Warnest et al (2005) and McDougall (2006)

5.2.1. Land Ownership/Tenure Activities The land information infrastructure for land ownership/tenure activities refers to the implementation of the e-Tanah system as an internal system towards modernization of land ownership/tenure at all District Land Offices. According to the e-Tanah Project Team (2008), the e-Tanah system was introduced in April 2004. Bakar (2006) described it as a pilot project at the Penang Land Administration upon approval by the Cabinet on 19 January 2005. The structure of the e-Tanah project management involves two levels; first the federal level led by the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry (NRE) secretary leader as the chairman for the e-Tanah Steering Committee and supported by the e-Tanah Advisory Committee, the Quality Assurance Group, the e-Tanah Legal Committee, the e-Tanah Project Team and the e-Tanah Contractor/Vendor. Second, the state level led by the State Government Secretary as the chairman for the Electronic Good Governance Steering Committee supported by the State e-Tanah Team (Land and Mines Officer as secretariat) and all districts of the eTanah team (e-Tanah Project Team, 2008). Chong (2008) explained that the eTanah system involves nine core modules of land administration such as


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

registration (as a main module), land development, disposal of land, land consent and land revenue. The e-Tanah system has several important characteristics such as combination of concepts of centralised and distributed systems (Hybrid System) between the Land and District Office and the Land and Mines Office; a system that is safe to use, simplifies work, and prepares information on land administration in an accurate, expedient, efficient, integrated and uniform manner. Chong (2008) also stressed, based on pilot project at the Penang Land Administration, that the e-Tanah project can give several benefits to the government, such as increasing the revenue collection of the state and federal governments; enabling the government to plan land development in a specific area correctly; moreover, collaboration with MaCGDI can ease the process of obtaining comments and suggestion from the technical department. At the same time, this project can give several benefits to the public, as the public can obtain information and services online; with the Single Point of Contact Concept users obtain more effective, secure and user-friendly services; and centralised counters with direct transactions.
Figure 4: The Concept of the e-Tanah System Customer

(Public, Business, Government)

Single Point of Contact

On-line Services

One-Stop Payment Centre

Public Portal
State Secretary Office


Payment Gateway Technical Departmen

External Integration

Internal Portal


Core Module

Support Module e-Tanah System

Source: Chong (2008)


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

5.2.2. Land Use Activities The land information infrastructure for land use activities refers to the Integrated Land Use Planning System (I-Plan). JPBD (2006) identified the I-Plan as an internal system and can update the sharing of more comprehensive information among JPBD headquarters, State JPBD and Zone Office base on Relational Database Management System (RDMS). The National Land Use Information Division (NLiD) is the custodian for land use data for JPBD and has three functions of NLiD; first to manage and coordinate database (involved in management of geodata collection, verification, standardization, storage and sharing); second, to manage and coordinate data sharing between all divisions and project offices; and third, to manage data applications from government agencies and private sectors. NLiD has two units dealing with land use information and customer support. The implementation of SDI and GIS activities for land use elements falls under the respective information unit. JPBD (2006) identified several functions for land use information unit such as to implement GIS auditing in order to support and maintain continuous development of the national land use information; to prepare and coordinate the National Physical Plan (NPP), Structure Plan (SP), Local Plan (LP), Spatial Plan (SP) Land use information through Land Use Planning Intelligent System (LaPiS), State Land Use Intelligent System (SLaPiS) and District Land Use Intelligent System (DLaPiS); and to develop, manage and coordinate national land use database. 5.2.3. Land Value Activities The land information infrastructure for land value activities refers to the Valuation Information System (VIS), Mapping using GIS and Property Information Management System (PRISM). The VIS is an online system, operating in the UNIX environment and using Oracle relational database management system and Arc/Info GIS software (JPPH, 2006). It consists of three main modules namely Management Information System (MIS), Computer-Aided Valuation System (CAV) and GIS. The MIS system has the ability to capture and store information pertaining to land properties in order to facilitate online enquiries and production of reports for analysis and control (JPPH, 2006). The system enables forecasting of trends for the property market, which can then help the public decisions on investments in this market. In addition, the registration sub-module of MIS updates the main database with information pertaining to property transactions and valuation carried out by the department, which is under the Finance Ministry. The statistical sub-module of MIS, meanwhile, allows monthly reports of workload from the department's offices and individual technical officers to be generated, in order to monitor the performance of each office and the department as a whole. The CAV


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

module of the VIS allows calculations of property values to be done automatically by the computer, thus expediting valuation processes. At the end of the processes, certificates to report the values for valuation cases can be generated. The GIS component, meanwhile, captures spatial and non-spatial information of land properties, and offers a variety of analytical functions to process and produce accurate information fast. The implementation of the VIS at all its branches nationwide will lead to the department phasing out the use of its previous system, which does not support computerised calculations of property values. As a conclusion, the implementation of an SDI for Malaysian land administration clearly shows the boundaries among the land administration government agencies. Several challenges related to this issue involve awareness of data sharing, legislation and human resources management especially among multigovernment agency. 5.3. Towards World-Class Land Administration

Several countries today have started thinking, talking, discussing and taking actions to make land administration activities more efficient and effective (such as institution structure or framework, legislation, land information delivery services and data or information sharing). The examples include the Bathurst Declaration (Land Administration for Sustainable Development) under the UNFIG and Work-Group 3 (Land Administration) under the annual PCGIAP meeting. Isahak (2005) identified four mains aspects for Malaysia to improve its land administration organisation towards world-class level. These are: i. System including Land Office must identify electronic land tax payment method and generate the coverage and develop a comprehensive National Land Information Centre. Technology means land administrators must use electronic hardware if they need to carry out land service-related job. Land offices service counters need to use electronic hardware for completion of task. Structure including physical structure (the building design and office layout need greater cleanliness and to promote the upbringing of a pleasant environment to reflect the image and credibility of the land office) and organisational structure (improve the service quality for the public). Human Resources especially to improve land administration services in the future and at the same time have good leadership especially related to the organisation. Skills, knowledge and experience are the basic ingredients for creating professional specialists in land administration. The right man for the right job concept must be implemented in land administration.





International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

However, there are several issues such as legal constraint among different levels of government agencies or territory and human resources management among federal levels, state levels or provincial levels. These issues must be given priority as not all countries in the world have the same land administration and management concept. 5.4. Non-Technical Integration Issues in SDI Implementation

Integration issues based on Mohammadi et al (2006) involve two levels; first nontechnical issues (Institutional, legal, policy and social); and second technical issues (such as data quality, data model and metadata). However, this paper focuses on non-technical integration issues, especially for Malaysian land administration, because they involve strategy, policy, financial planning and decision making for future plans such as Information System Strategy Plan and Land Information delivery services. Table 3 shows three issues that must be given emphasis if the government is to successfully implement SDI in national land administration.
Table 3: Non-technical Integration Issues in the Implementation of SDI in National Land Administration
ISSUES FACTORS Governance and Cross-Government Collaboration Model among land administration government agency or stakeholders (federal, state and provincials or local government) financial preparation and constrain human resources management among land administration government agency or stakeholders (federal, state and provincials or local government) data and information sharing Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities (RRR) Copyright, Paten and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) data access and data privacy data security cultural and education awareness background stakeholders current practice of land information delivery services




Source: Adopted from Mohammadi et al (2006) and Abd.Halim and Shariff (2008)

In institutional issues, the implementation of SDIs for land administration at national level must clarify the significant dynamic impacts of the inter and intrajurisdictional partnership and their relationships with users and suppliers of spatial data. It will be difficult to implement an SDI for land administration and develop a spatially enabled government without recognising the importance of institutional factors.


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

However, the success of implementations of SDI for Malaysian land administration is dependent on the awareness of stakeholders. For example Bakar (2006) identified the e-Tanah system as a modernising Land Office System Program. The core module of the e-Tanah system is applied at the District Land Office monitored by the State Land and Mines Office. This system only focuses on land ownership activities and has no connection with the two other elements in land administration (land value and land use). Other implementation issues of SDI belong to different agencies or ministries at federal, state government and local government (see Figure 3). From that, several factors in institutional aspects can help the decision maker to reduce the non-technical integration issues among land administration stakeholders especially for a multilevel government country such as Malaysia. The relationship between legal framework and land administration field can find out the land societies involvement; emergence of national land administration infrastructure; and dynamic balancing legislation between individual right, public interest and government. At the same time, the legal framework has to be the main key principle to facilitate the dialogue between the governments and private or public interests related to SDI implementation for land administration at the national level. However, land decision-makers must consider the basic requirements for countries with multi-government (federal, state and local government) such as State Land Rules and Local Government Act in land ownership, taxation and valuation; rights, restrictions and responsibilities; copyright and Intellectual Property Rights; and data access, privacy and data sharing. Williamson (2002) stressed that a comprehensive land information management should disclose the complete legal status of all lands, and all public and private rights and restrictions, including rights acquired under adverse possession. The relationship between the legal framework and Malaysian land administration for land ownership activities started with section 5A sub sections 1, (Malaysia National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) & Regulations, 2008) related to the implementation of Computerised Land Registration System (CLRS) for all district land offices in the Peninsular Malaysia only. Since 2008, the National Land Code with new amendment (section 5D with Schedule 16), stresses that all district land offices in the Peninsular Malaysia must implement the e-Tanah system for land ownership activities. However, the success of the e-Tanah systems or CLRS implementation is under the state authorities responsibility and collaboration between the federal and state government (Chong, 2008; Yidris, 2005). In the meanwhile, social issues refer to several factors such as cultural aspect of human resources, which include leadership in organisation, skills, knowledge and experience in land administration services. The right man for the right job concept (Yidris, 2005) must be implemented, and together with the IS


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

development will help in the making of strategy or policy in land administration field. This means the selected personnel or officer in the land administration field must be familiar and knowledgeable about land administration activities especially land registrations, land taxation, land planning and land development. At the same time, the selected personnel or officer must have the knowledge about IS Capability in land administration information system delivery services such as strategic management information system especially to make better and right decisions. Other issues are related to the background of land administration stakeholders, such as awareness about SDI implementation and collaboration model among different levels of government agencies; data access, data sharing or privacy; and rights, restrictions and responsibility. On the other hand, awareness from the top management or non-technical organisation is very important because they are involved in designing the goal and objectives; policy and strategy; and law or act amendment. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS As a conclusion, the success of SDI implementation for national land administration is based on the finding from Table 3 and also several factors such as the current practice of land law and land policy; the government vision, strategies and action plan; and relationship between land administration stakeholders among federal, state, or provincial government. The combination of new management styles, computerisation activities, land information dataset creation, and improved interoperability of valuation, planning, spatial and registration information would allow much more flexibility. These situations can give impact especially to improve the land information delivery service among different land administration stakeholders as a specific objective and the national land administration as a general target. Rajabifard and Binns (2006) point out that the modern land administration should support SDI and should accommodate the trading complex commodities within modern land markets. However, land decision makers must identify and evaluate the best solution to improve the land information delivery service system and facilitate decision making at a community level in national land administration. On the other hand, land decision makers need to develop strategies, policies and partnership/cooperation models toward data and information sharing among different land administration stakeholders. This is because SDI is not merely for administration or management activities, but also for serving users needs among land administration stakeholders from multi-government to achieve spatially enabled society and government. Moreover, the comparison between SDI hierarchy and SDI component for the Malaysian land administration among government agencies adopted from Rajabifard et al (2003); Warnest et al (2005) and McDougall (2006) is the


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

alternative approach to guide the land administration decision maker to identify, manage and monitor the implementation of SDI among multiple land administration agencies related to land information delivery services. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our utmost gratitude to the Spatial Research Group (Universiti Putra Malaysia); the e-Tanah Project Team, the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaCGDI), the Institute of Survey and Land National (INSTUN), the Department of Director General of Land and Mines (JKPTG); the Department of Valuation and Property Services (JPPH), the Department of Federal Town and Country Planning (JPBD) and the anonymous reviewers of the earlier related topic of this paper for their encouragements, comments and suggestions. REFERENCES Abd.Halim, H., and A. R. M Shariff. (2008). "The Implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructure toward Spatially Enabling Government for Malaysia Land Administration System", Proceedings 7th International Symposium and Exhibition on Geoinformation, 13- 15 October 2008 (ISG2008), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Abd.Halim, H., Shariff, A. R. M., Mahmud, A. R., Yusof, N. M. Z. N., and H. M. Ali, (2009). Strategic Management Information System Approach for Malaysia Land Administration Information System with Spatial Data Infrastructure, Proceedings 8th Annual Asian Conference and Exhibition on Geospatial Information, Technology and Applications (Map Asia 2009), , 18th - 20th August 2009, Singapore. Bakar, M. I. A. (2006). The Customer-centric e-Tanah. at, [accessed 20 December 2009].

Chong, L. C. (2008). The e-Tanah System: Towards the Modernization of the Land Administration System in Malaysia, Proceedings 10th International Surveyor's Congress, June 26-27 2008, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Dale, P., and J. McLaughlin (1999). Land Administration, New York: Oxford University Press Inc. e-Tanah Project Team. (2008). Official Portal of e-Tanah System, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia. at, [accessed 10 December 2009]. Enemark, S., Williamson, I., and J. Wallace (2005). Building Modern Land Administration Systems in Developed Economies. Spatial Sciences Journal, 50 (2): 51-68.


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

GSDI. (2004). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook Version 2.0: GSDI-Technical Working Group. Isahak, Y. M. S. (2005). Ke Arah Pengurusan Tanah Bertaraf Dunia. Journal INSTUN - Mendahului Cabaran, 1(1): 1-10. JKPTG. (2007). Official Portal of Department of Director General of Land and Mines, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia. at, [accessed 8 December 2009]. JPBD. (2006). Official Portal of Department of Town and Country Planning, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. at, [accessed 8 December 2009]. JPPH. (2006). Official Portal of Department of Valuation and Property Services, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia. at, [accessed 8 December 2009]. MaCGDI. (2007). Official Portal of Malaysia Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaCGDI), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia. at, [accessed 4 December 2009]. Malaysia Federal Constitution. (2008). Laws of Malaysia; Federal Constitution (pp. 303). Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: International Law Book Services. Malaysia National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations. (2008). Laws of Malaysia; National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations (pp. 551). Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: International Law Book Services. Masser, I., Rajabifard, A., and I. Williamson (2007). Spatially Enabling Governments through SDI Implementation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(1): 5-.20. McDougall, K. (2006). A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Mohammadi, H., Binns, A., Rajabifard, A., and I. Williamson, (2006), Spatial Data Integration, Proceedings 17th UNRCC-AP Conference and 21th Meeting of The PCGIAP, September 18-22 2003 Bangkok, Thailand. NRE. (2007). Official Portal of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia. at, [accessed 13 December 2009]. Rajabifard, A., and A. Binns (2006). SDI Requirements of Land Administration System, In Williamson, I., Enemark, S. and J. Wallace (Eds.), Sustainability and Land Administration System. Melbourne: Department of Geomatics, University of Melbourne.


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

Rajabifard, A., Feeney, M. E. F., and I. Williamson, Spatial Data Infrastructures: Concept, Nature and SDI Hierarchy, in Williamson, I., Rajabifard, A. and M. E. F. Feeney (Eds.), Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality. New York: Taylor and Francis Inc. Steudler, D. (2007). An Evaluation Framework for Land Administration Systems, in Rajabifard, A. (Ed.), Towards a Spatially Enabled Society (pp. 400). Melbourne: Centre for SDIs and Land Administration, Department of Geomatic. Steudler, D., and I. Williamson (2002). A Framework for Benchmarking Land Administration Systems, Proceedings FIG XXII International Congress, September 18-22 2003, Washington, D.C. USA. UN-ECE. (1996). Land Administration Guidelines; with Special Reference to Countries in Transition. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication. UN-FIG. (1999). The Bathurst Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable Development. Bathurst, NSW, Australia. Ward, J., and J. Peppard (2002). Strategic Planning for Information Systems (Third ed.), Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1UD, England: John Willey and Sons Ltd. Warnest, M., Rajabifard, A., and I. Williamson (2005). A Collaborative Approach to Building National SDI in Federated State Systems: Case Study of Australia, Proceedings FIG Working Week/GSDI-8, 16-21 April 2005, Cairo, Egypt. Williamson, I. (2002). Land Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructures Trends and Developments, Proceedings Implementation Models of Asia and the Pacific Spatial Data Infrastructure (APSDI) Clearinghouse, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei. Williamson, I., Grant, D., and A. Rajabifard (2005). Land Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructures, Proceedings FIG Working Week/GSDI - 8,, April 16-21 2005, Cairo, Egypt. Williamson, I., Rajabifard, A. M. E. F. Feeney (Eds.) (2003). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality. New York: Taylor and Francis Inc. Williamson, I., and J. Wallace (2006). Spatial Enabling Government: A New Direction For Land Administration Systems, Proceedings FIG XXIII Congress - Shaping The Change, October 8-13 2006, Munich, Germany. Williamson, I., and J. Wallace (2007). New Roles of Land Administration Systems, Proceedings International Workshop on Good Land


International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 389-409

Administration - Its Role in Economic Development, June 27-29 2007, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Yidris, A. (2005). Sistem Pentadbiran Tanah Di Malaysia - Cabaran Masa Kini. Journal INSTUN - Mendahului Cabaran, 1(1): 59-76.